AS9100 to IA9100: A Name Change Cannot Erase 23 Years of Quality Failure-Boeing "UNCERTIFIED"

WASHINGTON - Jan. 1, 2026 - PRLog -- The proposed transition from AS9100 to IA9100 is being promoted as progress, modernization, and reform. According to Daryl Guberman, a 40-year Quality Assurance (QA) expert and Boeing shareholder, it is none of those things. It is, instead, a cosmetic change that does nothing to correct what actually took place over the last 23 years of systemic quality failures, particularly inside Boeing's production and oversight structure following September 11, 2001.

"Changing the name of a standard does not change history," said Guberman. "It does not undo two decades of weakened oversight, diluted auditing, conflicted accreditation, and ignored warning signs. A transition document cannot rewrite reality."

Since 9/11, the aerospace industry — led by Boeing — has operated under extraordinary pressure: accelerated production schedules, outsourcing, fragmented supply chains, and an increasing reliance on third-party accreditation bodies whose authority is derived more from mutual recognition agreements than from direct, enforceable accountability. According to Guberman, this environment allowed quality requirements to be reinterpreted, minimized, or bypassed, while still appearing compliant on paper.

The proposed IA9100 framework does not correct that problem.

Even if Boeing pursues IA9100 certification through ANAB or any internationally "equivalent" accreditation body, the outcome remains the same. These accreditations ultimately sit under GLOBAC, a transitional construct tied to the restructuring and merger of global accreditation frameworks stemming from the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). In Guberman's view, this global consolidation has created distance — not rigor — between standards and real-world enforcement.

"This is accreditation by association," Guberman stated. "It looks impressive, it sounds global, but it does not retroactively fix nonconformities, nor does it address how AS9100 was applied — or ignored — for more than two decades."

Between Everett, Renton, Auburn, and Northfield, Guberman conducted on-site observations that reinforced the same conclusion: standards exist, but process discipline, independence, and enforcement consistency do not. Audits were treated as events, not systems. Corrective actions were documented, not driven. And accountability was repeatedly deferred upward, outward, or into the future.

"No transition to IA9100 will change what already occurred," Guberman emphasized. "You cannot accredit your way out of historical failure."

The concern is not academic. Aerospace quality failures have consequences measured not in paperwork, but in risk, loss, and lives. Rebranding AS9100 as IA9100 — while leaving the same structures, the same accreditation pathways, and the same incentives in place — risks repeating the same outcomes under a different logo.

According to Guberman, true reform would require independent oversight, transparent corrective action records, and acknowledgment of past breakdowns — not a reset button disguised as evolution.

"Standards don't fail," Guberman concluded. "People, processes, and compromised oversight fail. Until that is addressed, IA9100 will simply inherit the unresolved legacy of AS9100."

WEBSITE: https://guberman-quality.com/

PRESS RELEASES: https://pressroom.prlog.org/daryl1962/page9.html