TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and ProductionvsAS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence

See exactly how NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls map to AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

10
Controls Mapped
10
Gaps Found
35%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production maps to AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence with 35% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 20 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls identifies 13 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Design and Development.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 20 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 10 of 10 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.

Chapter 4 - ISO 9001 Application(2 mappings)

AQAP-4.1Application of ISO 9001:20152 targets
→AS9100D-8.4Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, and Services
→ISO27003-8.1Operational Planning and Control

Performance and Improvement(2 mappings)

AQAP-5.10Internal Audit (NATO)
→10.2Nonconformity and Corrective Action
AQAP-5.12Corrective Action
→10.2Nonconformity and Corrective Action

Chapter 5 - Additional NATO Requirements(2 mappings)

AQAP-5.2Configuration Management
→AS9100D-8.1Operational Planning and Control
AQAP-5.5Nonconformity Notification
→10.2Nonconformity and Corrective Action

Supplier Control(4 mappings)

AQAP-5.8Subcontractor QMS2 targets
→AS9100D-8.4Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, and Services
→ISO27003-8.1Operational Planning and Control
AQAP-5.9Government Surveillance2 targets
→AS9100D-8.4Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, and Services
→ISO27003-8.1Operational Planning and Control

Related Comparisons

Other NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production comparisons

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs ILO Nursing Personnel Convention C149 (1977)8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6, Directive (EU) 2018/1673)8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs ISO 8000 — Data Quality8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs FATF Recommendation 16 — Virtual Asset Travel Rule8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs Privacy by Design (PbD) — Seven Foundational Principles8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs BS 65000:2014 — Guidance on Organizational Resilience8 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements7 mappingsNATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production vs FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR)7 mappings

Other AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence comparisons

AS9100D — Aerospace Quality Management System vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence16 mappingsISO/IEC 27003:2017 vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence16 mappingsPIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence15 mappingsNIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 — Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence14 mappingsSQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence14 mappings3GPP Security Architecture (TS 33.501 — 5G Security) vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence13 mappingsUK Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence13 mappingsNIS2 Directive Implementing Acts vs AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence13 mappings

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • ✓ 693 framework browser
  • ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
  • ✓ 824 compliance assessments
  • ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/month

Professional

  • ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • ✓ Unlimited full-text search
  • ✓ Framework self-assessment
  • ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production has 20 controls across its framework, while AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence covers 38 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (35% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Design and Development, where 8 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence equivalent.

How many controls map between NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

Of 20 total NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls, 7 map directly to AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence controls — representing 35% coverage. The remaining 13 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production to AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

13 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production controls have no direct equivalent in AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence. The highest concentration of gaps is in Design and Development with 8 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 NATO AQAP 2110 — Quality Assurance Requirements for Design, Development, and Production and AS9100D:2016 — Quality Management Systems for Aviation, Space, and Defence?

The domain with the highest gap count is Design and Development (8 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.