(UPDATE 3/14/2012: It appears the entire AAQG group on LinkedIn has been permanently deleted.)

Winter Haven FL — A Quality Engineer at Cessna Aircraft Co., and a member of the Americas Aerospace Quality Group (AAQG), yesterday deleted a LinkedIn discussion which presented scanned evidence of AS9100 certification bodies UL and QMI/SAI Global failing to perform audits according to their clients’ defined processes. The client information had been redacted, but the registrar information was presented intact.

The posting, made by Oxebridge’s VP Operations Christopher Paris, presented four scanned documents showing proof of auditors abandoning the process structures defined by their clients, and either auditing according to arbitrary “processes” defined by the auditors themselves, or simply auditing by clauses. AS9101D documents require that auditors working for accredited Certification Bodies (CBs) audit to the processes “as identified by the audited organization.”

The post was an attempt to have a discussion about the problem, similar to the one started by Mr. Paris recently on the controversial practice of CB auditors having clients prepare PEAR and other AS9101D forms for them. Cessna’s William Blake deleted the post, providing the following explanation:

I have personally deleted your post … because I did not feel it was appropriate. I would strongly suggest that you utilize the OASIS feedback process to address any specific issues. Attempting to address them here WILL NOT drive change.


The OASIS database can only be used to file complaints against specific CB’s, and cannot be used to have open discussions, or to raise issues which span a number of registrars, such as the one raised by Mr. Paris. Likewise, OASIS could not be used to address the PEAR controversy, and LinkedIn was used instead to gather information in preparation for a formal request sent to IAQG.

It appears clear that Mr. Blake was not acting in any official capacity for AAQG, but simply on his own.

Previous posts by Mr. Paris included discussions on whether AS9100 auditors should judge process effectiveness, and on the designation of some processes as “Non-PEAR Processes” by some CB auditors. No AAQG rep censored those posts. The only difference on the latest post was that it presented evidence, rather than rely on anecdotal hearsay.

A forthcoming article will feature the deleted article and supporting evidence here on oxebridge.com. In the mean time, Mr. Paris has said he will begin posting the discussions on a different AS9100 forum on LinkedIn, one which is not controlled by AAQG or IAQG members. The materials will also be posted on the AS9100 User Group on Facebook.

“One of the 8 management principles upon which QMS standards such as ISO 9001 and AS9100 are built is to listen to feedback from all stakeholders and sources, and use that to drive continual improvement,” Mr. Paris said. “Like so many CB’s, accreditation bodies, trainers and others before them, Mr. Blake’s actions prove they are not serious about adhering to those core principles, listening to feedback, or pursuing continual improvement.”


ISO 17000 Series Consulting

Why we report on these topics

Since 2000, Oxebridge has worked to improve ISO and related certification schemes by identifying problems and then proposing solutions. We report on issues affecting standards users because so few other news outlets do. Our belief is that in order to fix the problems in these schemes, we must first understand the nature and breadth of those problems. Our reporting aims to do just that. Elsewhere on the Oxebridge site you will find White Papers and other articles proposing ideas to correct these problems.


Available Tools

Oxebridge SWAG