The International Aerospace Quality Group, that plucky gang of nerds who produce the AS9100 standard, apparently doesn’t know that things like tanks and jeeps and lunar rovers exist, bless their hearts.
Twice now, I have had certification bodies claim that an AS9100-certified company may not have the word “automotive” in their scope of certification, as that has nothing to do with “aerospace.” The first was an auditor from Perry Johnson Registrars, and more recently, the language appeared in a client intake form used by Amtivo. This led me to poke around, and I am told that this came from a directive from the IAQG itself. I can’t find that directive yet, but given the two CBs made nearly the identical gripe within the same time period, it certainly sounds like it came from a single, higher authority.
Here’s the problem, in the unlikely case that you, dear reader, need this explained. AS9100 is for three sectors: aviation, space and defense. None of those are solely restricted to “things with wings.”
In both space and defense, many non-flight vehicles are entirely suitable to be manufactured under an AS9100 QMS, such as jeeps and tanks and lunar rovers. Heck, a lot of cars serve dual roles as both military and civilian vehicles. You would think the IAQG would want companies that make those things to jump on board the AS9100 train. But their airplane snobbery has them cutting off their own potential market.
But what about “aviation?” Well, that’s not restricted to things with wings, either. I have a client who makes ground support equipment for airports, and another that makes GSE for rocket test facilities. Both are AS9100. Many of my space clients, like SpaceX or X-Bow Systems, build their rocket test stands under their AS9100 QMS. It will be news to them that they were never allowed to be certified in the first place (and someone’s gonna have to refund them all a ton of money.)
Things That Move Under Their Own Power
What about that word “automotive,” that the AS folks seem so hung up about? Well, a few points. First, yes, we typically use the word to mean cars, and the IATF 16949 standard is only for car manufacturers, and has the word “automotive” in its title. But that’s not the only meaning of the word. Technically, it means anything that moves under its own power, so that would include boats and airplanes and, yes, lunar landers. They are all “auto-motive.”
But look at the far more obvious answer. One that is so obvious, it’s embarrassing that anyone would miss it. Who publishes AS9100? Let’s see:
The Society of Automotive Engineers, or SAE. It’s right on the cover of the standard.
And what does the official SAE website say about their name? (Emphasis added):
By 1916 the Society of Automobile Engineers membership had grown to 1,800. At the annual meeting that year representatives from the American Society of Aeronautic Engineers, the Society of Tractor Engineers, as well as representatives from the power boating industry made a pitch to SAE for oversight of technical standards in their industries. Aeronautics was a fledgling industry at that time, and few could have been expected to know the essential role it would take in world history in a very short time.
Out of that fateful meeting in 1916 came a new organization with new horizons. This was to be a new society representing engineers in all types of mobility-related professions. SAE member Elmer Sperry actually created the term “automotive” from Greek autos (self), and Latin motivus (of motion) origins to represent any form of self powered vehicle. The Society of Automobile Engineers became the Society of Automotive Engineers, and the most important chapter in the SAE saga was underway.
Finally, what do you do if the word “automotive” is in your company’s name? One of my clients is literally called “Park Automotive,” but makes paint for the aerospace industry. They can’t take the word out without renaming their entire company, and that’s not gonna happen.
This is a problem created by a greater problem: the lack of intellectual thinkers within both standards organizations and certification bodies. Because airplane companies dominate the AS9100 development committee, they forget over 2/3 of their actual target audience. Meanwhile, the CBs are so poorly trained, it’s a wonder they can even spell AS9100, never mind understand that the word “automotive” might have a few different meanings at once.
I’ve written to Amtivo and offered (for free) to fix their intake form. So far, they haven’t replied.
I get what they want to say. They don’t want companies to implement the (admittedly easier) AS9100 standard and then try to pass it off as a competitor to IATF 16949 for the car manufacturing industry. Maybe they don’t want the opposite to happen, either. But this isn’t really a thing; nobody’s doing this. They’ve created a solution in search of a problem.
So, no: you can use the word automotive in your AS9100 scope, or your company name, or anywhere else in your QMS. Because lots of things that are made within the scope of AS9100 have wheels and never set foot off the ground.
Christopher Paris is the founder and VP Operations of Oxebridge. He has over 35 years’ experience implementing ISO 9001 and AS9100 systems, and helps establish certification and accreditation bodies with the ISO 17000 series. He is a vocal advocate for the development and use of standards from the point of view of actual users. He is the writer and artist of THE AUDITOR comic strip, and is currently writing the DR. CUBA pulp novel series. Visit www.drcuba.world
Everything you wrote is right.
Additionally
The Foreword of (EN)9100 says:
While primarily developed for the aviation, space and defence industry, this document can also be used in other industry sectors when a quality management system with additional requirements over an EN ISO 9001 system is needed.