Top Ten Internal Audit Findings in Aerospace Machine Shops
Common AS9100 internal audit findings in build-to-print machine shops — and how to turn them into a stronger, more usable quality system.
Common AS9100 internal audit findings in build-to-print machine shops — and how to turn them into a stronger, more usable quality system.
Contract Review Does Not Fully Capture Customer Requirements.
The shop accepts a purchase order, drawing package, or customer requirement without fully documenting review of:
For build-to-print machine shops, contract review is one of the most important quality processes. If the shop misses a requirement before accepting the job, the error may not show up until production, inspection, delivery, or customer receipt.
Strong contract review prevents rework, missed requirements, customer complaints, and delivery delays.
Drawing, Model, or Revision Control Is Weak Auditors may find:
Auditors may find:
Aerospace customers expect product to be manufactured and inspected to the correct revision of the approved requirement. A wrong revision can create scrap, rework, escapes, or customer rejection.
Revision control protects the company from producing good parts to the wrong requirement.
Build-to-Print Scope and Design Responsibility Are Not Clearly Defined
The company says it is build-to-print, but the QMS does not clearly define whether product design, R&D, reverse engineering, or customer product development are inside or outside the certification scope.
For build-to-print machine shops, design and development applicability should be clear. If the customer owns the design, the QMS should explain how the company controls customer-provided requirements and manufacturing planning without unintentionally claiming responsibility for product design.
Clear scope prevents over-auditing, confusion, and unnecessary documentation.
Supplier Approval and Flowdown Are Incomplete
Auditors may find:
A supplier problem can quickly become your customer problem. Aerospace machine shops often rely on outside processing, material suppliers, calibration providers, finishing suppliers, and other external providers.
Supplier control protects product conformity, delivery performance, and customer trust.
Calibration and Measuring Equipment Records Are Incomplete
Common issues include:
Calibration control protects product acceptance decisions and reduces the risk of customer escapes.
Inspection and Acceptance Records Do Not Prove Conformity
The part may have been inspected, but the records do not clearly show:
In aerospace manufacturing, “we inspected it” is not enough. The organization must be able to provide objective evidence that product met requirements.
Good inspection records protect the company during customer questions, audit reviews, and nonconformance investigations.
Material Traceability and Certificate Controls Are Weak
Auditors may find:
Traceability is essential for many aerospace customers. If the shop cannot connect material, job, inspection, and delivery records, it may not be able to prove conformity after the fact.
Traceability protects customer confidence and reduces exposure when a material or product issue is discovered.
Nonconforming Product Control Is Informal
Issues may include:
Nonconforming product control prevents unintended use, delivery, or acceptance of product that does not meet requirements.
Strong nonconformance control prevents escapes and protects customer relationships.
Corrective Actions Do Not Address Root Cause
Corrective action records may show:
CAPA should prevent recurrence. If the process only fixes the immediate issue, the same problem may return during production, customer review, or the next audit.
Good CAPA turns problems into business improvement instead of repeat findings.
Internal Audit and Management Review Do Not Drive Improvement How it shows up
Nonconforming product control prevents unintended use, delivery, or acceptance of product that does not meet requirements.
A strong internal audit and management review process helps the company improve before problems become customer issues.
How it shows up
Employees know how to do the job, but records do not show:
Why it matters
Aerospace quality systems rely on competent personnel. If the organization cannot show how competence is determined and maintained, the process becomes difficult to defend during an audit.
What to check before the audit
Good competence records protect the organization and help employees perform consistently.
Apogee QMS is led by Kevin Walters, AEA, PMP, PMI-RMP, an aerospace quality professional with over 30 years of experience in quality assurance, project management, satellite operations, procedure development, training, QMS auditing, supplier/internal audit leadership, corrective action, KPI reporting, and AS9100/AS9120/ISO 9001 consulting. Apogee understands that aerospace suppliers do not need a quality system that only looks good during the audit. They need a system that helps the company operate better every day.
Want to Find These Issues Before the Auditor Does?