AQC / An Aerospace Federation Council
Aerospace Quality Council
Quality across the aerospace lifecycle. Technical review, independent expertise and clearly separated dispute-resolution pathways.
Quality with depth.
Resolution with integrity.
The Aerospace Quality Council (AQC) is conceived as Aerospace Federation’s specialist, cross-sector Council for quality policy, consistent implementation, technical quality issues and the appropriate resolution of technical and commercial disputes.
Its purpose is to advance quality throughout the lifecycle—from design and manufacture to supply, operation, maintenance and end of service—reduce recurring problems and develop trustworthy routes for resolving disputes.
Quality programme
One lifecycle. Connected quality responsibilities.
From design and production to operations, maintenance and end of service, AQC connects sector priorities with practical technical work.
Policy & technical frameworks
Identify sector needs and contribute to AF Standards, implementation guidance and controlled technical interpretations.
Working focusPriorities, application guidance and documented technical positions.
Design & development
Requirements management, design verification, reliability, configuration baselines and controlled engineering change.
Working focusTraceable requirements, verification evidence and change records.
Production & supply networks
Special processes, first-article inspection, material and part traceability, counterfeit-part prevention and supplier performance.
Working focusProcess evidence, product acceptance records and supplier improvement.
Software & digital systems
Software verification, data integrity, artificial intelligence and quality practices in digital engineering.
Working focusVersioned evidence, validation context and accountable digital records.
Operations & services
Quality processes across airlines, airports, ground services, space missions and aircraft maintenance.
Working focusService controls, operational interfaces and monitored performance.
Testing & evaluation integrity
Measurement reliability, method suitability, technical records and the quality of test and inspection reporting.
Working focusA defensible chain from the evaluated subject to the reported result.
Quality issues & corrective action
Structured technical review, root-cause analysis, improvement planning and effectiveness follow-up.
Working focusEvidence-based findings, corrective action and recurrence prevention.
Competence & sector development
Expert and evaluator competence criteria, training, SME development and shared good practice.
Working focusCompetence development connected to actual technical responsibilities.
Quality intelligence & learning
Confidentiality-aware performance indicators, anonymized case studies and sector quality reporting.
Working focusReusable lessons without disclosing protected case information.
Resolution pathways
Start with the issue. Select the right mechanism.
A technical finding, an expert opinion, a settlement and an arbitral award serve different purposes. Each request must be assessed for scope, consent, competence and the applicable procedure.
Quality complaint & technical reviewExamine an alleged nonconformity, process failure or quality problem.
- Nature of the outcome
- Technical findings, a review report and recommended corrective actions.
Identify the subject, applicable requirement, evidence and desired technical clarification. This route does not itself determine damages or create an arbitral award.
Independent expert evaluationResolve a technical question about a test result, defect, performance claim or acceptance criterion.
- Nature of the outcome
- An expert opinion; a binding technical determination only where separately agreed and permitted by applicable law.
Agree the precise question, expert competence, evidence access and intended effect of the conclusion before the work begins.
MediationHelp parties develop a mutually acceptable solution with an impartial mediator.
- Nature of the outcome
- A settlement agreement accepted by the parties, rather than an imposed technical or arbitral decision.
The parties retain control over settlement. Confidentiality, participation and any legal effect follow the agreed process and applicable law.
ArbitrationDetermine arbitrable technical and commercial disputes through an independent tribunal.
- Nature of the outcome
- An arbitral award based on a valid arbitration agreement and applicable law.
Potential subjects include quality, specifications, delivery and acceptance, warranty, maintenance, supply contracts, testing, software deliveries and related payment or loss claims. Institutional rules and case acceptance arrangements must first be in force.
AF programme appealSeek review of an AF programme decision under that programme’s own rules.
- Nature of the outcome
- A decision under the separate appeal mechanism—not automatically an arbitral award.
Use the appeal procedure and time limits applicable to the original decision. A commercial dispute or quality complaint does not replace a programme appeal.
Consent is not implied by membership.
Arbitration depends on a valid arbitration agreement. Membership alone does not constitute agreement to arbitrate. Recognition and enforcement of an award depend on applicable law and relevant international arrangements; they are not guaranteed by AF or AQC.
Operating structure
Separate responsibilities. Independent conclusions.
The proposed functional structure separates quality development, case administration and the merits of individual disputes. It does not announce office holders or tribunal appointments.
Council leadership
Strategy, resources and institutional oversight—not intervention in the merits of a case.
Quality & Technical Programmes Board
Quality workstreams, expert groups, implementation resources and technical publications.
Dispute Resolution Centre
Intake administration, expert and arbitrator appointment processes, procedure and timetable coordination.
Independent arbitral tribunals
Case-specific panels responsible for determining the merits within the applicable agreement and rules.
Independent ethics & appeal mechanism
Conflicts of interest, procedural complaints and separate programme appeals, with appropriate separation of roles.
Secretariat
Secure files, records, communications and administrative support.
Independence & safeguards
Confidence comes from how the work is protected.
Separate prior involvement
A person who provided quality-development support or participated in the earlier assessment is not appointed as arbitrator in the same dispute.
Disclose and challenge interests
Experts and arbitrators disclose conflicts. Parties must have an appropriate opportunity to raise objections under the applicable procedure.
Protect the merits from influence
AF management, sponsors and commercial partners must not interfere with substantive case decisions. Disputes directly involving AF or AQC are referred to an external independent institution.
Preserve public authority & safety
AQC does not replace airworthiness, licensing, official accident investigation or other statutory powers. Technical review must not delay necessary safety reporting or urgent corrective action.
Programme & evidence
Build the framework. Demonstrate the improvement.
The establishment programme links controlled procedures, suitable expertise and pilot technical work. Intended outputs are not presented as already adopted rules or published reports.
Documents before casework.
Council terms of reference, quality programme, expert-review procedures, mediation and arbitration rules, model clauses, appointment criteria, fee schedule and confidentiality policy form the preparation set.
Specialist legal review of the selected institutional model and relevant law must precede bringing arbitration rules into force.
Expertise connected to real issues.
Develop the expert pool, a controlled quality-intake process and pilot sector projects. Review improvement effectiveness, recurring nonconformities, case duration and parties’ experience of the process.
The intended Aerospace Quality & Dispute Resolution Report brings together anonymized learning and annual results, subject to confidentiality controls.
Technical connections
Work across disciplines. Keep each decision distinct.
AQC links quality priorities to the relevant AF technical and programme routes. Council participation does not itself grant accreditation, Recognition or regulatory authority.
Related Technical Committees
Participation
Bring the expertise that quality needs.
Manufacturers, suppliers, airlines, aircraft and satellite operators, airports, ground-service providers, maintenance organizations, software companies, laboratories, educators and relevant professionals can contribute their perspective.
Make your contribution specific.
Identify your field, relevant experience and the quality workstream or technical question you can support. Explain the perspective you bring and disclose any relevant interests. Participation and appointments follow the applicable Council arrangements.