COATINGS FEBRUARY 2

Document Sample
COATINGS FEBRUARY 2 Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                            COATINGS
                                                                                        FEBRUARY 2010
                                    UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
                                     FEBRUARY 22-25, 2010
                              HOLIDAY INN – EUR PARCO DEI MEDICI
                                         ROME, ITALY

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, FEBRUARY 22 to THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25

1.0    OPENING COMMENTS

       Call to Order / Quorum Check

       The Coatings (CT) Task Group was called to order at 9:00 a.m., 22-Feb-10.

       It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portions of
       the meeting.

       A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

       Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

            NAME                               COMPANY NAME
        *   Nicolas           Barthelemy       Eurocopter
            Alain             Bouchet          SAFRAN Group
        *   Laurent           Dumont           SAFRAN Group
        *   Ben               Evans            Goodrich Corp
        *   Jon               Higgins          Rolls-Royce plc
            Marek             Intrator         Israel Aerospace Industries
        *   Dan               Loveless         Parker Aerospace
            Don               Missel           Lockheed Martin (NMC)
        *   John              Nerz             GE Aviation
        *   Robert            Nixon            Vought Aircraft Industries
        *   Clark             Okawa            Pratt & Whitney
        *   Jack              Saunders         Honeywell Aerospace                  Chairperson
        *   Amanda            Thomas           Raytheon
            Steve             Wells            Goodrich Corp
        *   Jan               Wigren           Volvo Aero Corporation


       Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

            NAME                                COMPANY NAME
        *   Brent             Bartlett          Sulzer Metco Canada Inc
            Richard           Haberbosch        Aerotech Peissenberg
        *   Dale              Harmon            Cincinnati Thermal Spray            Secretary
        *   Tetyana           Shmyreva          Praxair Surface Technologies
        *   Ronald            Stewart           Ellison Surface Technologies
            Yoshiomi          Sukesada          Asahi Kinzoku Kogyo


       PRI Staff Present

            Jim               Lewis




                                                   1
                                                                                           COATINGS
                                                                                       FEBRUARY 2010
1.1   Expectations – OPEN

      Attendees were given the opportunity to identify expectations to be addressed during the week of
      meetings. There were no expectations beyond the scope of the agenda. Jim Lewis presented the
      Code of Conduct and Ethics and Conflict of Interest to participants.

1.2   Agenda Review – OPEN

      A review of the agenda for the meeting was performed.

1.3   Approval of Minutes – OPEN

      The minutes of the October 2009 meeting held in Pittsburgh, PA, were approved without change.

1.4   Review Action Item List – OPEN

      The Action Item list was reviewed and updated for actions completed.

      For specific details please see the Coatings Task Group Action Item List (RAIL) posted at
      www.eAuditNet.com.

2.0   REVIEW OF DELEGATION OVERSIGHT – CLOSED

      Data was reviewed for Task Group concurrence with Audit Report Reviewer decisions. Jim Lewis,
      the delegated Staff Engineer met the criteria of over 10% audits reviewed and greater than 90%
      concurrence. Delegation is maintained. Bob Lizewski met the criteria of reviewing audits for over
      one year and maintaining above a 90% concurrence rate. Delegation was granted. Jerry Polidor, a
      non-delegated reviewer also had a concurrence percentage above 90% and is progressing towards
      delegation.

3.0   REVIEW AUDITOR EVALUATIONS AND SUPPLIER FEEDBACK – CLOSED

      The Auditor Evaluations and Supplier Feedback for all audits conducted between February 1, 2009
      and January 31, 2010 were reviewed. All No’s in Supplier Feedback with each comment were also
      reviewed. There were no negative trends or issues which required further action.

4.0   MEMBERSHIP STATUS REVIEW - NEW MEMBERS – CLOSED

      Fabrice Crabos’ proxy was given to Laurent Dumont.

      The voting records and meeting attendance for Task Group Voting Members, Subscriber and
      Supplier, were reviewed for compliance to the requirements for maintaining membership. The
      requirements state that to maintain membership, a member must not be absent without approved
      alternate representation from three consecutive regular Nadcap Task Group meetings and the
      member, or approved alternate representation, shall not miss a vote on 2 consecutive letter ballots.
      The Task Group Chair is allowed to waive these requirements if other circumstances warrant
      retention.

      All Voting Members met the requirements for meeting attendance. Three Subscriber Voting
      Members had not voted on the three or more of the last letter ballots for Coatings. The Task Group
      Chair approved these members maintaining their voting privileges, due to meeting attendance and
      participation. These members were reminded and encouraged to vote on future ballots.

      There was also discussion of how it could be easier to ensure that all members get the ballots and
      making it easier to respond. One suggestion was to have electronic balloting. This was also
      brought up during the Planning and Operations meetings and will be evaluated by PRI
      Management. Another possibility discussed was for PRI to send an acknowledgement after
      receiving a ballot response.


                                                   2
                                                                                                  COATINGS
                                                                                              FEBRUARY 2010
5.0    NUCAP DEVIATION REVIEW – CLOSED

       There were no new NUCAP Deviation requests to review.

6.0    TASK GROUP RESOLUTION ISSUES – CLOSED

       A finding was presented where there was no top plate being used to ensure alignment in a
       pressure fixture for curing tensile samples. The processor is using thermal spray masking tape to
       keep the samples in alignment when inserted into the fixture and measuring the alignment after
       curing, The Task Group determined that this met the requirements of the checklist for ensuring
       alignment and that the tape could be considered a fixture.

       Completion of Section 6.0 in AC7109 was also discussed. This section has to do with coating
       removal. If this section is not completed, a supplier will not be authorized by Nadcap to strip
       coatings. If the supplier has an intention of possibly stripping coatings, the controls required by
       section 6 must be in place. It was suggested that adding stripping as a scope under AC7109 may
       help improve understanding of this issue.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis to investigate how to add “Stripping” as a scope under AC7109. (DUE DATE:
21-JUN-10)

7.0    NEW BUSINESS – CLOSED

7.1    Checklist Vision Proposal

       The Nadcap Management Council (NMC) Checklist Vision Proposal was reviewed. It included
       basing checklists on requirements in industry specifications. There were significant concerns in the
       Task Group based on the very limited number of industry specifications which are available for
       coatings, especially as most of these are not used by the Subscribing Members of the Task Group.
       The only area where there are common industry standards is for coatings evaluation and the
       checklists generally follow the requirements of these standards.

7.2    Possible New NCR Format - Maturity Path

       A proposal was shown for a possible new method for answering checklist questions. Each question
       would be rated from a one through five based on adequacy or existence of a procedure,
       compliance and best practices. The Task Group was concerned that this would add significant time
       to the audit and introduce auditor variability. They were also not sure what the benefits would be.
       One of the proposed benefits was supplier score cards, but it was stated that some of the
       Subscribers are moving away from using score cards.

7.3    Satellite Audit Proposal

       Satellite audits were discussed. Currently, Coatings adds one day for satellite facilities. It is felt that
       this may not be sufficient to adequately review satellite facilities. A proposal was discussed where
       satellite audits would be eliminated and every facility which needed accreditation would need to go
       through its own audit. The Task Group agreed in principle to this proposal but understood that
       there are still details which need to be addressed.

7.4    Checklist on Demand Status

       The Task Group was informed that Checklist on Demand (where each supplier would have its own
       unique checklist based on the full checklist, the processes performed and risk) has been put on
       hold. It needs to be discussed at a higher level to determine what the benefits would be and what
       the cost would be to get those benefits.

7.5    Audit Process for Non-Standard Tests



                                                       3
                                                                                                    COATINGS
                                                                                             FEBRUARY 2010
       Recently, an audit was performed where a supplier did not include a non-standard test in their
       scope which is an evaluation required by one of their customers. The customer followed up with the
       supplier who felt that since this was a new customer, they did not need to include this test. This test
       is also a test (residual stress) which is typically performed on the shop floor instead of the
       laboratory and this may also have caused some confusion. The word “Laboratory” has been taken
       out of the title of AC7109/5 which is used for Coatings evaluations. It was also proposed that
       “Laboratory and Shop Floor” be added parenthetically after the title of AC7109/5 to ensure
       understanding that coating evaluations on the shop floor are also included in this checklist.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis to add “Laboratory and Shop Floor” parenthetically to the title of AC7109/5 as an
editorial change. (DUE DATE: 31-MAR-10)

7.6    Quality System Requirements

       This discussion stemmed from the fact that an audit was failed for not providing a valid Quality
       System certification within 60 days after the end of the audit as they did not have a valid QS cert at
       the time of the audit. Per the requirements of NOP-002, failure to provide the certification within 60
       days of the end of the audit requires the audit to be failed without any further notice. In this case,
       the issue appeared to be with the Registrar as at the time of the audit, a letter was presented from
       the Registrar that all findings were accepted. This, however, is not a certificate. While the Task
       Group felt sympathetic toward this supplier, it was agreed that these are the rules of the program
       and should remain this way. It was proposed that maybe NOP-011 should be changed to allow the
       Task Group to waive the 90-day waiting period for the next audit under special circumstances.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis to discuss with other staff engineers a change to NOP-011 to allow the Task
Group to waive the 90-day waiting period for the next audit. (DUE DATE: 21-JUN-10)

7.7    Revised MTL Checklists

       It was noted that the Materials Testing Laboratories (MTL) Task Group is in the process of revising
       all of their checklists to incorporate new revisions to ASTM standards as well as ISO and other
       international specifications. While coating evaluations are different that material testing, there are
       some basic requirements and standards shared between the two processes. It was agreed that
       after the release of the Materials Testing checklists, the Task Group should review these to
       determine if any changes should be made to AC7109/5, Nadcap Audit Criteria for Coatings
       Evaluations.

7.8    Robot Programs

       More suppliers are using modern robot programs which control and monitor the entire spraying
       process, including powder feed rate, cooling air and others beyond just manipulation of the spray
       gun. A question was asked as to what are the expectations for documenting these parameters
       outside of the program. Do they need to be listed in the work instructions or shop floor paperwork if
       they are already in a Tech Plan and in the program? It was decided that as long as the parameters
       are documented in a Tech Plan or higher level document and the program is backed up and under
       revision control, it is not necessary to document all of the robot controlled parameters in the
       paperwork for the operators. The program must be called out.

7.9    Detrimental Trimming of Masking

       A question was raised as to what was “detrimental” trimming of masking. Could any scratch be
       considered bad, even if there are other scratches or if the part is to be machined? It was
       determined that because if the numerous conditions possible, the question asks for guidelines to
       prevent damage. The Task Group feels that auditors have the necessary knowledge to make this
       decision and Task Group resolution can be used if there are issues.

7.10   Prep for P&O Meeting



                                                     4
                                                                                                   COATINGS
                                                                                            FEBRUARY 2010
       The Task Group reviewed the agenda for the Planning and Operations Meeting. It was confirmed
       that the current plan is for Tim Pruitt to take over the Chair position at the October 2011 meeting. It
       was also decided that Coatings prefers to be able to have auditors accept findings on site. They
       have been given guidelines on not letting it interfere with the audit and the types of findings which
       can be accepted on site. The Task Group is happy with the way that findings are being accepted.
       Auditor access to specifications was also discussed and determined that this is not an issue for
       Coatings. It would be nice to have access to some of the standards, but there are so few industry
       standards and specifications in use for Coatings that it is not a major topic.

8.0    TASK GROUP TUTORIAL – OPEN

       Jim Lewis presented a tutorial to explain the functions of Nadcap and the Coatings Task Group,
       including the Code of Conduct and Ethics and Conflict of Interest, to participants.

9.0    NMC METRICS – OPEN

       The NMC metrics were presented by Jim Lewis and reviewed by the Task Group. All metrics
       exhibited an acceptable “green” stoplight condition except Task Group Cycle Time for
       Reaccreditation Audits which displayed a yellow condition and Supplier and Staff Cycle Times for
       Initial Audits and Number of Suppliers on Merit which were red. There was only one initial audit
       accredited in January which affected these metrics for cycle times.

       The Task Group has initiated several actions, including such things as sample operator tests, a
       glossary of coatings terms, pareto of top findings and analysis of frozen process violations to
       improve the number of suppliers on merit.

10.0   AUDITOR EVALUATION REPORT OUT – OPEN

       Jim Lewis led a review of data from PRI staff and supplier evaluations of auditors. There are no
       significant issues or trends.

11.0   PRIME JOB AUDIT GUIDELINES UPDATE – OPEN

       The Rolls-Royce Corp guidelines had been reviewed by the staff engineer and returned for
       modification. Bombardier has submitted guidelines which are awaiting staff review.

12.0   FUTURE TASK GROUP INITIATIVES – OPEN

       The Task Group reviewed the list of proposed agenda items to be addressed in future efforts. As
       the current focus is on checklist revision, there were no additions to the list. Anyone can send
       suggestions for consideration to Chair Jack Saunders or Staff Engineer Jim Lewis.

13.0   SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE REPORT – OPEN

       Dale Harmon, Coatings representative to the Supplier Support Committee (SSC), presented an
       overview of the SSC and items of interest from the SSC meeting. For complete details, see
       published minutes of the SSC meeting posted on www.pri-network.org.

14.0   Nadcap MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEETING REPORT – OPEN

       Jack Saunders updated the Task Group on items from the Nadcap Management Council (NMC)
       meeting. For complete details, see published minutes of the NMC meeting posted on www.pri-
       network.org.

15.0   DISCUSSION OF PLANNING AND OPS MEETING OUTPUT – OPEN

       Jack Saunders and Jim Lewis briefed the Task Group on the Planning and Ops Meeting from the
       previous day.


                                                     5
                                                                                            COATINGS
                                                                                       FEBRUARY 2010
       Task group chair succession from Jack Saunders to vice-chair Tim Pruitt (Rolls-Royce Corp) is
       scheduled for October 2011.

       The Task Group consensus is to keep using on-site acceptance of minor NCR’s, in response to a
       Planning and Ops query.

16.0   LETTERS TO PROMOTE MEETING ATTENDANCE – OPEN

       Ron Stewart shared a letter developed by a sub-team to promote meeting attendance by suppliers;
       the proposed letter was reviewed, discussed, and modified. The letter is intended to be sent by
       individual subscribers to their coatings suppliers to encourage increased meeting attendance.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis to attach the meeting attendance letter to eAuditNet Public Documents so it can
be downloaded by Subscribers. (DUE DATE: 31-MAR-10)

17.0   FAILURE CRITERIA REVIEW – OPEN
                                                                               th       th
       Annual review of the criteria for Mode B is required by NOP-011. The 95 and 98 percentile
       numbers were averaged to determine the number of findings per day. Initial audits shall have
       failure criteria set at 1.8 major NCR’s per day average and a total of 6.6 NCR’s per day average.
       Reaccreditation audits shall have failure criteria set at 1.05 major NCR’s per day average and a
       total of 3.75 NCR’s per day average. These decimals shall be rounded up to the next whole
       number. There is no cap to the number of findings.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis to forward new failure criteria to Mike Graham for inclusion in NOP-011. (DUE
DATE: 15-MAR-10)

18.0   DEVELOP AUDITOR TRAINING – OPEN

       Topics for annual auditor training to be conducted in October 2010 were discussed, including
       revision of audit scopes to include non-standard coating evaluations; revised checklists; prime JAG
       update; top NCR’s; top NCR variations among auditors; and general question and answer. The
       MTL Task Group will be asked if Coatings can provide training to the MTL Auditors for the revised
       Coatings checklist AC7109/5 for coating evaluations. Dale Harmon formally requested on behalf of
       suppliers that suppliers be permitted to attend at least some of the auditor training.

19.0   REVIEW OF MICROSCOPIC VISUAL INSPECTION SCOPE FROM AC7109/5 – OPEN

       Discussion of this topic included the definition and purpose of the item. Comments solicited from
       primes, auditors, and suppliers did not provide any consensus as to the purpose or definition. It
       was decided that this item will be removed from the scope of AC7109/5.

20.0   MICROANALYSIS CHECKLIST TEAM PROPOSAL – OPEN

       The team co-leaders were not present at the meeting, and no progress was reported.

21.0   REVISION OF COATING CHECKLISTS – OPEN

       Comments received during the balloting of AC7109 Revision C, AC7109 Revision C, and
       AC7109/5 Revision D, were reviewed and dispositioned by the Task Group. Some changes were
       incorporated. It was also determined that Section 9 of AC7109/5 should be reordered and
       regrouped. The Task Group agreed to the proposed changes but they were not made at the
       meeting as they were strictly editorial. The Task Group delegated Jim Lewis to make these
       changes and then send them out to the Task Group before balloting. Jim Lewis and Jack Saunders
       will review the checklists to determine if any technical changes were made and if so, if there are
       significant technical changes or not. If there are technical changes, the checklist will need to be
       reballoted to the Task Group for the changes made. Significant technical changes will require a 21
       day letter ballot instead of a 14 day affirmation ballot. If there are no technical changes, the
       checklist can be balloted to the NMC.
                                                    6
                                                                                            COATINGS
                                                                                        FEBRUARY 2010

       A priority list for completion of checklist revisions was created. AC7109/4, AC7109/6, and
       AC7109/7 will be reviewed at the Singapore meeting in June, in the order of priority. AC7109/1 and
       AC7109/2 will be reviewed at the Pittsburgh meeting in October. It is intended that AC7109/1 and
       AC7109/2 will be the priority for the October meetings even if the other 3 checklists have not been
       completed in Singapore.

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis will research the MTL Task Group requirements for hardness verification when
an automated hardness tester is used by multiple operators, relative to AC7109/5 section 8.4.4.1. (DUE
DATE: 21-JUN-10)

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis will reorder and regroup Section 9 of AC7109/5 based on suggestions in ballot
comments. (DUE DATE: 15-APR-10)

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis will send via email a re-ordered section 9 of AC7109/5 for Task Group review
prior to affirmation ballot distribution. (DUE DATE: 30-APR-10)

22.0   EXPECTATIONS/NEW BUSINESS – OPEN

       Participants expressed that expectations for this meeting were met.

       The Task Group identified non-standard coating evaluation tests not already listed in the scope of
       AC7109/5. Tests identified included cup test, Hoffman scratch, fusion, ball crater, Mercedes, lap
       shear, low cycle fatigue, thermal shock, electronic thickness measurement, abradable scratch, tape
       test, and a shear test used in Europe.

ACTION ITEM: Primes are to research the industry standards relative to non-standard tests required by
their companies and report to Jim Lewis. (DUE DATE: 30-APR-10)

ACTION ITEM: Jim Lewis will email the list of non-standard tests to primes and Task Group voting
members. (DUE DATE: 15-MAY-10)

23.0   REVIEW NEW ACTION ITEMS – OPEN

       Action items were documented by Secretary Dale Harmon. For specific details please see the
       Coatings Task Group Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com.

24.0   FACILITATOR FEEDBACK – OPEN

       The Task Group Facilitator Feedback form was completed. All felt that the meeting went well and
       the facilitators performed well.



        Nadcap Facilitator
       Feedback Form-CT 0210.pdf


25.0   JUNE 2010 MEETING AGENDA – OPEN

       Next meeting will be June 21-24 in Singapore. Proposed agenda items other than the standard
       items include: checklist revisions (AC7109/4, /6, and /7); update on microanalysis checklist
       requirements; auditor training topics; and non-standard coating evaluation tests. The agenda will
       be posted and accessible through the PRI website.

ADJOURNMENT – 25-Feb-10 – Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.




                                                    7
        COATINGS
    FEBRUARY 2010




8
                                                                                          COATINGS
                                                                                      FEBRUARY 2010


                                ***** 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:




                                                       9

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:71
posted:4/14/2011
language:English
pages:9
Description: Minutes of Meeting Samples for Singapore Companies document sample