AS9100 in a subcontract machine shop: what the records have to show

Most subcontract shops moving towards AS9100 already do the work correctly. What trips them is evidence: proving it afterwards from records made at the moment, rather than reconstructing it the fortnight before a surveillance audit.

This is about the operational records, not the quality manual. Your certification body cares about both; only one of them is a systems problem.

Material provenance, in both directions

Every piece of material needs its heat or cast number recorded on receipt, tied to the supplier certificate, and carried forward through issue, production and despatch.

Two questions have to be answerable. Forwards: this cast was suspect, which jobs used it and where did they go? Backwards: this part came back from a customer, what went into it? A system that answers one and not the other will fail you on the day it matters.

The test worth running today: pick a despatch from six months ago and ask which cast is in it. If that takes more than a minute, your traceability is procedural rather than structural.

Authorised release

AS9100 expects material to be released deliberately, not simply to become usable because somebody booked it in. Someone competent confirms the certificate matches what arrived, and records that they did.

This is the step most commonly missing in shops running on spreadsheets, because booking in and releasing look like the same act when both are a line on a card.

Nonconforming material has to be held, not just noted

Raising a nonconformance is not enough. The affected material has to be physically and systemically prevented from reaching a job, which means quarantine as a real stock state rather than a note on a record.

Use-as-is needs a written concession before the material moves, with the authority recorded. A verbal agreement written up afterwards is the finding auditors write most often.

First article inspection

AS9102 first article inspection triggers on a new part, a revision change or a process change. All three, not just the first.

The common failure is the second and third: a drawing revision arrives, production continues, and nobody treats it as a trigger. Whatever system you use has to notice a revision change and raise the requirement rather than rely on somebody remembering.

Change control on routings

Aerospace work runs to fixed processes. A routing cannot change between batches without a notice, an approval and a date from which it applies.

That also means the job needs to record the revision it was actually made to, rather than pointing at whatever is current. Six months later those are different answers.

Operation sign-off

Each operation — material, OP10, OP20, inspection — needs to show who signed it off. Booking time against an operation tells you who was there. Sign-off is a stronger claim: that somebody competent confirmed it was right.

Where Keystone stands today

Keystone records heat and cast numbers against the stock lot with the certificate reference, carries them through issue and production, and prints the chain on a certificate of conformity. Nonconformances can be raised against a works order, operation, lot or purchase line, and use-as-is is refused without a written concession. Nothing in the history can be quietly rewritten, so it holds up in an audit.

It does not yet do authorised release of a lot, quarantine as a stock state, first article inspection triggers, or engineering change notices. Those are in development. If you are certifying this year, ask where each one stands before making a decision.

What this does not cover

General guidance for subcontract manufacturers, not a compliance service. Your certification body, your customer contracts and the current issue of the standard set the actual requirement and take precedence over anything here. AS9100 is published by SAE and IAQG; the current issue should be read directly.

Aerospace supply chain · Quality and traceability in Keystone · Material traceability that survives an audit