Organisations applying the new revisions of AS9100 and AS9120 will notice that they are being required to provide a greater volume of information prior to any on-site activities being performed.

Auditors (internal and External) are less likely to be effective if they have not performed suitable planning for the on-site audits.  Planning will assist the auditor to keep the audit focused during the on-site audit and provide a true “process-based” audit.

Some of the additional information required (as per AS9101) by IMS or any other CB prior to the on-site audits being planned and performed will include:

  • The revenue for aviation, space, and defense industry, as a proportion of the total revenue;
  • the number of employees working for aviation, space and defense and the total workforce; and
  • identification of the major (e.g., top five) aviation, space and defense customers.

The above information will be used to help the auditor plan their audit and focus on the key areas of the organisation, thus providing a more effective audit.  There is no benefit to the organisation or their clients by focusing the audit within areas which could potentially have the least impact to the risks of the business, clients or aerospace industry.

If Boeing is your top customer, the auditor will focus their audit on the orders processed for them and the controls you have in place throughout that process.

Some organisations have questioned why we require the information stated above and we hope that this blog has clarified the reasoning behind this.  An update will be required on an annual basis to ensure the auditor continues to focus their efforts in the right direction.

The IMS Form (AS9100 and AS9120 Supplemental Questionnaire) used to provide this information can be found on the IMS Website.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

AS9101 clause 4.3.2.2 requires the Certification Body Auditor to ensure clients provide the necessary information and documentation for review, including the following:

  • Quality Manual;
  • Description of processes showing their sequence and interaction, including the identification of any outsourced processes;

Note 1: The processes can be depicted in various ways [e.g., process maps, turtle diagrams, SIPOC method (breakdown of supplier, inputs, process steps/tasks, outputs, customer), octopus].

Organisations shall be required to provide this information during the stage 1 assessment or a document review for the auditor to review and use as the basis for the audit plan.  There is no defined method for depicting this information but some common tools are detailed within Note 1 or organisations can create their own.

Whatever tool is used, the organisation must ensure that the process approach which has been defined within a previous blog is being utilised [i.e. inputs, process, outputs).

The auditor is also likely to produce their own tools for use, these can also be used as part of your own internal audit process.

Some of the tools used by the IMS auditors can be downloaded from the IMS Website.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Many of the ISO standards are designed around the process approach to auditing and design of the management system and takes you away from clause based systems.

Organisations who introduce ISO 9001, AS9100, AS9120, AS9110 etc need to ensure their management systems are utilising the Plan Do Check Act definitions and steer away from clause based auditing and system design.  This is also relevant to organisations implementing other standards such as ISO 14001.

Within ISO 9000, the definition of a process is: A set of interrelated or interacting activities which transforms inputs into outputs.

Inputs to a process are generally outputs from other processes and a process has a start and an end defined by two limits and must be considered when defining your own processes.

Within ISO 9001 and AS9100, clause 4.1 requires organisations to (e) monitor, measure where applicable, and analyse these processes, and (f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and continual improvement of these processes.

The above clause is very important and is commonly overlooked by organisations and auditors.  Many organisations applying AS9100, AS9120 or AS9110 will be aware of the the new Process Effectiveness Assessment Report (PEAR) form which auditors shall begin to use during assessments.  These Reports are very important and will identify if your processes have been clearly defined and are suitably monitored and measured.  Further information on the PEAR shall be included within a separate blog.

Tools can be used to help organisations define their processes, these shall also be detailed within a separate blog but some example tools can be process flowcharts, SIPOCs and Turtle Diagrams.

Taking the above information, organisations need to ensure that their processes have been clearly defined with inputs and outputs and showing the interaction of these processes.  Measuring the effectiveness of the process is also vitally important and non-conformance’s shall be raised if these processes are found to be ineffective.

You can be in compliance with a clause of ISO 9001 or the Aerospace Standards but still be non-conforming if you are not monitoring and measuring a defined process and taking corrective actions against any areas which are outside of the defined requirements or targets.

A prime example of this could be late deliveries, if you have a process for delivering products within a defined time frame and you are late or outside of that requirement then a non-conformance’s should be raised internally and corrective actions taken.

Please note that this is a requirement of ISO 9001 not just the aerospace standards.  Review clause 4.1 carefully and consider your processes and how you are defining, monitoring and measuring those processes.

If you need to download some process tools or the PEAR form visit the IMS website.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Due to the release of the new revisions of AS9100 and AS9120 the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) have published a number of Frequently Asked Questions Documents.

It is recommened that you download these documents as there are a number of clarification points within these documents which will help to further explain not only the requirements of the standard but also the requirements and purpose of the AS9101D document.

The FAQs are free to download from the IMS website and are written by clause which makes them more user friendly. The auditors will also use these during the audits as an aid.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

IMS is experiencing high growth within the aerospace industry and require some additional sub-contract auditors for the AS9100 and AS9120 standards.

If you are interested or know of anyone who would be interested then please contact IMS through the contact details on our website.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Its many years behind schedule and Millions of Dollars over budget but it looks like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is finally about to take off.  The Dreamliner is approximately 50% composite which is relatively new technology when applied to the aerospace industry and probably a large factor in the delays to the aircraft.

I wonder if Boeing get in trouble for late deliveries as I know their suppliers get in trouble?

At an event at Boeing’s facility in Everett, Washington, Administrator Babbitt presented Boeing executives with two certificates for the design and production of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner with Rolls-Royce engines.

“Today’s achievement could not have been possible without the professionalism and dedication of the FAA team involved in the certification,” said Administrator Babbitt. “The engineers, inspectors and flight test pilots all worked diligently to ensure our high safety standards were met.”

Boeing made its initial application to the FAA on March 28, 2003 and the program was launched in April 2004. The first 787 rollout ceremony was on July 8, 2007 at Boeing’s Everett assembly factory. The airplane first flew on Dec. 15, 2009, and the six flight test airplanes have since accumulated more than 4,645 flight hours, with approximately 25 percent of those hours flown by FAA flight test crews. More than 200,000 hours were logged by FAA technical experts who were involved in the type certification of the 787.

The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel and produce less noise compared to similarly sized airplanes. It was designed and manufactured by suppliers and partners around the world and integrated at final assembly. The 787 incorporates many capabilities of the nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen.

The European Safety Agency (EASA) also issued a same day validation of the FAA Type Certificate of the 787.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued on Friday 26 August 2011 to Boeing a Type Certificate for the Boeing 787-8 aircraft. This EASA certificate recognises that Boeing has demonstrated compliance to the EASA Type Certification Basis with applicable airworthiness and environmental requirements.

When handing over EASA type-certificate to Boeing, Patrick Goudou, EASA Executive Director said: “This is a great achievement. I am particularly proud of the dedication and efficiency demonstrated by EASA certification teams in dealing with new certification challenges such as the use of composite material which account for more than 50% of the aircraft’s primary structure”.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and EASA worked closely together during the certification of the aircraft, the FAA being the primary authority for all American designs, and EASA the validating authority. Boeing received the FAA Type Certificate simultaneously at a joint ceremony organised Friday in Seattle.

Type certification is a prerequisite to the first delivery to airline customers. The Boeing 787-8 has now completed all certification requirements prior to its entry into service later this year with the Japanese Airline All Nippon Airways (ANA). The first European airline to operate the Boeing 787-8 will be Poland’s national carrier LOT with the first delivery expected in March 2012.

The Boeing 787-8 can carry between 210 and 250 passengers over a distance of 7,650-8,200 nautical miles (14,200-15,200 km). Its in-service record will now be monitored through continuing airworthiness activities.

Above information is courtesy of EASA.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

The new Aerospace standards are now in full swing and organisations are begining to be assessed to the new versions of AS9100, AS9120 and AS9110 (2009 versions).

Many users of the old standards will be familiar with the AS9101 checklist and some organisations used this for their internal audit processes.  The AS9101 document has been revised and is now an integral part of any organisations aerospace management system and careful consideration needs to be given to its use.  Although it is not a mandatory document to be used internally, organisations seeking approval to any aerospace standard needs to be aware of its contents as there are significant requirements built into the AS9101 document which need to be complied with in order to gain certification.

One of the major changes within the standards is the requirement to audit by process rather than clause based auditing.  Organisations need to ensure that they are performing effective internal audits by using the process approach to not only verify that the system is in compliance with the standard requirements but to also ensure that inputs and outputs to each process is defined and the process interactions are being controlled.  Further information on process based auditing will follow in subsequent blog updates.

Processes need to be identified and controlled, there are no defined methods for this but tools such as process flowcharts, turtle diagrams and SIPOCS are commonly used.

You will find within the AS9101 document a form called the Process Effectiveness Assessment Report, commonly known as the PEAR.  This is a tool which will be used by the Certification Body and can be used by organisations if they wish.  It will help organisations to identify the processes within their system, the monitoring and measurement requirements within that process and to establish if that process is effective.  Organisations can be compliant to the requirements of the standard but the process can be ineffective if it is not meeting the monitoring and measurement results required by the system or customer requirements.

There are many requirements built within the AS9101 document which need to be complied with and Certification Bodies will be requiring a significant amount of information to aid in the planning of the audit prior to any auditing activities taking place.

 

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) presents statistics on European and worldwide civil aviation safety on an annual basis.  The statistics are grouped according to type of operation, for instance commercial air trasnsport, and aircraft category, such as aeroplanes, helicopters and gliders.

2010 was a very good year for aviation safety in Europe.  It was the first year that no fatal accident in commercial air transport operations occured in the history of aviation in Europe both for helicopter and aeroplane operations.  Also, the fatal rate of scheduled passenger operations with aeroplanes was significantly lower in Europe than in the rest of the world.

The total number of accidents for commercial air transporters within the 27 European Union Member States of EASA was 26, the number of fatal accidents was 0 which is the first time this has ever occured which shows that continued safety systems introductions within the Aerospace Industry.

The total number of accidents for aircraft below 2250 kg within the 27 member states of EASA was 449, the number of fatal accidents was 53 which although high, is consirably lower than 2009 figures of 533 accidents and 65 fatalities.  15% of these accidents were related to Business travel.

In other world regions the number of fatal accidents increased from 39 to 47.

Between the years of 1948 and 1968 there was a 10 fold improvement from 5 to 0.5 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles flown.   For 2010 this rate is estimated’ to have stayed at 0.01 fatalities per 100 million miles flown.

The types of accidents vary but there are observations made and trends identified.  In recent years the proportion of accidents which included the categorisation of ARC (Abnormal Runway Contact) has overall increased.  Such accidents usually involve long, fast or hard landings.  Often during such accidents the landing hear or other parts of the aircrat are damaged.  There is also an increase in the percentage of accidents involving RAMP (ground handling) events.   These accidents involve damage to the aircraft by vehicles or ground equipment or the incorrect loading of an aeroplane.  We will all be pleased to know that accidents attributed as (DFIT) ‘controlled flight into terrain’ appear to have an overall decreasing percentage (think that means crashing into trees).

The most significant accident category in relation to Air Traffic Management issues is the ‘collision between aircraft moving on the ground and vehicle/person/obstruction(s)’.  The root cause of these reported accidents is ‘unauthorised penettration of airspace (also known as airspace infringements), aircraft deviation from Air Traffic Control clearance.

Download the full EASA Annual Safety Review 2010.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

All certification bodies were required to be approved to offer the new AS9100, AS9120 and AS9110 certification services as of 1st July 2011.

All audits within the aerospace sector from now on have to be performed to the new revision, audits to the old revisions are not valid and will not be performed.

All organisations currently holding an old revision certificate have to be fully compliant by 1st July 2012.

Ensure that you are ready for your next assessment and that you have signed your declaration regarding your compliance to the new standard.

If you need any advice or information on your own certification then please do not hesiate to contact IMS International.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)
© 2010 IMS International LLP Blog To go back to the main site www.imsworld.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha