Can't say for aerospace (AS) as it's not my industry. Don't expect it to be all that different though.
In general, if I don't know a regulation nor its scope of application i am careful of stating a company does not comply.
As an auditor you must include observation, criteria & finding. Do you know enough about all of them?
They might be exempt (RoHS), below a threshold (REACH), have a grandfather guidance in effect (more a thing of the past now, ha), not active in the enforcing region (MDSAP full package or part?), not in that part of the supply chain (ISO allows 13485 certification for distributors or suppliers of manufacturers, but indicates requirements should be selected as applicable), not (yet) with a product in a lifecycle phase that demands it (developing, but not manufacturing), at the end-of-life phase with requirements that no longer apply (if you're only doing service and maintenance, do you keep up your manufacturing controls or only the production masters and production records you've maintained).
Different example: 150 km/h is generally a speed in excess of the limit. But not on the German Autobahn (if there are no roadworks). Not in the Netherlands, if it is a police car following proper procedure in a chase. Not for a helicopter in general. You need to know the case, and what rules and exceptions apply before you can honestly stand behind your non-conformity.
If it is my objective to check and in scope I would ask questions, but then I would have been selected for expertise and expected to spend the effort.
If I have a forgiving organisation I might write it and then admit my mistake if proven. There's risks though: a loss of reputation which is non-trivial for an internal auditor in a high word-of-mouth environment where you might find you are later not taken seriously, or too seriously, or perhaps the company trusts your word, spends thousands fixing (manhours cost man, don't get system changes and validations involved, what about field action consequences) something which wasn't an issue but they had noone else smart enough or free enough to prove you wrong.
In general, if I don't know a regulation nor its scope of application i am careful of stating a company does not comply.
As an auditor you must include observation, criteria & finding. Do you know enough about all of them?
They might be exempt (RoHS), below a threshold (REACH), have a grandfather guidance in effect (more a thing of the past now, ha), not active in the enforcing region (MDSAP full package or part?), not in that part of the supply chain (ISO allows 13485 certification for distributors or suppliers of manufacturers, but indicates requirements should be selected as applicable), not (yet) with a product in a lifecycle phase that demands it (developing, but not manufacturing), at the end-of-life phase with requirements that no longer apply (if you're only doing service and maintenance, do you keep up your manufacturing controls or only the production masters and production records you've maintained).
Different example: 150 km/h is generally a speed in excess of the limit. But not on the German Autobahn (if there are no roadworks). Not in the Netherlands, if it is a police car following proper procedure in a chase. Not for a helicopter in general. You need to know the case, and what rules and exceptions apply before you can honestly stand behind your non-conformity.
If it is my objective to check and in scope I would ask questions, but then I would have been selected for expertise and expected to spend the effort.
If I have a forgiving organisation I might write it and then admit my mistake if proven. There's risks though: a loss of reputation which is non-trivial for an internal auditor in a high word-of-mouth environment where you might find you are later not taken seriously, or too seriously, or perhaps the company trusts your word, spends thousands fixing (manhours cost man, don't get system changes and validations involved, what about field action consequences) something which wasn't an issue but they had noone else smart enough or free enough to prove you wrong.
