OPENING COMMENTS · Web viewThe Nadcap Management Council (NMC) Planning & Operations meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., 24-Oct-2018 by NMC Chairperson Richard Blyth. There

NMC PLANNING & OPERATIONSOCTOBER 2018

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTES24-OCT-2018

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Management Council in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Management Council and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

WEDNESDAY, 24-OCT-2018

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Nadcap Management Council (NMC) Planning & Operations meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., 24-Oct-2018 by NMC Chairperson Richard Blyth.

There were two invited guests of the Chairperson: Mario Leclerc (Bombardier Aerospace), Cindy Driscoll (Lockheed Martin).

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members Present (* Indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Latch Anguelov SAFRAN Group* Tomohiko Ashikaga Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.* Pascal Blondet Airbus Commercial Aircraft* Richard Blyth Rolls-Royce Chairperson* Craig Bowden BAE Systems – Air* Daniel Calderwood BAE Systems – Air* Russ Cole Northrop Grumman Corp.

Cindy Driscoll Lockheed Martin Corp.* Rusty Freelen Lockheed Martin Corp.* Frederic Grenon Bombardier Aerospace* Emily Hoiles Eaton, Aerospace Group* Wendy Jiang COMAC* Bob Koukol Honeywell Aerospace* Eric Le Fort Sonaca

Mario Leclerc Bombardier Aerospace* Marc-André Lefebvre Héroux-Devtek* Jeff Lott The Boeing Company* Scott Maitland UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)* Robin McGuckin Bombardier Aerospace* Frank McManus Lockheed Martin Corp. Vice Chairperson* Steven Meyer Spirit AeroSystems* Daniel Muenter Liebherr-Aerospace* Scott O’Connor Honeywell Aerospace* Ana Ottani dos Santos Embraer SA* John Pfeiffer GE Aviation* Per Rehndell GKN Aerospace Sweden AB* Norberto Roiz-Lafuente Airbus Defense & Space* David Soong Pratt & Whitney* Scott Wheatley Rockwell Collins


CONFIRMED

Other Members Present (* indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

* Jim Cummings Metal Finishing Company Inc CP* Jonathan Hebben Avcorp Composite Fabrication COMP

* Johanna Lisa Continental Heat Treating / Quality Heat Treating AQS

* Tammi Schubert Helicomb International M&I* Vern Talmadge Arconic – Howmet Thermatech MTL* Christopher Webb PCC Structurals Inc. WLD* Wilfried Weber PFW Aerospace GmbH HT

Task Group Chairpersons/Vice Chairpersons Present

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

Charles Beargie UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Conventional Machining as a Special Process

Albert Berger GE Aviation Measurement & InspectionRoger Bloomfield UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) ElectronicsZeljko Calija UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Nonconventional Machining / Surface

EnhancementKent DeFranco Lockheed Martin Corp. SealantsMark Emerson Rolls-Royce Heat TreatingDavid Gil Alipi Honeywell Aerospace Conventional Machining as a Special

ProcessClaudia Granados Honeywell Aerospace Materials Testing LaboratoriesDan Graves UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Materials Testing LaboratoriesMilan Hanyk Honeywell Aerospace WeldingManuel Koucouthakis Honeywell Aerospace Elastomer SealsTim Krumholz Rockwell Collins Aerospace Quality SystemsVijay Kumar Lockheed Martin Corp. ElectronicsChris Lowe Spirit AeroSystems Aero Structure AssemblySteve McCool Honeywell Aerospace Nondestructive TestingJoel Mohnacky UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand) CoatingsRichard Perrett GKN Aerospace (Filton) CompositesMichael Schmidt GE Aviation Nonconventional Machining / Surface

EnhancementSteve Starr Honeywell Aerospace Chemical ProcessingBrian Streich Honeywell Aerospace Metallic Materials ManufacturingCyril Vernault SAFRAN Group Heat TreatingShawn Vierthaler Spirit AeroSystems Chemical Processing

PRI Staff Present

Ethan AkinsJerry AstonMark AubeleMark BurvalNigel CookMarcel CupermanBill DumasPhilip FordSusan FraileyHannah Godfrey


CONFIRMED

Mike GrahamConnie HessRob HoethScott KlavonGabe KustraJim LewisBob LizewskiDave MarcyjanikJulia MarkardtChristine NesbittKellie O’ConnorKeith PurnellJustin RauschGlenn ShultzIan SimpsonAndy StathamLouise StefanakisJon SteffeyElizabeth StranoJohn TibmaKevin Wetzel

1.2 Richard Blyth noted that this meeting is for NMC Voting Members, Task Group Chairs, Vice Chairs, and PRI Staff.

1.3 Code of Ethics, Anti-Trust & Conflict of Interest

The PRI code of ethics, anti-trust and conflict of interest policy was reviewed.

1.4 The Planning and Ops Agenda was reviewed.

1.5 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

Motion made by John Pfeiffer and seconded by Dave Soong to confirm the minutes from the previous meeting. Motion passed, and the June 2018 NMC Planning & Operations meeting minutes were approved as written.

2.0 RAIL REVIEW – OPEN

The current Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) was reviewed. For specific details, please see the attached RAIL.

3.0 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Jim Lewis gave an update on the current activities of the NMC Continuous Improvement Committee. For more details, please see the attached presentation.


CONFIRMED

After speaking with the auditors in 2015, Auditors not speaking the language of the Auditee was identified as a potential issue. Investigation of the data did not show an appreciable difference in the number of NCRs when the Auditor did or did not speak the native language of the Auditee. Task Groups have been asked to get additional feedback from their Auditors on items we may have missed. Feedback was received from the June and October Auditor Conferences.

After reviewing the feedback, the following solutions were offered by the auditors:

Provide Native language speakers as auditors Hire professional translators for each region which could be shared amongst all

commodities Write up more NCRs against not providing documents to the auditor with which they can

understand. This would drive the correct behavior Incorporate more time into foreign language audits Require documentation to be bilingual Require providing an electronic translator, e.g. google translate Ask for a person who is not knowledgeable in the area, or work to change approach to

get a response from the floor person; “show me” Translations at the audit to make it run more smoothly Would be better to try and simplify language of questions Use ‘Simplified Technical English’ [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Technical_English ] across all checklists Simplify checklists Shorter sentences and more ‘direct’ language Separate questions out where necessary

ACTION ITEM: Auditor feedback and suggestions on language issues to be reviewed by the Continuous Improvement Committee to determine what actions are necessary. (Due Date: 19-Feb-2019)

4.0 NADCAP AUDITEES WITHOUT A SUBSCRIBER

Jim Lewis gave an update on the NMC Sub-Team related to Nadcap auditees without a Subscriber. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The sub-team has completed some actions to address this issue, including a revision to OP 1114, which was released 27-Apr-2018 (paragraph 4.5.1 Task Groups shall define a process to evaluate compliance with aerospace/defense requirements to ensure process capability when aerospace/defense production work is not available at the time of the audit and/or the Auditee has no Subscriber customers), as well as a revision to OP 1105, which was released 1-May-2018, effective 29-Jul-2018 (paragraph 4.3 The Auditee shall identify all known Subscriber customers in eAuditNet prior to the audit).

In addition to the above, additional actions are in process to address this issue, such as:

Add required checklist question to t-frm-15 regarding identifying customerso There is a current proposal being reviewed to address NMC level requirements in

checklists which affects thiso NMC Checklist proposal reviewed at this meeting

eAuditNet enhancement to require Subscriber customers be identified prior to completing scope verification


CONFIRMED

o Auditees will have options for None, Other, and Unknown, as well as the Subscriber list

o An Auditee will not be able to proceed past scope verification without confirming that they have reviewed their customer list and that what they’ve selected is accurate

o This is being done as part of the Subscriber/Supplier alignment enhancementso ECD Q4 2018

eAuditNet Enhancement 1064 submitted – Designation on the QML if in-process job audits could not be conducted on aerospace/defense parts

o This will now be included in the QML redesigno ECD Q2 2019

5.0 STANDARDIZATION COMMITTEE SUB-TEAM PROPOSAL ON MERIT

Victor Schonberger presented on the NMC Merit Sub-Team, which is part of the NMC Standardization Committee. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The sub-team has been working to address the following problems: prevent NCRs requiring Subscriber feedback to drive merit (and subsequently reduce appeals); reduce element of “luck”; standardize the process among Task Groups; standardize issuance of advisories among Task Groups; find a simple and fair solution.

As part of this project, each Task Group is being asked to conduct an impact assessment by selecting a random sample of 5% of their audits between 01-Aug-2017 and 01-Aug-2018 which have one or more NCRs, and complete the assessment by completing the table, as shown on the Task Group tab in the attached spreadsheet.

The sub-team would like to have this information from the Task Groups by mid-January to allow time for the team to review the assessments and finalize at the February 2019 Nadcap Meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Task Groups to complete impact assessment and send to Supplier Merit Sub-Team. Team to report back to P&O in February 2019. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2019)

6.0 NMC CHECKLIST

Bob Koukol reviewed a proposal to create Nadcap General Requirements Audit Criteria. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

Over the past few years, a number of standard questions have been requested by the NMC of the Task Groups for inclusion in their baseline checklists, such as self-audit submittal. This is creating an increase in revisions to Task Group checklists and inconsistency in the timing of implementation. To resolve this issue, the NMC is proposing to create a Checklist that would include the standard Nadcap required sections that are part of every Nadcap audit. This would ensure timelier and more consistent implementation. This checklist would be included with every audit and would be repeated for each commodity audit. It would not be included in the AC7004 audit. It will be listed on the scope of accreditation.


CONFIRMED

The proposed checklist will be owned by the NMC and the balloting process will include Task Group Chairs, as representatives of their Task Group, and PRI Staff. The ballot to Task Group Chairs will be an approval ballot. The intention is to have discussed any proposed changes with Task Group Chairs at Planning and Ops so that they can discuss it with their Task Groups prior to balloting.

Next steps include: a revision to OP 1101 (Document Control) to add ballot process for NMC controlled checklist shared with Task Group Chairs; balloting Audit Criteria (AC) following the process defined in OP 1101; a revision to OP 1104 (Audit Scheduling) to add the requirement for the checklist to be added to every audit; and Task Groups to remove the associated sections from their baseline checklists at next revision after new AC is active. Task Groups can define additional requirements if needed.

ACTION ITEM: NMC Standardization Committee to review PD 1100 to ensure there is no conflict with the NMC owning Audit Criteria and determine if there is any action necessary. (Due Date: 19-Feb-2019)

ACTION ITEM: Richard Blyth and Bob Lizewski to discuss the concerns regarding the Management of Change questions and determine what actions are necessary. (Due Date: 19-Feb-2019)

7.0 TASK GROUP REPORT ITEMS

7.1 Email Notification to Subscribers of Comments

In response to action item P&O-83, PRI Staff reviewed the process and have recommended not to proceed with that suggestion due to data security issues. The NMC agreed to this recommendation.

7.2 Collation of Auditor Consistency Information – P&O-84

In response to action item P&O-84, Richard Blyth and Bob Lizewski reviewed this information. Following the review, the following points of consideration were noted:

Why have no Task Groups developed annual proficiency assessments? A number of Task Groups said a specific appendix for Observation Audits would be

useful, but none have been developed, why? The Task Groups that suggested they had some best practice are to report back at the

internal SWAT meeting The number of observation audits across the majority of the Task Groups appears lower

than expected The continued review of this information will be done by the new Continuous

Improvement Committee

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis to take information to the Task Groups and work it through the Continuous Improvement Committee to determine what actions are necessary. (Due Date: 19-Feb-2019)

7.3 Audit Handbook Relocation

Ian Simpson noted that following the June Planning & Ops meeting, PRI Staff were asked to review the location of Audit Handbooks to determine if they can be located with the checklists.


CONFIRMED

The staff sub-team has determined that this is possible, and they are currently working on folder access to allow the appropriate staff to update handbooks, as currently the checklists are in a folder that is only accessible to update by the Document Control Administrator.

8.0 TASK GROUP DISCUSSION TIME

8.1 Audit Failure Process Consistency

Richard Blyth presented on Failure Process Consistency. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

At the June 2018 Planning & Ops Meeting, there was some discussion about overturned failures. There was no avoiding the fact that there were some obvious inconsistencies. With that in mind, Task Groups were asked to provide answers to the following three questions. The responses are listed below.

1. Are there any actions that PRI should take back and work on?o There were 15 “No” responses and 4 comments. o All 4 comments were on the number of cycles basically stating that they should

be increased or at least should be consistent in the way they are applied.2. Is there anything that the NMC should consider going forward?

o There were 15 “No” responses and 4 comments. o Three very different comments were captured by this question:

First, it was felt that Subscribers were quick to "give Suppliers one more chance".

Second, Subscribers may not fail when it is their Supplier because it takes extensive work to keep them supplying parts when they do not have a Nadcap accreditation.

Third, the NMC should develop training to show acceptable reasons for overturning a failure ballot (twice).

3. Any other actions that are pertinent and would help the Task Groups?o There were 15 “No” responses and 4 comments.

First comment was again on the inconsistent application of cycles along with the notion that no one should have a say other than the Task Group on the number of NCR's that cause a failure ballot.

A second recommended a pre-ballot look to see if any NCR's could be amalgamated, voided, etc., prior to the ballot to reduce overturned failures.

The third and fourth reiterated the idea of the NMC developing training to make clear acceptable and unacceptable reasons to overturn failure ballots.

ACTION ITEM: The NMC to discuss developing training with clear guidance on reasons for overturning failure ballots. (Due Date: 05-Jun-2019)

8.2 Auditor Evaluation Tool


CONFIRMED

Mario Leclerc demonstrated a proposal for a new auditor evaluation tool that can be adopted by Task Groups to help assess auditor consistency. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The Welding Task Group has been utilizing this tool, and the question was asked if other Task Groups would like to adopt this? It was noted that there will be other Task Groups who may adopt this tool, so this will be a centralized tool available to all but will not be mandated for all Task Groups.

9.0 OTHER ISSUES / NEW BUSINESS / DISCUSSION

9.1 RAIL Review

Following all of discussions, the RAIL was reviewed, and the status for all open items was updated:

P&O-45 – Closed P&O-66 – Closed P&O-71 – Remains Open P&O-75 – Closed P&O-78 – Closed P&O-79 – Remains Open P&O-81 – Closed P&O-82 – Remains Open, an SE SWAT sub-team is working on this P&O-83 – Closed P&O-84 – Closed P&O-85 – Closed

9.2 Meeting Feedback

No feedback was received.

10.0 ADJOURNMENT – 24-OCT-2018

Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Kellie O’Connor, [email protected]

***** For PRI Staff use only: ******

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select one)

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*If yes, the following information is required:Documents requiring revision: Who is responsible: Due date:

mailto:[email protected]