Closing Repeat AS9100 Findings at an Aerospace Machining Supplier

Executive summary

A precision machining supplier to Tier 1 aerospace primes had received the same family of findings — incomplete FOD controls, weak configuration management evidence, and overdue corrective actions — across three consecutive surveillance audits. Their certification body signaled that a fourth repeat would trigger a special audit. Over nine months, ZLG rebuilt the internal audit program on an independent footing, re-trained the corrective action process, and audited every production process ahead of surveillance. The next surveillance audit closed with zero major findings, and every prior finding was verified closed and effective.

Client profile

• Industry: Aerospace precision machining (5-axis milling, turning)
• Size: ~140 employees, single site in Southern California
• Certification: AS9100 Rev D, certified 8 years
• Customers: Two Tier 1 primes plus regional MRO providers

Initial challenge and baseline

The internal audit program existed on paper but had structural problems: audits were performed by the same quality engineer who owned most of the audited processes, the schedule ran perpetually one quarter behind, and findings were written without objective evidence — making closure a matter of opinion.

Baseline condition at engagement start:

Measure	Baseline
Repeat findings (last 3 surveillance audits)	7 recurring across 3 clause families
Internal audit schedule adherence	58%
Corrective actions overdue	11 of 19 open
Findings with traceable objective evidence	~30%

Project goals

1. Eliminate repeat findings before the next surveillance audit.
2. Establish auditor independence that satisfies AS9100 §9.2.
3. Reach 100% on-time internal audit execution.
4. Rebuild corrective action discipline with effectiveness verification.

ZLG approach

Following the ZLG methodology, we began with an assessment of the audit program and all open findings, then prioritized the three recurring clause families by certification risk. ZLG auditors — fully independent of every audited process — executed a complete process-audit cycle: FOD controls on the floor, configuration management records, and the corrective action system itself.

Every finding was written in three parts: the requirement, the objective evidence (work order numbers, document revisions, photographs), and the statement of nonconformity. The client’s team was coached through root cause analysis on each one.

Implementation and obstacles

The hardest obstacle was cultural: process owners had learned to negotiate findings rather than fix them. That changed when the first ZLG audit report was accepted by the quality manager without a single disputed finding — the evidence made argument pointless. A second obstacle was scheduling audits around a production surge; we shifted to split half-day audit sessions to protect delivery commitments.

Deliverables

• Risk-based annual audit program with independence matrix
• 14 process audit reports with evidence-referenced findings
• Rebuilt CAPA workflow with effectiveness verification criteria set at initiation
• Pre-surveillance readiness review and mock audit

Results

Measure	Baseline	After 9 months
Major findings at surveillance	2	0
Repeat findings	7	0
Audit schedule adherence	58%	100%
Corrective actions overdue	11	0
Findings with objective evidence	~30%	100%

Client testimonial

“The first ZLG audit found more real issues than the last three years of our own audits combined — and for the first time, nobody argued with a finding.” — Quality Director, aerospace machining supplier

Lessons learned

Repeat findings are almost never a documentation problem — they are an independence and evidence problem. Once findings became indisputable and effectiveness verification became mandatory, the same system that had failed three audits passed the fourth without drama.