AS9100 experiences?

[chris m]

We are currently being asked, by one of our major customers, to attain AS9100 certification. What does this really mean? We are ISO9001:2008 currently, and have a well-developed quality system, but I have heard that AS9100 is a big step.

 

Anyone who can share some direct experience with this, please chime in; I am particularly interested in literature that you may have found helpful in aiding your own understanding. I'm sure we'll have some third-party steering the ship when we get this moving, but knowledge is power.

 

C

[GoetzInd]

Not an expert, but from the limited research i've done it seems like it is just additional process documentation to the ISO9000 family with a heavy emphasis on meeting customer qc requirements. It would be interesting to here from some of the Aerospace heavy guys to see what their take is on this thing.

 

Mike

[Joe788]

Chris, it probably won't be a big deal for you guys at all. We looked into it, and it would be quite a burden for a small shop like us, that serves too many other customers who aren't willing to pay anything extra because of it. If you already have at least one person on staff as the main quality/documentation manager, it will be a snap.

 

I am not a fan of the AS9102 first article inspection documentation. It's very ugly, cumbersome, takes a good bit of additional work to provide the same info to the customer, and it doesn't present well, (but I take my business stuff pretty personal, so I'm weird about that). Google "AS9102 FAIR" and check out the first couple links.

 

We made some manned space flight components earlier this year for a company that requires AS9100 certification for all manned flight parts, but they made an exception for us and just required a complete AS9102 first article (and a signature on the PO from the corporation's VP).

 

I ended up buying InspectionXpert just for that job.

[chris m]

Thanks, guys; keep it coming

[Newbeeee™]

Chris,

We don't have it but have been advised by both our ISO accreditation company and sub contract auditors to stay away from it at all costs.

It is very time consuming. I have a spread sheet which cross references the differences somewhere (probably at work). If I don't email you tomorrow, please PM me to remind me to dig it out for you.

 

What I would ask is is your customer 'demanding' compliance or just saying 'it would be good if you had it'. There is a big difference. If you're making parts subby to your customer's drawings, as design authority they can use who they want, whether your ISO approved or not.

[Newbeeee™]

I am not a fan of the AS9102 first article inspection documentation. It's very ugly, cumbersome, takes a good bit of additional work to provide the same info to the customer, and it doesn't present well, (but I take my business stuff pretty personal, so I'm weird about that). Google "AS9102 FAIR" and check out the first couple links.

+1

The 'old way' of putting the actual measured dim next to the drawing dim onto a print was sooooooooooooo simple, and quick for the inspector to verify against.

Now it's cover sheet, baloon drawing, dimensions, how did you measure, material certs, treatments certs, blah blah.

My record is 8 sheets of A4 paper for a washer which had 4 dims/features on it.

Kwality

[Joe788]

 

Now it's cover sheet, baloon drawing, dimensions, how did you measure, material certs, treatments certs, blah blah.

My record is 8 sheets of A4 paper for a washer which had 4 dims/features on it.

Kwality

 

Our prints go into the hundreds of dimensions, so the normal bubble deal is what we do, and it turns out a very clean finished product that can be referenced pretty easily. The AS9102 FAIR adds a bunch of additional columns like lower limit, upper limit, characteristic designator, blahblahblah.

 

Our internal FAI procedure was pirated from one of our semiconductor customers, and it uses a cover sheet to explain the purpose of that particular FAI (new part, new rev, etc), which gages were used and when their calibration is due, and anything that's on the print but we didn't do (like plating, assembly, etc). Then the attribute sheet is very simple five columns, Bubble #, Zone, Dimension, Actual Dimension, and gage used to find that dimension.

[GoetzInd]

Inspection Xpert makes the FAIR a breeze. I'm surprised more people don't use it.

 

Mike

[Jeremy Herron@DBS Solutions™]

The biggest difference from from Iso to AS I have seen is in Iso they say "you should", and in AS they say "you Shall".... Bottom Line if your ISO compliant, you won't need much for ISO. A little more document control, suppliers/vendors document control, and some rewording in your ISO policy should get you there.

[chris m]

stay away from it at all costs

 

If it costs you millions in business, are you going to stay away from it? That is not logical.

 

Is there a "AS9100 requirements for CNC shops" book out there? Please somebody say yes. I really don't want to have some quality geek tell me that I need to rev control my post-it notes.

 

C

[MLS]

Not much experience directly with the system, but every place I have worked has had it and know some related to my job. Seems to be less about conventional quality ideas and more about documented procedures and maintaining evidence that you actually follow the procedures. From management to deburr.

 

The big pushes over the last five years or so in the shops I have worked(of which I am aware) are digital product definition, cause/corrective action, preventative action, and risk management. Our system has procedures for almost everything that address what the standard(or auditor at the time) says is critical. I get the impression sometimes that the expectation is to have a system in place where anyone off the street could walk in the door and produce a quality product. If the system is built to this level it becomes more about procedure and less about personnel, which I personally find debilitating often times.

 

The benefit of a somewhat loosely defined system allows enough room for personnel to do their jobs efficiently. A rigidly defined system constricts the ability to effectively get a part out the door. It can be rather cumbersome in a job shop environment sometimes. Keep in mind though this is my opinion, I am certainly no expert.

 

I asked our quality systems manager, she suggesting buying the AS9100 standard from SAE as probably the best starting point.

[chris m]

I like systems, but too often they come at the price of individual competence, which I don't like:

 

Someone doesn't deburr a feature that they machined and then says "well, the routing didn't say to deburr;" um, that's Machine Operation 100 stuff.

 

Someone doesn't check a feature that's ± a mile on a new program and then says "I wasn't issued a gage for that;" oh, in that case just ph****** forget about it, it is probably right.

 

The thing that makes this worse is the vociferous arguments with management when they take the attitude that we need to tell employees EVERYTHING that they're supposed to do, ALL of the time.

 

Ugh

[GoetzInd]

The thing that makes this worse is the vociferous arguments with management when they take the attitude that we need to tell employees EVERYTHING that they're supposed to do, ALL of the time.

 

+1. It seems the more we outline the process the more they think it is an excuse not to use common sense. What I usually tell them is that if we had to document every single aspect of their job we can hire any idiot who can read and we wouldn't need any high cost labor.

 

Mike

[chris m]

if we had to document every single aspect of their job we can hire any idiot who can read

 

Of course, as you well know, we can't, and neither can you. I am all about mistake-proofing and trying my damnedest to put our guys in the best possible position to make the parts right, but it is important to expect people to KNOW things and to THINK about things because that is key to success.

 

C

[GoetzInd]

I am all about mistake-proofing and trying my damnedest to put our guys in the best possible position to make the parts right, but it is important to expect people to KNOW things and to THINK about things because that is key to success.

 

Well said.

 

Mike

[Len Wilk]

Try telling that to management.....................

[chris m]

THAT's why you go to business school, my man, so you ARE the management

[shazam/TPP]

this is what we are using,

 

http://www.discussoftware.com/

 

not sure how it compares to Inspection Xpert, i have our QM looking into it.

[CoReef2007]

Basicly its 12 more requirements over the ISO, yes it is a little harder but if your customers require it you should go that way. I have been involved with this for over 10 years and its not that big of a deal. If you live by your ISO you can live by AS.

[Newbeeee™]

CoReef - please can you PM me the 12 requirements?

Thanks

[T_MALENA]

If you are already ISO certified then adding AS certification wont take that much. I've always thought the AS was just more documentation. In past experiences we had a person who had nothing more to do than the ISO & AS certs. Both places were heavily into aerospace so it was basically a full time job taking care of certs etc. Most aerospace type shops & just shops in general that have good documentation are almost already "doing" things per ISO & AS.

The book you asked about, is more of a document from SAE. If you subscribe to SAE stds already I think it costs less, as in if you are not in with SAE subscribe & then order the spec - again if I remember correctly sign up 1st. There are others out there if you want to spend more, and there are companys that will get you certified too for a price.

[?Mark]

We're AS9100 and NADCAP certified. Lots of paperwork!!! But if you're already deep into ISO it shouldn't be too much more work.

I think we have as much, if not more people involved in the inspection as we have on the shop floor...(

 

Corrective actions are really fun...if they run hospitals that way we wouldn't have any...lol!

[crazy^millman]

Having been through the whole process it really comes down to making documentation that supports you say what you do and do what you say. Hire an outside company to come in an audit you to see where you are improve what needs to be improve and done. AS9100 is a lot easier than ISO IMHO reason being there is not a company wide process needed. Yes the whole company is touched, but with ISO it is a lot more office where as AS is more Manufacturing/Quality based. Yes Management Reviews and other things are needed, but if you are already ISO adding the AS should be a breeze. Yes it will open the doors to more work and if I were looking to add AS9100:2008 to my company I would DPD/MBD to that process as well. Kill those 2 birds with one stone and you just opened up a lot of companies you can do work for.

 

Yes couple month old topic, but still good things to think about.

[uncle_dolan]

Where I used to work was a very small business with high aims. We were AS9100 approved with 3 staff members, but that number dwindled to 1 over time. For a small company I feel that AS9100 had alot more paperwork than ISO, and it was too cumbersome with limited employees when trying to machine, program, find work, quote and fill out all the quality paperwork it was impossible to turn a profit! Just something to be aware of if you are a small business

[crazy^millman]

Dolan, we were a small company, but our customers damanded we get there to keep doing their work. If you can afford to find new customers then yes, but I dealt with a company recently one of their customers did this to them and it was 70% of their work. They were only 8 people in the whole company and they could not afford not to do it and found later they were more profitable becuase they were tracking and gettting information they were never getting or traking before. If I made automotive parts or medial or anything else not related to Aircraft I would never consider AS9100, but anyone considering that Standard is already doing that kind of work and to play with the big hitters you need to show them you are serious to do that kind of work by meeting their customers requirements just being flowed down to them. What I have also seen is the one who have invested have seen their buisness grow, the ones that said we are not most are out of buisness.