Under AS9100, for nonconforming materials, which option reflects a required action?

Under AS9100, for nonconforming materials, which option reflects a required action?

• A. Accept nonconforming parts with a rework note
• B. Define a process for documenting and rejecting nonconforming parts
• C. Rework only nonconforming parts that impact safety
• D. Notify customers of nonconformities prior to shipment

Answer: (B)

Handling nonconforming material in AS9100 requires a defined process for controlling nonconforming outputs, including identifying, documenting, segregating, evaluating, and dispositioning them. The best option reflects this by specifying that the organization must define a process for documenting and rejecting nonconforming parts. This creates a formal, documented approach to how nonconformities are captured and how their disposition is determined, preventing inadvertent use or shipment of nonconforming product. Other choices don’t fit because they skip or misapply that required control. Simply accepting nonconforming parts with a rework note bypasses the need for a formal, documented disposition process. Limiting rework to parts affecting safety ignores the standard’s requirement to evaluate all nonconformities and determine appropriate disposition, not just those with safety impact. Notifying customers before shipment is not a universal AS9100 requirement and depends on contractual or customer-specific obligations, rather than the standard’s general expectation for internal nonconforming-output control.

Handling nonconforming material in AS9100 requires a defined process for controlling nonconforming outputs, including identifying, documenting, segregating, evaluating, and dispositioning them. The best option reflects this by specifying that the organization must define a process for documenting and rejecting nonconforming parts. This creates a formal, documented approach to how nonconformities are captured and how their disposition is determined, preventing inadvertent use or shipment of nonconforming product.

Other choices don’t fit because they skip or misapply that required control. Simply accepting nonconforming parts with a rework note bypasses the need for a formal, documented disposition process. Limiting rework to parts affecting safety ignores the standard’s requirement to evaluate all nonconformities and determine appropriate disposition, not just those with safety impact. Notifying customers before shipment is not a universal AS9100 requirement and depends on contractual or customer-specific obligations, rather than the standard’s general expectation for internal nonconforming-output control.