Certification helps, but OEM approval essentially requires evidence.
A certificate means a registrar has assessed your system against a standard. Approval, on the other hand, means a customer's supplier-development team has followed a live part through your operation, interviewed the people who actually run it, gone through twelve months of corrective actions, and decided that they can rely on you. These are two different tests, rather than one leading naturally to the other. Suriyavaan prepares organisations for the second one.
IAQG/Probitas-authenticated AS9100D Lead Auditor since 2020, and formerly Country Quality Leader at Boeing India. Full background and credentials here.
15-Minute International Readiness Diagnostic
- Whether your blocker is evidence, process ownership, supplier control, or your corrective-action history
- What a supplier-development team will test first in your operation
- Whether 90 days is realistic for you, or whether the certificate itself needs attention first
- An honest read on fit, either way
Suriyavaan helps aerospace suppliers prepare for OEM and Tier-1 supplier approval by strengthening the operating evidence behind the quality system. Certification may support your credibility, but OEM approval typically requires process-owner readiness, audit evidence, FAI (First Article Inspection) discipline, supplier control, configuration control, risk management, corrective-action effectiveness, and a genuine leadership review.
Approval decisions are made by the relevant customer or OEM, rather than by us. Suriyavaan prepares the system and the evidence; we do not influence, negotiate, or guarantee an approval outcome.
AS9100 certification versus OEM supplier approval.
These two terms are often used interchangeably, mainly by consultants who benefit from the confusion. They are not, however, the same thing, and this is precisely the difference where most stalled suppliers find themselves stuck.
Assessed by an accredited certification body against the requirements of AS9100D, AS9110C, AS9120B, EN9100 or JISQ9100.
Assessed by the customer's own supplier-development function against that customer's own expectations, which are usually broader than the standard and always specific to them.
Sampled on a planned audit cycle, against a documented system, on an announced date.
Tested against live jobs and live people, with evidence pulled out on the spot and process owners asked to explain their own processes, in their own words.
A finding is raised, a corrective action is accepted, and the cycle simply continues.
A repeat finding in your corrective-action history is read as evidence that the system only closes symptoms rather than root causes, and it counts against you well before anyone even visits.
Outcome: a certificate, valid for a defined period, issued by a body you have selected and pay.
Outcome: a decision to place work with you, made by a customer who has alternatives, on their timetable and by their criteria.
What a supplier-development team actually does.
Seven things, more or less in this order. None of them is simply a document review.
A supplier-development team talks directly to the people who run the process — production, engineering, purchasing, inspection — and asks them to explain their own measures, risks, and recent corrective actions. Where the quality manager ends up answering for everyone, the system reads as documented rather than actually operated. This is the single fastest way to fail an approval audit.
They pick an actual part number or work order and follow it end to end: the order, the change history, the inspection plan, the FAI, the sub-tier certificates, and the nonconformities along with their closure. Anything that cannot be produced within the time an audit allows is counted as absent.
They go through the last twelve months of findings and look for repeats. A finding that has reopened is read as a system that only closes symptoms. The procedure being correct on paper is irrelevant if the record shows it did not actually work.
Customer and regulatory requirements have to reach the sub-tier verifiably, and the evidence has to come back up the chain. Sub-tiers approved purely on relationship rather than on documented criteria are among the most common approval blockers we see.
An engineering change that has reached production but not inspection planning, FAI status, or the sub-tier is essentially a configuration failure, and it is caught by following the trail rather than by simply reading the procedure.
On-time delivery, escapes, and the trend over time rather than a single snapshot. A supplier with improving numbers and an honest analysis often reads better than one with flat numbers and no explanation at all.
Whether management review is a genuine decision-making forum with actions and owners, or simply a meeting that produces minutes. Assessors can usually tell the difference within about four questions.
What stops approval, and what actually closes it.
Severity here refers to how reliably this blocks an approval decision, rather than how hard it is to fix. Several of the high-severity items are, in fact, among the quicker ones to close.
| Blocker | Severity | What closes it |
|---|---|---|
| Process ownership sits entirely with the quality function | High | Deploy process owners with real accountability; rehearse them against the questions an assessor asks. |
| Evidence exists but cannot be retrieved at audit speed | High | Map every required record to a location and an owner; test retrieval against a live job before the audit. |
| FAI packages incomplete or re-FAI triggers unrecognised | High | Rebuild AS9102 practice: balloon-to-report traceability, correct form selection, documented re-FAI conditions. |
| Sub-tier suppliers approved without documented criteria | High | Establish an approval basis, flow-down, verification criteria and returning-evidence requirements under clause 8.4. |
| Repeat findings across audit cycles | High | Re-open the closures; separate containment from systemic action; add effectiveness verification with a date. |
| Engineering change that does not propagate to every record | Medium | Trace one recent change end to end and fix the break; then make the trace a standing check. |
| Management review producing minutes rather than decisions | Medium | Restructure around decisions, owners and dates; carry actions forward visibly between reviews. |
| Risk management documented but not used operationally | Medium | Tie risk to real operational decisions — sourcing, capacity, change — rather than maintaining a register. |
Ninety days, provided the conditions are right.
This works well for a certified supplier with a specific customer in view and leadership genuinely engaged. It does not work where the certificate itself is at risk, or where findings are still open from two cycles back — and the gap map at day 30 will tell you honestly which situation you are actually in.
Establish the truth
A gap map is prepared against the standard and against the customer's stated expectations. Every requirement is classified as evidenced, claimed, or missing. Process owners are named. Repeat findings from the last twelve months are re-opened and re-analysed.
Close the structural gaps
Supplier control is rebuilt under clause 8.4. FAI practice is corrected. A configuration change is traced end to end on a live example and the break is fixed. Evidence retrieval is tested against a real part number rather than simply assumed to work.
Prove that it holds
Process owners are rehearsed against real assessor-style questions. A mock audit is run the way the customer will actually run it. Management review is restructured around decisions rather than minutes. The evidence pack is assembled and indexed. Remaining risks are stated honestly rather than hidden away.
Systems transformation, rather than template consulting.
Five steps in total. Each one produces something you keep, and each is designed around what a customer or registrar will actually test.
Diagnostic
Conducted remotely. We establish where the system actually stands today, the most likely blockers to approval, and give you an honest read on fit, before anyone commits to anything.
Gap Map
Each requirement is assessed against evidence that exists, evidence that is merely claimed, and evidence that is missing altogether. Gaps are ranked by what blocks approval first.
30 / 60 / 90-Day Roadmap
A dated plan with named process owners — what must genuinely be true at day 30, day 60, and day 90, rather than just a task list handed over to the quality manager.
Process Owner Deployment
Each process owner becomes able to explain their process, its measures, its risks, and its recent corrective actions, without the quality function having to answer on their behalf.
Mock Audit & Sustainment
The system is tested the way a customer or registrar will actually test it, followed by a handover that keeps it working well after the engagement ends.
How an international engagement is structured.
Best used ahead of a customer audit, certification transfer, certificate recovery, or OEM supplier onboarding, rather than after the fact.
| Stage | Offer | Format | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 0 | 15-min International Readiness Diagnostic | Remote | Initial fit check — an honest read on whether this is the right engagement, either way |
| Stage 1 | 2-hour AS91XX / OEM Gap Review | Remote | Serious buyers with known gaps who want them named and prioritised |
| Stage 2 | International Flight Plan Workshop | Remote or on-site | Leadership alignment and a dated route map with named process owners |
| Stage 3 | 90-Day Readiness Sprint | Hybrid | Preparation for a specific customer audit, certification event or approval decision |
| Stage 4 | 6–9 Month Advisory Retainer | Hybrid | Full quality-system transformation through readiness, implementation and sustainment |
Working material, sent on request.
These are genuinely prepared documents, rather than gated marketing downloads. Request one and it will be sent to you by email — the form below prefills automatically with your choice.
AS9100 vs OEM Approval: Why Certification Is Not Enough
A straightforward explanation of what a certificate assesses, what a customer assesses, and why the two, in practice, diverge.
90-Day OEM Approval Readiness Checklist
The dated checklist behind the roadmap on this page, showing the evidence expected at each stage.
AS9110 MRO Readiness Checklist
For maintenance organisations, the seven areas that account for most of the gap against AS9110C.
Supplier Control Clause 8.4 Self-Assessment
Twenty questions about your sub-tier control that an assessor is likely to ask you, along with the evidence each one expects.
AS9102 FAI Readiness Scorecard
Balloon traceability, form selection, and re-FAI triggers, scored so you can clearly see where a package is likely to be rejected.
Audit Recovery Playbook
Containment, root cause, systemic action, and effectiveness verification, structured specifically for findings that have already reopened once before.
CMMI + DO-178C Process Maturity Map
How software and avionics process frameworks line up against aerospace quality expectations and the audit evidence expected of them.
Request an International Readiness Diagnostic.
Just seven fields, because a genuinely useful first conversation needs to know what you make, where you are based, and what is actually blocking you. If you would rather simply book a slot directly, please use cal.com/simonkuntam instead.
One step left, please send it across
Your details are ready below. Simply choose email or WhatsApp and your enquiry will reach Simon Kuntam directly, with everything you entered already filled in for you. Typical reply within one working day, Indian Standard Time.
OEM approval readiness — common questions.
What is the difference between AS9100 certification and OEM supplier approval?
AS9100 certification confirms that a quality management system has been assessed against the standard by a certification body. OEM approval usually requires additional customer-specific evidence, process maturity, supplier controls, FAI discipline, configuration management, corrective-action effectiveness, delivery performance, and technical confidence, on top of that. A supplier can hold a perfectly valid certificate and still not be an approved source.
We are certified and still blocked at approval. Is that unusual?
No, not at all — it is, in fact, the most common reason organisations come to this practice. A certificate is assessed against a standard by a registrar. Approval, on the other hand, is assessed against a customer's own expectations by a supplier-development team, based on live evidence and process-owner competence. The two tests are genuinely different, so passing one does not necessarily predict the other.
Does Suriyavaan guarantee OEM supplier approval?
No, we do not. Suriyavaan helps prepare the quality system, evidence, process ownership, and audit readiness needed for customer or OEM review. Approval decisions remain entirely with the relevant customer or OEM, and Suriyavaan has no role in, or influence over, that decision.
Can you work with our existing certification body?
Yes, certainly, and most of our clients keep the certification body they already use. Suriyavaan is an independent advisory practice rather than a registrar, and we deliberately do not audit for certification the very systems we help build.
How quickly can a supplier become approval-ready?
Ninety days is a realistic target for a certified supplier with a specific customer in view and leadership genuinely engaged. It is not realistic, however, where the certificate itself is at risk, where findings are still open from two cycles ago, or where process ownership has to be built from scratch. The gap map at day 30 will tell you honestly which situation you are in.
Do you work under NDA?
Yes, we do. We can work under a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) before reviewing audit reports, customer findings, supplier lists, engineering data, or OEM correspondence. Please do raise it at the diagnostic stage rather than after.
Which regions does Suriyavaan support internationally?
Suriyavaan targets selected opportunities across India, Turkey, the Middle East / GCC, Japan, Thailand, and Southeast Asia, with remote diagnostics and on-site workshops by arrangement. Suriyavaan is India-based; no foreign office is implied by this.
Readiness paths for aerospace suppliers in global markets.
Which standard applies, and what a customer expects to see during an audit, changes according to the market and the work involved. It is best to start with the market your approval actually depends on.
Ready to find out what is actually blocking approval?
Book a free 15-minute remote diagnostic, or use the form above if you would rather write it down first. Either way, you will get an honest read on your readiness and the most practical next step for you.
International engagements remote and by arrangement