Custom AS9100 Rev D quality management systems for aerospace manufacturers, MRO shops, and defense contractors. First article inspection per AS9102, counterfeit parts prevention programs, configuration management, risk-based thinking, OASIS database integration, and Nadcap special process compliance — built by a Zeeland, MI company with 20+ years delivering regulated manufacturing software.
AS9100 Rev D is not ISO 9001 with an aerospace label. It is ISO 9001:2015 plus 115 additional requirements that address the specific failure modes of the aerospace supply chain — counterfeit parts entering the supply chain and reaching flight-critical assemblies, configuration drift between engineering definition and production reality, inadequate risk management for product safety implications, and special process controls for operations where the output cannot be verified by subsequent inspection or testing. Every clause that AS9100D adds to the ISO 9001 foundation exists because of documented accidents, recalls, or systemic failures in the aerospace industry. Clause 8.1.4 on counterfeit part prevention exists because the Senate Armed Services Committee found over one million suspected counterfeit electronic parts in the defense supply chain in a 2012 investigation. Clause 8.1.1 on operational risk management exists because inadequate risk-based thinking in manufacturing processes contributed to quality escapes that reached flight hardware. These are not paperwork requirements — they are engineering controls codified as quality system mandates.
Aerospace manufacturers trying to run AS9100D compliance on generic quality management platforms — or worse, on paper travelers, Excel logs, and shared drive folders — face three compounding problems. First, traceability gaps. AS9100D clause 8.5.2 requires identification and traceability throughout the product realization process. For aerospace, this means full lot traceability from raw material certification through every manufacturing operation, heat treatment, surface finishing, NDT inspection, and final acceptance test to the specific serial-numbered assembly installed on a specific aircraft. When a registrar auditor asks you to trace a fastener lot backward from an installed assembly to the raw material heat lot, mill certification, and incoming inspection results, you need to produce that chain in minutes — not days of searching through filing cabinets and disconnected spreadsheets. Generic QMS platforms provide document storage, not manufacturing traceability. The difference is the difference between passing and failing a surveillance audit.
Second, first article inspection bottlenecks. AS9102 defines the First Article Inspection (FAI) process that aerospace customers require before accepting production parts. A complete FAI package includes three forms: Form 1 (Part Number Accountability), Form 2 (Product Accountability — raw material, special processes, functional testing), and Form 3 (Characteristic Accountability — every dimension, tolerance, and specification requirement with actual measured values). For a moderately complex machined aerospace component with 150 characteristics, preparing Form 3 manually takes 4-8 hours per part number. A shop running 20-30 new part numbers per month burns 80-240 hours monthly on FAI documentation alone — the equivalent of one to one-and-a-half full-time quality engineers doing nothing but filling out inspection forms. When a customer rejects an FAI package for missing characteristics, incomplete material traceability, or Form 2 deficiencies on special process certifications, the rework cycle adds another 2-4 hours per rejection. Automated FAI generation from CMM output, material certs, and process records cuts Form 3 preparation from hours to minutes and eliminates the transcription errors that cause rejections.
Third, surveillance audit findings that escalate to major nonconformances. The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) publishes audit findings data through OASIS (Online Aerospace Supplier Information System), and the top five finding categories have remained consistent for years: control of documented information (clause 7.5), control of nonconforming outputs (clause 8.7), internal audit (clause 9.2), management review (clause 9.3), and corrective action (clause 10.2). These are not obscure requirements — they are fundamental quality system processes that fail because the systems managing them are inadequate. When your corrective action process runs on email chains and Word documents, you cannot enforce investigation timelines, you cannot verify effectiveness at 30-60-90 day intervals, and you cannot demonstrate trending analysis to registrar auditors. When your document control runs on shared drives with manual revision tracking, you cannot prove that obsolete documents have been removed from points of use — one of the most common major nonconformances in AS9100D audits. These findings do not just risk certification — they get published in OASIS, where every prime contractor and Tier 1 customer can see them when evaluating your supplier scorecard.
AS9102 First Article Inspection packages taking 4-8 hours per part number — 80-240 hours monthly for active shops
Lot traceability gaps that cannot survive a registrar's backward trace from installed assembly to raw material heat lot
Top OASIS audit findings recurring year after year: document control, nonconforming outputs, corrective action effectiveness
Configuration management disconnects between engineering revision levels and production shop floor documentation
Counterfeit parts prevention programs that exist in SOPs but have no systematic receiving inspection enforcement
Nadcap special process records maintained on paper logs that PRI auditors reject as insufficient objective evidence
Our engineers have built this exact solution for other businesses. Let's discuss your requirements.
FreedomDev builds custom AS9100D quality management systems that encode the standard's aerospace-specific requirements directly into your operational workflows. This is not a generic QMS with an AS9100 template pack bolted on. Every module is designed around the specific clauses, the specific IAQG interpretations, and the specific customer quality requirements (Boeing D6-82479, Lockheed Martin LMSupply, RTX supplier quality manual, L3Harris QAR series, Northrop Grumman quality clauses) that your registrar auditors and customer quality representatives actually assess. When a machinist completes an operation on a routed traveler, the system captures the operator ID, machine ID, tooling ID, date/time stamp, and operation results against the control plan requirements — building the traceability record that clause 8.5.2 demands as a byproduct of normal production flow rather than a separate documentation exercise.
The system handles the full scope of AS9100D quality processes across your operation. Document control per clause 7.5 with automated revision workflows, electronic approval routing, mandatory training acknowledgment before document effectivity, and automatic removal of obsolete revisions from all points of use — both digital and linked to shop floor workstation displays. Nonconformance management per clause 8.7 with Material Review Board (MRB) disposition workflows (use-as-is, rework, repair, scrap, return to supplier), customer notification triggers when nonconforming product has been delivered, and integration with your customer portals for supplier corrective action requests (SCAR). Corrective action per clause 10.2 using 8D methodology with enforced timelines, root cause verification requirements, effectiveness checks at configurable intervals, and automated escalation when timelines are exceeded. Risk management per clause 8.1.1 with risk registers that link operational risks to product safety implications, PFMEA integration, and risk mitigation tracking with residual risk assessment. Configuration management per clause 8.1.2 linking engineering change orders to affected production orders, work instructions, inspection plans, and tooling records so that a revision change propagates through the entire production system without manual intervention.
For shops pursuing or maintaining Nadcap accreditation for special processes — heat treating per AMS 2750 and AMS 2759, chemical processing per AMS 2700, nondestructive testing per NAS 410 and ASNT SNT-TC-1A, welding per AWS D17.1, composite processing, and surface enhancement — the system provides real-time process parameter monitoring and recording that satisfies PRI (Performance Review Institute) audit requirements. Nadcap auditors require objective evidence that process parameters (temperature, time, pressure, chemical concentration, current density) were controlled within specification limits throughout the process cycle. Paper-based pyrometry charts and manual log entries are increasingly rejected as insufficient evidence because they cannot demonstrate continuous monitoring, they are susceptible to after-the-fact fabrication, and they do not capture parameter excursions that occurred between manual recording intervals. Our system integrates directly with furnace controllers, thermocouples, chemical analysis equipment, and NDT instruments to capture process data at configurable intervals (typically 1-6 second sampling rates), timestamps every data point from a validated time source, and generates the process records that PRI auditors evaluate during Nadcap merit audits.
Automated generation of AS9102 Forms 1, 2, and 3 from your existing production data. Form 1 (Part Number Accountability) populates from your ERP bill of materials and engineering drawing revision. Form 2 (Product Accountability) pulls raw material certifications from incoming inspection records, special process certifications from your approved processor list, functional test results from test equipment integration, and design requirements from engineering specifications. Form 3 (Characteristic Accountability) imports measured values directly from CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) output, optical comparator data, and manual gauge readings via tablet entry — eliminating transcription errors that cause customer rejections. The system tracks FAI status by part number, flags when engineering changes trigger partial or full FAI re-execution per AS9102 clause 5.2, and generates the complete FAI package in customer-required formats (PDF, Net-Inspect, Discus compatible). Shops using this system reduce FAI preparation time from 4-8 hours to 15-30 minutes per part number.
AS9100D clause 8.1.4 requires organizations to establish processes for counterfeit part prevention as part of planning for product realization. Our system implements the SAE AS6174 (counterfeit materiel risk mitigation) and AS6081 (fraudulent/counterfeit electronic parts avoidance) requirements as operational controls. Approved supplier lists are maintained with OCM (Original Component Manufacturer) and authorized distributor verification. Receiving inspection protocols enforce documentation requirements: traceability to the OCM, certificate of conformance validation, packaging integrity checks, and risk-based physical inspection or testing for parts sourced from non-authorized channels. The system integrates with GIDEP (Government-Industry Data Exchange Program) alerts and customer-issued counterfeit part notifications, automatically flagging affected inventory and quarantining suspect lots pending investigation. For electronic components — the highest-risk category for counterfeit infiltration — the system supports SAE AS6171 test laboratory result tracking and lot acceptance criteria per customer flow-down requirements.
Aerospace configuration management requires that the as-designed, as-planned, as-built, and as-maintained states of a product remain consistent throughout its lifecycle. Our system links engineering change orders (ECOs) to every downstream artifact: work instructions, inspection plans, NC programs, tooling records, and active production orders. When engineering releases a revision change, the system identifies all affected production orders in-process, all work instructions referencing the changed drawing, all inspection plans that require updated characteristic dimensions or tolerances, and all tooling that may require modification. Change implementation tracking ensures that no production order runs against a superseded revision, no inspection plan checks obsolete dimensions, and no work instruction references withdrawn engineering data. For customers requiring formal configuration audits (Functional Configuration Audit and Physical Configuration Audit per AS9100D clause 8.1.2), the system generates the as-built records with full traceability to the authorized engineering configuration.
Nonconforming product disposition in aerospace is not a simple accept/reject decision. AS9100D clause 8.7 requires documented authority for disposition decisions, customer notification when nonconforming product has been shipped, and specific controls for use-as-is and repair dispositions that differ from the original design requirements. Our system routes nonconformance reports through configurable MRB (Material Review Board) workflows: engineering evaluates the nonconformance against design intent, quality assesses product safety implications per clause 8.1.1, and authorized MRB members render disposition decisions (use-as-is, rework, repair, scrap, return to supplier). Use-as-is and repair dispositions require engineering justification, customer concession where contractually required, and updated traceability records that permanently associate the nonconformance with the serialized part. The system tracks nonconformance trends by type, operation, part number, operator, and supplier — providing the data required for clause 10.2 corrective action and clause 9.1 performance evaluation.
AS9100D clause 8.4 requires significantly more supplier control than ISO 9001, including flow-down of applicable requirements (customer requirements, regulatory requirements, key characteristics), supplier monitoring and performance measurement, and controls based on supplier risk. Our system maintains the approved supplier list with qualification status, approved scope (what they are approved to supply), quality system certification records (AS9100D, AS9120, Nadcap), and customer-mandated approved processor lists. Incoming inspection protocols are configured by supplier risk level — new suppliers and suppliers with quality history issues get heightened inspection frequencies. Supplier scorecards track on-time delivery, quality reject rate, corrective action responsiveness, and documentation completeness. When a supplier's score drops below configurable thresholds, the system triggers re-evaluation workflows, increased inspection sampling, or supplier development actions. Purchase order flow-down automatically includes the applicable quality clauses, special process requirements, test and inspection requirements, and right-of-access provisions that your customers require you to impose on your supply chain.
Nadcap (National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program) accreditation for special processes requires objective evidence of real-time process parameter control — not after-the-fact documentation. Our system integrates directly with process equipment to capture the parameters PRI auditors evaluate: furnace temperature profiles per AMS 2750 (System Accuracy Tests, Temperature Uniformity Surveys, and process thermocouple data at 1-6 second intervals), chemical processing tank concentrations per process specification requirements, NDT equipment calibration verification and inspection parameter settings, and welding parameters (current, voltage, travel speed, gas flow) per WPS requirements. Data flows from equipment controllers through secure data acquisition hardware into the quality system, where it is timestamped from a validated NTP source, associated with the specific production lot being processed, and stored with the same immutability guarantees as any quality record. When a parameter excursion occurs during a process cycle, the system captures the excursion data, automatically generates a nonconformance record, and quarantines the affected lot pending engineering disposition — all before the operator can modify the record.
Our AS9100D surveillance audits used to require two weeks of preparation — pulling traveler packages, compiling FAI records, tracking down corrective action evidence across email threads and shared drives. After FreedomDev built our quality system, our last surveillance audit had zero findings. The registrar auditor said our traceability system was the most thorough he had seen at a shop our size. Our Boeing scorecard went from yellow to green within six months.
We audit your current quality management system against every AS9100D clause, identifying gaps between your documented procedures and what the standard actually requires. This is not a generic readiness checklist — we review your specific operations, your specific customer requirements (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, RTX, L3Harris, Northrop Grumman quality clauses), and your specific registrar's interpretation patterns based on recent OASIS findings data for your CB (Certification Body). We map every clause to a system function: which requirements will be enforced by software workflow, which will be supported by document control, and which will be monitored by automated data collection. For shops with Nadcap accreditation or pursuing accreditation, we assess your special process documentation against current PRI checklist requirements. Deliverable: a clause-by-clause requirements matrix with system specifications, priority ranking by audit risk, and a customer-specific requirements crosswalk.
We design every quality workflow as a state machine with defined transitions, authorization requirements, and evidence capture points. Nonconformance flows from detection through containment, investigation, disposition (with MRB routing), corrective action, and closure with effectiveness verification. Corrective actions flow through 8D methodology steps with enforced timelines and mandatory evidence requirements at each gate. Document control flows through draft, review, approval, training acknowledgment, effectivity, and retirement with automatic version archiving. FAI workflows flow from requirement identification through characteristic planning, measurement execution, form generation, and customer submission. Each workflow is designed to produce the specific records and evidence that registrar auditors and customer quality representatives request during assessments. The data model links every quality event to production data — lot numbers, serial numbers, work orders, operators, machines, and materials — so that traceability queries that auditors run during surveillance visits resolve instantly.
We build the AS9100D quality system in modules, starting with the highest-audit-risk functions identified in the gap assessment. Document control and corrective action typically deploy first because they address the two most common major nonconformance categories in OASIS data. Development follows iterative cycles with your quality team reviewing each module against the requirements matrix before we proceed. Integration with your ERP, MES, and production equipment happens incrementally — CMM data import for FAI, furnace controller integration for Nadcap compliance, receiving inspection integration for supplier quality. Each integration point is validated for data integrity: we verify that measurements, temperatures, certifications, and traceability records transfer accurately and completely from source systems into the quality system.
The new quality system runs alongside your existing processes for a validation period. Quality engineers process real nonconformances, real CAPAs, real FAI packages, and real document changes through both the new system and the existing process, verifying that outputs match and that the new system captures everything the old process captured plus the additional traceability, timestamps, and workflow enforcement that the old process lacked. We conduct internal audits using the system's audit management module — scheduling audits per clause 9.2, generating audit checklists mapped to AS9100D clauses, recording findings, and tracking corrective actions to closure. This serves double duty: it validates the audit management module and produces the internal audit records your registrar will want to see at the next surveillance visit.
Phased deployment rolls out modules to production floor users, quality engineers, MRB members, and management review participants with role-specific training. Shop floor operators learn traveler execution and nonconformance reporting on tablets at their workstations. Quality engineers learn FAI generation, corrective action management, and supplier quality workflows. Management learns review dashboards showing quality KPIs (nonconformance rates, CAPA closure rates, on-time delivery, customer scorecards, OASIS findings status). Ongoing support includes system maintenance, registrar audit preparation assistance, and configuration updates when AS9100 standard revisions are published, when customer quality requirements change, or when you add new Nadcap-accredited special processes. Monthly maintenance runs $2,000-$4,000 depending on system scope and integration complexity.
| Metric | With FreedomDev | Without |
|---|---|---|
| AS9100D Specificity | Every clause mapped to enforced workflows, not configurable templates | Generic ISO 9001 QMS with aerospace checklist add-on you configure yourself |
| FAI Automation (AS9102) | Forms 1, 2, 3 auto-generated from CMM, certs, and ERP data — 15-30 min per part | Manual form fill from paper travelers and disconnected spreadsheets — 4-8 hours per part |
| Nadcap Process Data | Direct equipment integration at 1-6 second sampling with validated timestamps | Manual pyrometry chart review and hand-entered log books |
| Implementation Cost | $100K-$300K complete system, you own the code | $150K-$500K+ for ETQ, MasterControl, or Qualio licenses + implementation + annual fees |
| Annual Cost (Year 2+) | $24K-$48K maintenance and support | $60K-$200K+ annual licensing (per-user, per-module pricing) |
| Customer Portal Integration | Direct integration with Boeing, Lockheed, RTX, L3Harris quality portals | Manual export and re-entry into each customer portal |
| Traceability Depth | Raw material heat lot through every operation to serialized final assembly | Document-level traceability only — production operation linking requires manual lookup |
| OASIS Findings Tracking | Findings imported, corrective actions tracked, evidence packages generated for CB | OASIS accessed separately; no integration with internal quality system |
Schedule a direct technical consultation with our senior architects.
Make your software work for you. Let's build a sensible solution.