AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and DefencevsISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management
See exactly how AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls map to ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence maps to ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management with 10% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 42 AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls identifies 38 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Operation.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 42 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.
Performance Evaluation and Improvement (Clauses 9-10)(1 mappings)
Operation (Clause 8)(12 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons
Other ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 718 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management?
AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence has 42 controls across its framework, while ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management covers 41 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (10% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Operation, where 13 AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls have no direct ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management equivalent.
How many controls map between AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management?
Of 42 total AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls, 4 map directly to ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management controls — representing 10% coverage. The remaining 38 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence to ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management?
38 AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls have no direct equivalent in ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management. The highest concentration of gaps is in Operation with 13 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between AS9100D:2016 - Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence and ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management?
The domain with the highest gap count is Operation (13 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.