Anyone supplying the aerospace or defence sector encounters sets of requirements that build on ISO 9001 and add sector-specific requirements. This article explains what the sectors have in common, what each one adds, and what this means for the management system.
At a glance
EN 9100 extends the general requirements of ISO 9001:2015 with requirements of the aerospace and defence sectors. It adopts its structure based on the PDCA cycle and its terms, such as “documented information” [1]. According to the IAQG, the additions of 9100 are incorporated into the corresponding sections of the ISO structure, which in turn comprises ten clauses [2].
Both sets of requirements are risk-based. ISO 9001 emphasises risk-based thinking, while EN 9100 names risk management as a focus [4]. There is also a point that is easily overlooked: the EN 9100 series does not consist of ISO standards [3]. The European version was developed by the standardisation body of the European aerospace industry, ASD-STAN [1].
According to DQS, the requirements are a supplement to contractual and statutory requirements and not an alternative to them [3].
According to DIN Media, EN 9100 is intended to increase the safety, reliability and maintainability of products and services. Among other things, it covers personnel and product safety, manufacturability and testability, the documentation and release of key characteristics, and uniform requirements in the supply chain [1].
For 9100, the IAQG names eight areas that go beyond ISO 9001.
Eight areas beyond ISO 9001 (IAQG)
According to DQS, these are joined by, among other things, first article inspection, traceability across the supply chain and the product life cycle, as well as a reporting obligation and a contingency plan for defective products that have been delivered [3]. Human factors are taken into account in the case of nonconformities and corrective actions [2]. EN 9100 also retains the “management representative”, which ISO 9001:2015 no longer requires [1].
The details are in the text of the standard. EN 9100 is aimed at manufacturers and designers, EN 9110 at maintenance organisations and EN 9120 at distributors and stockholders [3].
One difference that appears as a heading in no standard but explains a great deal is the service life of the products. In my experience, product life cycles in aerospace and defence are significantly longer than in mechanical engineering and the automotive industry.
A documented example from the defence sector is the Tornado. According to the Bundeswehr, it was originally designed for 20 years and 4,000 flight hours, the first German aircraft were delivered to the Navy in 1981, and all European Tornados are to be retired by 2030 [10].
EN 9100 contains requirements that fit this circumstance. The IAQG and DQS explicitly name configuration management and traceability across the product life cycle [2][3], and according to DIN Media its aim is to increase safety, reliability and maintainability [1]. In my assessment, these requirements take the long service life into account. Anyone who supports a product for decades must be able to demonstrate over that time in which configuration state it was built and where its parts come from. In my view, there is also the question of how long parts, suppliers and documentation remain available over the entire service life.
In the defence sector, contracts with the Bundeswehr are subject to the NATO quality assurance requirements, the Allied Quality Assurance Publications (AQAP). According to the Bundeswehr, they are the “basis of quality management in Bundeswehr contracts”. The Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) includes them as contract components when the contract is concluded. Which AQAP apply depends on the identified quality risk and the complexity of the contract [5].
AQAP at a glance
Contractors must maintain their own quality management system and apply its elements to the subject matter of the respective contract. Depending on the quality risk, the BAAINBw can additionally agree government quality assurance inspections, usually on site. The contractor’s responsibility remains unaffected by this [6].
According to TÜV NORD, AQAP in Germany is not a stand-alone certification like ISO 9001, but a catalogue of requirements that is usually agreed contractually. The BAAINBw decides which evidence is recognised [8]. In practice, therefore, the contract documents and the specifications of the responsible authority are decisive.
It fits that EN 9137 describes how the requirements of AQAP 2110 and EN 9100 can be met through a common quality management system. It was developed under the umbrella of the IAQG together with a NATO working group. Its edition dates from 2012 [7].
In my assessment, the same applies here as for environment, energy and occupational health and safety. A company that supplies both aviation and defence should not build a separate structure for each sector alongside its business processes, but integrate the additional requirements into its lived management system. Why I consider this sensible is described in the article “One Management System Instead of Many Parallel Worlds” [9].
Aviation and defence require more than ISO 9001, but not something entirely different. The sets of requirements build on one another, and the additional requirements concern concrete subject areas such as product safety, configuration management, traceability and supplier management. Anyone who integrates them into a common management system avoids duplicate structures. The differing product life cycles also shape the priorities. Where a company fits in and what follows from this for its management system can be clarified in an initial conversation.
As of: all web sources accessed on 14 October 2026. Source titles are given in their original language.
Let's discuss, without obligation, what this development means for your company.