Podcast: AS 9100: Change on the horizon for Aerospace industry

Holly: Hello everyone. To all of our listeners worldwide, welcome to LRQA's Future in Focus podcast. My name is Holly Plackett, and it is my pleasure to host this mini episode for you today. I am joined by Daniel Carmel, aerospace and defence subject matter expert at LRQA. Dan, I believe this is your first time on the podcast. A very warm welcome and thank you for joining me. How are you doing? 

Daniel: Very good, thank you, Holly. Yes, it is my first time on the podcast, and I’m very pleased to be here to talk about all things aerospace and defence. I’m looking forward to it. 

Holly: Fantastic. Before we start, could you briefly introduce yourself to our audience and explain a little bit about who you are and what you do? 

Daniel: Sure, thank you. I've been with LRQA for about 18 months, working in the transportation and mobility team, focusing on aerospace defence sector clients. I come from a background in aerospace engineering, particularly focusing on quality compliance. I’ve built that experience by working with several big companies. Early in my career, I was at Rolls Royce as a design engineer and then moved through various functions and departments there. Later, I worked at MBDA systems in the UK and Europe as a quality management systems engineer and a quality auditor, progressing to lead auditor for aerospace standards. Most recently, I’ve been working for various CBs, and now I’m with LRQA, helping to progress the one LRQA ethos and developing Assurance 4.0 across our aerospace and defence client base. 

Holly: Great, thank you so much for that introduction. For those who don't know, Assurance 4.0 is the new era of risk. We are here today to talk about a very important topic, the upcoming changes to the rules behind the well-known series of quality standards for the aerospace industry, AS9100. The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) announced changes that will likely come into play in early 2025. I’d like to ask you, Dan, a few questions about what we know so far about these changes and what they mean for certified organizations. Could we start with how these changes came about and what we know so far? 

Daniel: It’s important to distinguish between the terms "changes" and "updates." What we're really talking about here are updates to existing standards. Two standards that CBs are held accountable to in aerospace are AS9101 and AS9104. These are not certifiable standards for clients like AS9100, but they are CB standards. The IAQG has updated these standards to reflect how CBs should perform, what standards they’re accountable to, and how we’re assessed by our accreditors like UCAS or ANAB. The background to these updates lies in the fact that the IAQG's Standards Development Organization has revised how CBs must perform to these standards. AS9101 is about conducting audits, and 9104 is about managing the certification scheme for the AS standards, including oversight, competency, and training for auditors. These updates will affect how we conduct AS9100, 9110, 9120 audits and the impact on certified organisations is something we can discuss today. 

Holly: There's been mention of a name change. Could you elaborate on that for us? 

Daniel: Sure. Traditionally, the prefix for all IAQG standards has been "AS" for Aerospace. This year, they’re reassigning those prefixes, changing "AS" to "IA" for International Aerospace, to remove sector-specific terms for different regions like EN or SJAC. The standards will remain the same, but you’ll start to see prefixes like IA9101, IA9145, and eventually IA9100. 

Holly: Excellent, thanks for that. So, as you mentioned, these changes are not to the standard itself or its requirements, but the rules behind the standard, which largely affect certification bodies. However, there are implications for certified organizations. Could you explain what these implications are? 

Daniel: Yes, the flow-down impact of these updates to the higher-level AS standards, or IA standards, will affect how client audits are run and how certification cycles are managed. I’ll briefly touch on the key impacts. The most significant change is the new approach to auditing the purchasing process. Previously, it was required that the purchasing process was audited annually, but now auditors can take a more holistic approach. If the purchasing process has been performing well, it may not be audited the following year. 

Another update is the simplification of audit reporting forms. The time and complexity involved in completing audit reports have been reduced, allowing auditors to focus more on evidence and audit trails, delivering a more value-added audit. 

Next, there’s a clearer approach to handling NCRs (Non-Conformity Reports). Timeframes are now more rigorously defined—for example, containment actions must be done within seven days, root cause analysis within 30 days, and conformity must be reestablished within 90 days. This 90-day timeframe has been flowed down from high-level regulatory authorities and is now part of the IAQG standards. 

There’s also an increased allowance for using ICT (Information Communication Technology) in audits, particularly at stage one or during transfer audits. Traditionally, these audits had to be done on-site, but now some aspects, especially those involving data review, can be done remotely. 

A risk-based approach to auditing is also emphasised, requiring clients to provide pre-audit data to CBs up to 90 days before audits. This includes KPIs, process measures, customer feedback, and more, to facilitate better audit planning. 

Single reporting for integrated audits is another change. Previously, companies with multiple AS standards had to generate separate audit reports, but now there’s an option for one integrated management system audit report. 

There are also changes to site structure options, now limited to single-site and multi-site, and clearer rules for audit duration calculations. This ensures that audits are appropriately timed based on complexity and other factors. 

Finally, there’s a performance-based surveillance and recertification program. This allows some organizations that have demonstrated consistently high performance over several audit cycles to apply for a reduction in audit frequency. However, this is subjective and not available to all organizations. 

An essential aspect of audit planning now includes the consideration of contractually flowed regulatory and other standards from customers to clients. Auditors will now need to look at how clients consider these regulations and their impact on quality management systems. 

These updates are expected to be approved by the end of the year and come into effect from early 2025, with a transition period to follow. 

Holly: Thanks for that breakdown, Dan. That was great. So, I think it’s safe to say that certified organizations should be familiarising themselves with the changes and speaking to their certification partners to ensure they are fully prepared. Would you like to add any final comments before we close out? 

Daniel: Just to reiterate on the timeframe, there will likely be about a 24-month period to implement the necessary changes. While it sounds like a long time, it might not be, depending on the complexity of the organization and its processes. I’d suggest starting early to ensure alignment with the new requirements. 

Holly: That’s brilliant. Thanks again for joining me today. It’s been a pleasure to have you on the podcast. Finally, just a reminder to our listeners that you can visit our homepage on Spotify to listen to more episodes and stay up to date with new releases. To find out more about LRQA services, please visit www.lrqa.com.

You’ve been listening to the LRQA Future in Focus podcast. Thank you so much for listening, and we hope to see you again soon.