Get documents about "NMSEOCT07Minutes
Document Sample
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
OCTOBER 22 – 24, 2007
PITTSBURGH MARRIOTT CITY CENTER
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a
subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or
recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007 – WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007
1.0 OPENING COMMENTS
1.1 Call to Order/Quorum Check
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Mark Gleason at 1:00pm on Monday, 22
OCT 2007. A quorum was established with representatives present.
1.2 New Task Group Members
1.3 Appointment of Secretary
Since the Task Group has not received any volunteers from the members for a new
secretary, one will be picked at the beginning of each Nadcap Meeting, based on
alphabetical order of attending Task Group members by last name. Windsor Amundsen
from Honeywell will be taking the minutes for this meeting.
1.4 Introductions and Routing of Attendance Roster
ATTENDANCE
User Members Present:
Name Company
Windsor Amundsen Honeywell; Task Group Secretary
Silvia Baeza Vought Aircraft
Marc Belanger Bombardier Aerospace
Gary Burns GE Aviation
Tara Campbell Rolls Royce, PLC
David Day GE Aviation; AQS Liaison
Peter Edwards Airbus
Harold Finch Spirit Aero Systems
William Fitzgerald Northrop-Grumman
Jacob Franklin Bell Helicopter - Textron
Mark Gleason GE Aviation; Task Group Chairperson
Glen Heide Boeing
Page 1 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
Roland Hudon Pratt Whitney
Jim Kruba Boeing
Serge Labbe Heroux-Devtek
Marc-Andre Lefebvre Heroux Devtek
Ross Lizee Bombardier
Tom Lowther Honeywell
Susan Margheim Rockwell Collins
Scott Patterson Goodrich
Jeremy Phillips Cessna Aircraft; Task Group Vice Chairperson
K.T. Quader Boeing
Angelie Vincent Spirit Aero Systems
Kirk Whalen Heroux Devtek
Other Participants/Members:
Name Company
Bryon Alter BG&S Peening
Dennis Berglund Tri-Process Company
Starr Berglund Tri-Process Company
Ernestine Cruz Tri-Process Company
Susan Dika Moeller Aerospace
J Kim Ell Microtronics
Mark Finkeldei Nex-Tech Processing
Del Harmon Cincinnati Thermal Spray
Dave Jones Nex-Tech Processing
Greg Judy PCC Airfoils
James Kernan Corpus Christy Army Depot
Li Li Barnes Aerospace
Kyle Lindsey Danville Metal Stamping
Ed Mayer Meyer Tool Inc.
Jay McMurray Metal Improvement Corp.
Mark Molden Ferco Tech
Harry Moser Agie Charmilles
KM Nosek Microtronics
Eric Oswald Unison Engine Components
Tim Scarlett Danville Metal Stamping
Richard Scott Rich Technology
Mark Singer Kessington Machine Products
Jackie Sternot Pako Inc.
Gary Thompson Darchem Engineering
John Vanhouwe Eldim BV Sulzer Metco
PRI Staff:
Rick Sovich PRI
Jennifer Kornrumpf PRI
Page 2 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
1.5 Approval of Minutes
Motion is made to accept meeting minutes from the July quarterly meeting in Istanbul.
Motion passes.
2.0 TASK GROUP METRICS AND STAFF REPORT
Joe Barr has been hired by PRI to assist Richard Sovich with audit review. Joe Barr is not
currently delegated. We are currently at 86% merit eligibility for NCMSE suppliers.
Balloting by Primes of audits is discussed. We are getting excellent participation from
NCMSE primes for audit review. Auditor verses auditor requirements was discussed. The
goal is 130% auditor capacity to be able to cover all the requirements. Unrestricted
auditors for ITAR audits have been an issue in the past.
Two additional unrestricted auditors have been added to the Auditor base. We discussed
the relative numbers of new audits compared to re-accreditation audits.
We expect 2008 to peak for NMSE audits and to level out due to the effects of the merit
program.
Metric for NMSE Sector Merit all EUR Metrics all Excess Auditor Dashboard for all
Sept 2007 Nadcap OCT2007 Nadcap OCT 2007 Capacity Oct 2007 NadCap Sept 2007
3.0 SSC PRESENTATION
Jay McMurray presents his information on the Supplier Support Committee. The Supplier
Support Committee provides an avenue for suppliers to get information about the Nadcap
process. Ad hoc committees are formed for specific purposes e.g. communications and
mentoring, 25 mile rule, etc. SSC has volunteer mentors to assist new suppliers with
newcomer issues. SSC meeting sent out a survey in 2007, the results of which will be
discussed this week. Checklist requirements that are not covered by specific specifications
are an issue which is being discussed. Auditor consistency and redundant audits is
discussed and brought to the attention of the NMC. The SSC meeting is to be held October
23, 2007 from 4:15 to 6:15 PM.
After four years of great service Jay Mc Murray will resign from his duties on the SSC
effective this week.
SSC Report - NMSE
Oct 2007
Page 3 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
4.0 CHECKLIST & HANDBOOK REVISIONS
The ballot for Prime Specific Supplement Sheet AC7117S was reviewed for comment
resolution line by line. The applicable Prime addressed the comment or the Task Group
decided on comments that were non-persuasive. All of the Comments were either
answered with no action or an update was recorded. The updated Supplement Sheets will
be scrubbed for questions that are possibly a high risk for export control violations. The
final version will be to Task Group under a 14 day affirmation ballot. The ballot resolution
ran over the allotted time and was decided by the Task Group to continue through
completion during opportune time slots over the next two days of the meeting.
ACTION ITEM: Rick Sovich/Don Buehler will review the AC7117S supplement sheets for
possible ITAR/EAR issues. Due Date: 30Nov07
ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to issue 14 day affirmation Ballot for AC7117S within one week of
ITAR review and finalization.
5.0 NIP/NOP/NTGOP UPDATES
Updates to NIP/NOP/NTGOP were reviewed.
NIP-NOP-NTGOP
Updates - 2007
6.0 SPECIFICATION CHANGES
Jay McMurray reviewed latest meeting from the Surface Enhancement Division FD&E
Meeting held on 08Oct2007. Ballot on changes to J444 (Cast Shot and Grit Size
Specifications for Peening and Cleaning) is currently underway. Jay discussed zero block
accuracy (Test Strip, Holder, and Gauge for shot peening) and the decision that the flatness
call-out for gauges were too restrictive and did not add value. It was decided that
paragraph 6.4 of J442 be modified to 0.002”. The following question is brought up at an
SAE surface enhancement meeting: “On the question of equipment used to test media, it is
a recommended practice to use the Ro-Tap machine”. The uses of a Ro-Tap equivalent
machine is discussed but no actions were taken.
Specification
Changes Surface Enhancement Division
Page 4 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
7.0 SUPPLIER TRAINING
Supplier training was limited to the presentation given by Eric Oswald, Smith’s Aerospace-
Terra Haute, due to a lower supplier turn-out than expected. Eric presented helpful hints on
audit preparation. Suggestions include total preventative maintenance for each machine,
periodic testing being performed, verification that all new work meets customer
requirements, checklists, sketches, routers, any other form of instruction is up to date and is
being used, review of customer specifications for any changes or may have become
obsolete. Verify that machines are calibrated and all media being used is also calibrated.
Insure that all schedules are up to date and labs are current. All calibration equipment is to
be current. Make specs available to the operators. Operators are the life blood of a
company. Presentation is attached below.
Rick Sovich briefly discussed upcoming training opportunities. Subject matter covers how
to do pre-audit preparation, preparation of self audit, where all the information lies in e-
audit.net, etc. The Training will be attached to eAuditNet. Jeremy Philips and Windsor
Amundsen to form ad-hoc group to create supplier training for U.S. suppliers. Tara
Campbell and Pete Edwards to create supplier training for European-UK suppliers
NMSE Best Practices- How to prepare for a
Suppliers Oct2007 Nadcap Audit
ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to post supplier training to eAuditNet. Due Date: 30 Nov 2007.
ACTION ITEM: North American Ad Hoc Supplier Training Team to conference and frame out
scope and timeline for NCSI training. Due Date: 14 Dec 2007.
ACTION ITEM: European Ad Hoc Supplier Training Team to conference and frame out scope
and timeline for NCSI training. Due Date: 14 Dec 2007.
8.0 SUPPLIER – OPEN ISSUES
Time required for conducting an audit is discussed. Some auditors seem to be dragging
out the audit. It is a function of what you find, how job audits turn out, and how things
work.
The loss of merit for a supplier was discussed. Rick Sovich to discuss the issue
privately with those concerned.
The Task Group discussed the definition of major and minor findings. Systemic or
potential product impact constitutes a major finding. Primes are to determine potential
product impact. A minor is defined as any single system failure or lapse in
conformance with the applicable standard or audit criteria. A major is defined as the
absence of, or systemic breakdown of, the process control and / or the Quality
Page 5 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
Management System, or any non-conformance where the effect impacts, or has the
potential to impact, the integrity of the product.
The Task Group discussed auditor indiscretions, subjectivity, and inconsistencies.
Auditors must show a link between the checklist and the finding. One auditor posed
the question to an operator “Would you like photos if you could get them?” to which
the operator responded, “Yes”.
9.0 NEW BUSINESS (Open Meeting)
No new business
10.0 Review Agenda for Next Meeting
Future meeting topics are discussed. One of which involved the extent to which Nadcap
auditors should be discussing Quality issues, e.g. is supplier following their quality
system. Sometimes there was no procedure or the procedure was not being followed.
Auditors wanted to have the ability to investigate potential product impact.
We discussed the new definition of major and minor findings. Systemic or potential
product impact constitutes a major finding. Primes are to determine potential product
impact. A minor is defined as any single system failure or lapse in conformance with the
applicable standard or audit criteria. A major is defined as the absence of, or systemic
breakdown of, the process control and / or the Quality Management System, or any non-
conformance where the effect impacts or has the potential to impact the integrity of the
product.
Training requirements are mandated in AS9100.
11.0 AMS 2430 & AMS 2431 – ADDITION OF ROTAP REQUIREMENTS
Due to the unavailability for the Task Group Member that was to report out on this subject,
this topic is postponed until the Feb 2008 meeting in Rome.
12.0 FAILURE CRITERIA REVIEW
Mark Gleason presented a comprehensive analysis of Failure criteria combined with
auditor metrics. NOP-011 defines audit failure criteria. Audits resulting in major findings
are discussed along with NM Initial Total NCR’s. If a supplier is failing the criteria but has
numerous processes, the NMSE Task Group takes this into account during the failure ballot
process. The numbers of NCR’s have gone down and NMSE has more reaccreditation than
initial audits. The audit checklists were improved and the number of findings dropped as a
result of the baseline effort, a great audit handbook, good corrective actions administered
by the Staff Engineer and good supplier training. This data is being reviewed by the
Standardization Committee as well, with an annual reassessment. There was no statistical
variation between the current and most recent staff engineer. Auditors are not consistent,
Page 6 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
some are tougher than others. There is a statistical difference between auditors; however
some data is skewed due to several new auditors that are just getting up to speed. We are
trying to minimize auditor variation through training. None of the auditors are outside of
the two sigma limits within the NMSE Task Group. Weld and NDT task groups do have
auditors outside of the two sigma region. We are seeking ways to further minimize auditor
variation.
Auditor Metrics and
Failure Criteria
13.0 AQS SUMMARY OF AS9100 REQUIREMENTS
This topic was postponed until the Feb 2007 meeting in Rome, due to the decision of the
Task Group to continue the resolution of the Prime Specific Supplement Sheets.
ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to update the RAIL to reflect this presentation from our AQS liaison.
Update due by 15 Nov 2007.
14.0 PRIME PARTICIPATION – AUDIT REVIEW
As presented earlier in the NMC Metrics, participation in audit review is good, however it
appears that a few individuals are carrying the load and we would like to see more
participation from all primes. The act of audit review helps keep you in touch with your
supplier base and the issues that can become NMSE topics for meetings. Without this
participation in audit reviews, good opportunities for improvement are not being realized.
15.0 STAFF ENGINEER METRICS
This is a closed session attended only by Primes. Rick Sovich presented to the Task Group
a report of NM and SE audits over the past quarter, including information on major and
minor findings.
15.1 Auditor Metrics
Mark Gleason discussed differences between auditors considering how many major and
minor findings are written per average audit. No one is outside of two sigma limits. In
NM, Auditor No. 2 is low and Auditor No. 8 is high. These two outliers are no longer
Nadcap Auditors. Auditors are cautioned by Richard Sovich, to not advise suppliers even
in the interest of best practice, as the auditor job is to impartially and professionally
administer the Nadcap checklist and support Task Group interpretations as expressed in the
Audit handbook.
Page 7 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
15.2 Delegation Report
The Delegation Report was presented by Rick Sovich; Concurrence rate was excellent at
over 99%. The Delegation Report is attached.
NMSE delegation
10-OCT-07
15.3 Audits >90 Days
There were no audits over 90 days that were not in Task Group Review.
16.0 AUDIT REVIEW
Audits were suggested by Boeing, RR Plc, and a review of an audit that had exceeded
failure criteria. The audit numbers will not be posted for confidential reasons however will
be available on a need to know basis from the Staff Engineer.
The failure review audit concerned export controlled parts and all restricted Task Group
Members left the meeting room. The presentation of evidence and review resulted in
the voiding of two NCR’s and sustaining of two other NCR’s that were questioned.
Roland Hudon was very active in the decision making process as PW was the
Prime/Customer for several parts in question.
An Asian audit was reviewed. One previous NCR noted that laser power output was not
being measured, nor was it being measured at the workpiece as required by Nadcap.
Mark Gleason was able to explain to the group that laser power output was being
measured, just not at the workpiece. The GE specification was not clear that power
output be made at the workpiece. This resulted in some confusion with the supplier.
Windsor Amundsen of Honeywell agrees to go back into eAuditNet and approve the
audit.
T K Quader discussed an SE Audit. TK Quader poses the question to the task group,
“Are our auditors looking at enough job audits?” He would have expected someone to
say that it was a systemic issue. Rick Sovich states that most auditors will sample for
recurrence of the NCR if suspected, however this would be appropriate.
Tara Campbell of Rolls Royce PLC requests that the task group discuss a European
Audit. Tara was not satisfied with the risk mitigation efforts associated with the
findings. Evidently there was a large range on the display for nozzle speed. It was
reported that the supplier had a bad display. The display was wandering all over the
place, though nozzle speed was set at, and in fact was running at, 200 mm/min. The
display has since been corrected and the audit sent to Task Group Review.
Page 8 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
Richard Sovich reports to the Task Group that he is working with Joe Barr on responses
to NCRs to make sure that they get out in a timely fashion.
17.0 NEW BUSINESS (Closed Meeting)
We discussed what to do in the event of a paper audit. We determined that there would not
be two consecutive paper audits (job audits). Roland Hudon and KT Quader agree to
review the procedure for audit guidelines and report back to the group.
ACTION ITEM: Roland Hudon and KT Quader will review and summarize the current audit
guidelines and report out at the Feb 2008 meeting in Rome. The presentation is due to PRI Staff
by 11 Jan 2008.
Tara Campbell presented an MFN flyer advertising training in shot peen. The Nadcap
“Partners in Education” logo was prominently displayed across the page from, and the
same size as, an endorsement from another organization. The Task Group expressed
concern that the “Partners in Education” trademark was too similar to the Nadcap logo and
supplier confusion over endorsement may occur. It was reminded to the Task Group that
this issue was reviewed at past meeting and has gone to the highest levels and has been
closed. It was also reminded that this issue should not be raised at the Task Group level as
it has been very disruptive. If individuals still have issues, it is suggested to go to your
company representative on the NMC.
17.1 Task Group Leadership Succession Plan
Task Group succession was discussed. Mark Gleason will step down as NMSE Task
Group Chairperson after this meeting. Jeremy Phillips volunteered for the TG Chairperson,
was nominated by Mark Gleason and was unanimously approved by quorum hand vote as
the NMSE candidate for Task Group Chairperson. Windsor Amundsen volunteered for TG
Vice-Chairperson, was nominated by Roland Hudon and was unanimously approved by
quorum hand vote, as the NMSE candidate for Task Group Vice Chairperson. It was also
agreed by the Task Group that a limit of three years will be considered the time limit for
serving as the Task Group Chairperson and Vice Chairperson, but retained the flexibility to
extend beyond that time if circumstances required otherwise. A review of procedures shall
be conducted to assure all requirements have been met. The secretarial duties will be
rotated amongst the participating primes.
ACTION ITEM: Rick Sovich will review the procedures governing the selection process for the
Chair and Vice Chair to assure all requirements for the selection process were fulfilled.
Page 9 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
18.0 AUDITOR TRAINING
A discussion of the meaning of “training programs”, as it relates to training operators in
NMSE processes. Training is not required currently for NM. Right now it is very
subjective. Nothing in the handbook or in our specs specifies what should go into a
training program.
It was agreed that Auditors shall not judge content of training programs.
19.0 AC7116/1 ELECTROCHEMICAL DRILLING
We reviewed the draft checklist for Electrochemical Drilling (7116/1). This checklist will
soon be sent out for ballot. The technical content of the checklist will remain essentially
unchanged. Information will be disseminated to the entire group, and then the checklist
will go out for ballot.
ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff will send the checklist out to 45 day ballot along with information
summary provided by Mark Gleason. Due Date: 30 Nov 2007.
20.0 ITAR UPDATE
Don Buhler gave a limited presentation and a lengthy question and answer period for an
Open session of the NMSE. It was very well done and thought provoking. Don asked the
NMSE Group to review their checklists for questions that may have answers that could
potentially violate ITAR or Export Control regulations.
ACTION ITEM: Rick Sovich will coordinate an Ad Hoc Group to review the checklist questions
and supplement questions in accordance with Don’s instruction.
21.0 SSC REPRESENTATIVE REPORT
Jay McMurray reviewed the pervious days SSC meeting and presented the 2007 Supplier
Survey.
2007 supplier survey
results
Page 10 of 11
NMSE
OCTOBER 2007
22.0 NEXT MEETING
Meeting Date and Location
The next meeting will be on 25–27 FEB 2008 in Rome, Italy
23.0 ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned on 24 Oct 2007 at 12:00 PM.
Minutes prepared by: Windsor Amundsen of Honeywell
Email address: windsor.amundsen@honeywell.com
***** 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 Who is responsible: Due date:
revision:
Page 11 of 11
