opening comments – open€¦ · web viewthe fusion weld evaluation proposal is new but checks...

WELDING OCTOBER 2018

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTESOCTOBER 23-25, 2018

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA

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.

TUESDAY, 23-OCT-2018 to THURSDAY, 25-OCT-2018

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Welding (WLD) Task Group was called to order at 8.00 a.m., Tuesday 23-Oct-2018 by Steve Tooley.

Introductions were made and the roster circulated for completion by attendees.

Steve Tooley informed the Task Group that attendees must register for their names to appear in the minutes, and that name badges must be prominently displayed.

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

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Oscar Andersson GKN Aerospace Sweden AB* Lenora Bennett BAE System E&I* Alexandre Bourgeois Bombardier Aerospace

Daniel Calderwood BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd – AIR* Saeed Cheema Textron Aviation

Matthew Chott The Boeing Company* Craig Clasper Spirit AeroSystems* Gary Coleman The Boeing Company* Chris Davison Spirit AeroSystems* Rodney Deming Parker Aerospace Group* Andrew Dewhurst BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd – AIR* Chris English GE Aviation Secretary* Steven Garner Eaton, Aerospace Group

Laurent Geerts Sonaca* Milan Hanyk Honeywell Aerospace Vice Chairperson* Brian Harvey Gulfstream Aerospace* Jerry Hulin GKN Aerospace Filton* Michael Irvin The Boeing Company* Alex Joy GKN Aerospace Filton* Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines AG* Holger Krueger Airbus Commercial Aircraft* Peter Lang Pratt & Whitney* Scott Maitland UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)* José A. Moreno Airbus Defense and Space* Lyle Morris Raytheon

Peter Newton UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)* Eric Przybylowicz Honeywell Aerospace* Raman Ras Parker Aerospace Group


CONFIRMED

* Hana Renstrom Lockheed Martin Corporation* Paul Slater Rockwell Collins, Inc.* Takayuki Takahashi Mitsubishi Heavy Industries* Steve Tooley Rolls-Royce Chairperson* Andrew Toth Rolls-Royce* Akie Uchida Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* James Ahlemeyer Ducommun New YorkScott Andrews Icore International – Zodiac InterconnectGershon Bani AMK Welding, A Meyer Tool Company

* Joseph Beauchemin Jr LAI InternationalMark Blevins Fluid Conditioning ProductsJames Bonnell Icore International Inc.

* Graham Buswell SPS Aerostructures LtdDarryl Clark Crestview Aerospace

* Natalie Cullen Kreisler ManufacturingRichard Freeman TWI LtdRob Guido Conax TechnologiesCynthia Hagan NSL Analytical Services Inc.Mark Hammond Aavid ThermacoreLisa Heyl Lynn Welding Company, Inc.

* Chris Kielb Advance Welding* Kevin Klingelhafer Meyer Tool, Inc.

Shelly Lawless Meyer Tool, Inc.Robert Lewis Selmet Incorporated

* Grant Lilley DoncastersMatthew Lowry WCC AerobrazeChris Michaeli RFC Aerospace

* Angelo Monzo Barnes Aerospace Lansing DivisionKenji Nakamura IHI CorporationBob Olevson Veridiam

* David Osenar PAKO, Inc.Sophia Polosky Kreisler Industrial CorporationAmy Powers Meyer Tool, Inc.Chris Reed Ducommun

* Brian Reynolds ArconicJim Ringer Tech Met Inc.Beth Robison Ducommun, Inc.David Simon Barnes Aerospace Lansing

* Jackie Sternot PAKO, Inc* Junji Tsuji IHI Corporation

Martha Velasquez-Cota Micro-Tronics, Inc.Tino Volpe Senior Aerospace Metal Bellows

* Christopher Webb PCC Structurals Inc.Wilfried Weber PFW Aerospace GmbH

* Jack Winteringham ArconicAndrew Whitton The Timken Company

PRI / SAE Staff Present

Jennifer KornrumpfGabriel KustraIan Simpson


CONFIRMED

1.2 Safety Information – OPEN

The participants were notified of the meeting safety requirements.

1.3 Review Code of Ethics (Ref: Attendees’ Guide) and Meeting Conduct – OPEN

The Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct policies were reviewed.

1.4 Present the Antitrust Video – OPEN

The Antitrust policy video was shown.

1.5 Review Agenda – OPEN

Ian Simpson reviewed the agenda for the meeting. New business items were identified for inclusion in section 6.0 (closed meeting). No new business items were identified for section 21.0 (open meeting).

1.6 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes – OPEN

Motion made by Saeed Cheema and seconded by Michael Irvin to accept the June 2018 Nadcap meeting minutes. Motion passed.

1.7 Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) Review – OPEN

The RAIL was reviewed by Ian Simpson. Many of the action items are closed or are included in this meeting for further discussion. There are several action items with a due date prior to this meeting that remain outstanding:

308 – Subscribers to provide the details of Suppliers that they intend to have audited to the new Additive Manufacturing checklist. Some responses have been received, but this remains outstanding for the majority of Subscribers.

533 – Pratt and Whitney Auditor Conference training material. Unfortunately, Pratt and Whitney were unable to present at the Auditor Conference. The Task Group agreed to close this item and add a new action item for this when developing the 2019 Auditor Conference agenda.

545 – Create Annual reviews for auditors. The new annual report has only just been finalized, hence the reports have not yet been completed. Staff Engineers have started to collect the required data and have discussed with the Task Group Chair. Once the report format is finalized, this should be relatively easy to complete.

560 – Sub-team of Steve Tooley, Holger Krueger and Ian Simpson to review audits and provide required data to NMC on merit change. This was an action from the Nadcap Management Council (NMC) but was subsequently placed on hold due to the NMC needing to clarify requirements. This action is now required to be completed. See item 19.0.

617 – GE have identified the questions they need to add in the AC7110/5S (Fusion welding – supplemental requirements) checklist but have not yet provided the verbiage they require. GE did however provide their requirements at the meeting.

For specific details, please see the current WLD Rolling Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.

1.8 Staff Engineer Communiqué – OPEN

Ian Simpson presented a Nadcap Communiqué to the Task Group.


CONFIRMED

1.8.1 The next Nadcap Task Group meeting will be in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

1.8.2 A Summary of changes made to General Operating procedures since the last Task Group meeting was presented.

OP 1106 (Audit Report Processing) revised 17-Jul-2018 with an effectivity date of 17-Oct-2018. Added definitions for Non-Conformance Report (NCR) status; required NCR responses to be entered in the text box, require objective evidence to be provided as attachments, Reviewer to add rationale for rejecting the request to void an NCR, requires main and satellite audits to be sent to Task Group ballot at the same time, clarification of Verification Corrective Action audit process, addition of mechanism to resolve disapprovals on a second ballot, clarified post Task Group review process, defined Main Audit Certified.

OP 1108 (Pre-Assessment Audit Process) revised 21-Sep-2018. Clarified process for close out meeting and report submittal.

OP 1110 (Audit Failure and Risk Mitigation) revised 28-Aug-2018 with an effectivity date of 26-Nov-2018. Removed definitions for Risk Mitigation, Failure modes grouped, Mode D requirement for number of cycles moved to OP 1106 (Audit Report Processing), Mode E 120-day failure criterion removed, clarified actions when an AC7004 (Nadcap Audit Criteria for Aerospace Quality Systems) audit fails, added requirements for resolution of Task Group Review comments in Risk Mitigation, moved process for creating Mode B failures to Annex A.

1.8.3 A Summary of changes made to the WLD specific Operating procedures since the last Task Group meeting was presented.

OP 1114 Appendix WLD (Task Group Operation Appendix WLD) has been revised. Changes were primarily to align with the revised higher-level document, OP 1114 (Task Group Operation) and include: Reference to use of Job selection handbook; statement that failure to maintain delegation will be handled on a case-by case basis; re-structure verbiage with respect to merit and failure on main / satellite (editorial).

2.0 AUDITOR CONFERENCE – CLOSED

This year represents the first time that split Auditor Conferences have occurred. European and Asian based auditors were trained at the Auditor Conference in June 2018, and US based auditors received the same training immediately prior to this meeting.

The Task Group reviewed content and agreed that it had been an effective training session, with good feedback and questions from the auditors.

Based on the review of this conference, items identified by the auditors, previously identified training items, and the review of Auditor Consistency per OP 1117 (Auditor Consistency), the following items were noted for possible inclusion in next year’s Auditor Conference.

Subscribers to perform specific training on their requirements. Jerry Hulin and Rodney Deming stated that they would be interested in providing training next year. Jerry Hulin commented that he can include the perspective of both Subscriber and Supplier. There is also outstanding training from Pratt and Whitney. Although Dag Lindland was not present at the meeting he had informed the Staff Engineer that he is willing to provide this in 2019 due to the problems he had getting the material approved for this year’s conference.

Honeywell, Rolls-Royce, GE and Bombardier all requested to perform re-fresher training. Question and Answer session. AWS / ISO update, including updates on Additive Manufacturing from the relevant

standards committees for this process. This would also include resistance welding to AWS D17.2 as this specification has just been revised.

Changes to AC7110/4 (Resistance Welding). Opportunity for Auditor feedback on checklist content etc.


CONFIRMED

Training items resulting from OP1117 analysis. Sanitized data from Supplier feedback. Provision for face-to-face meetings with Auditors for annual reviews. Provision for NMC Audit Effectiveness. Handbook training – use of during audit and as part of audit preparation. Have an auditor develop training on time management. Training from Heat Treatment on System Accuracy Test and Temperature Uniformity

Surveys. Non-Conformance Report (NCR) writing re-fresher, specifically targeting NCR clarity and

reasons for why NCRs are voided. Weld Failures. Examples of where process control could have avoided these.

Due to a delay in the revised Annual Auditor Reports, no face-to face discussions with Task Group representatives occurred during the Auditor Conference.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to draft an agenda for the 2019 Auditor Conference for review at the February 2019 Task Group meeting. (Due Date: 19-Feb-2019)

3.0 AUDITOR EFFECTIVENESS – CLOSED

3.1 Review of OP 1117

The Auditor Consistency procedure (OP 1117) requires the Task Group to review several items as part of the process to monitor and ensure consistency among its Auditors.

The following items were discussed:

3.1.1 Annual Review of Auditors

Standardization of the Auditor Annual Reviews within PRI has only recently been completed. The delay has prevented the annual reports being completed in time for review at this meeting.

It is still anticipated that the annual reports will be completed before the year end. The new report format was reviewed by the Task Group and they agreed that this format meets their requirements. Staff Engineers have already started to collate the data and reviewed this with the Task Group Chair. The completion of the annual reports should be relatively straight forward.

Should an auditor request a discussion with a Task Group member, these will be arranged by WebEx / conference call.

The Task Group was reminded that the annual reviews will also no longer be posted in the Task Group private forum page. The Task Group will be able to review the Annual Reviews at Task Group meetings though if they desire.

3.1.2 Update on an Auditor’s performance and audit style

At the June 2018 meeting a deep dive investigation of a specific auditor’s performance and audit style was reviewed. At that time the Task Group concluded that there were not significant issues but wished to continue with periodic monitoring.

Ian Simpson was tasked with verifying the auditor’s time management was acceptable and Jerry Hulin agreed to review Supplier Feedback comments and auditor effectiveness.

Ian Simpson reported that there had been no issues with respect to time management, and Jerry Hulin reported that there were no issues with respect to the auditor’s effectiveness or audit style.

The Task Group was therefore satisfied that the goal of assessing this specific auditor’s performance had been completed and no further action is required.


CONFIRMED

3.1.3 Auditor Performance Data Set Charts

The current Auditor performance data set charts (NCRs per audit day, NCRs per checklist paragraph, red-line, and Auditor Variation) were reviewed by the Task Group.

Although no longer directly involved with the WLD Task Group, former Subscriber Voting Member, Mario Leclerc of Bombardier has been continuing to develop an assessment tool that primarily uses data from the standard NCRs per checklist paragraph chart. This modified assessment allows drill down on specific checklist and auditor data and has been found by the Task Group to be the most effective way of analyzing auditor performance. The Task Group requested all charts to be posted in the Task Group private forum in eAuditNet.The Task Group was reminded that these charts contain confidential data and cannot be forwarded beyond Subscriber members of the Task Group. Ian Simpson noted that it is possible that some charts may not be posted due to the new controls imposed on confidential data.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to verify which auditor effectiveness charts can be posted and subsequently post these in the Task Group Work Area in eAuditNet. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2018)

The Task Group did not identify any improvements that would be required in Task Group documentation (e.g. checklists or handbooks) as a direct result of this analysis.

3.1.4 Observation Reports

The Task Group reviewed 4 observations covering 4 auditors.

Except for the following comments, these reviews were deemed acceptable by the Observers.

One observation noted that the Auditor should request a copy of the Subscriber specification so that this can be referenced during the course of the job audit; that the introduction to Nadcap could have been a little more in depth; and that he may have jumped in a little too quick when noticing an issue thereby not being able to determine if it was a one-off or systemic issue. These items were communicated to the Auditor immediately after the observation. The observation also noted items that required clarification specific to the Subscriber. These were subsequently sent to the Staff Engineer and these were included in the revision to the AC7110/5 handbook that was issued in conjunction with AC7110/5 Rev I checklist.

Another observation also noted a number of items for improvement; based on the scope needing to cover multiple weld specifications for one of the Subscribers it would have been beneficial to discuss this more in depth at the scope verification in order to give a better appreciation of the job audits required to best cover the product type; items could have been explored in more depth (e.g. the audit did check on magnification and lighting conditions for visual inspection but did not chase down the Subscriber specifications which require minimum lighting condition, sensitivity checks, magnification requirements); it would be beneficial to request the specifications needed right at the start of the audit to help understand the customer’s requirements. Again, this information has already been sent to the auditor.

A further observation noted that due to multiple levels of documentation that control WPSs there might have been an NCR for lack of current definition on the job specific instruction. Again, the auditor was notified of this at the time the observation report was submitted.

The last observation noted that the Observer was not introduced. This has been a common theme and was included as an item in the Auditor Conference general training.

The observations did note items for improvement but also noted that the audit and auditor met the Subscriber’s requirements. As the items for improvement have already been passed onto the relevant auditors, the Task Group did not require any additional actions.


CONFIRMED

There were items noted in these observations that relate to changes in checklists. These are however open discussion items and were therefore added to agenda item 20.0.

3.1.5 Review of Supplier Feedback

Steve Tooley and Ian Simpson reviewed the Supplier feedback information and provided a summary to the Task Group. It was noted that auditor specific items and generic items that all auditors would benefit from had already been identified for inclusion in auditor annual evaluations and the Auditor Conference respectively.

The Task Group discussed a number of items. The majority are considered to allow improvements in the auditing methods of some auditors, however an incident of unprofessional behavior was noted. All items have been noted and included in the individual’s annual reviews. The Task Group reiterated that unprofessional conduct will not be tolerated and subsequently the following motion made:

Motion made by Michael Irvin and seconded by Rodney Deming to terminate an auditor. Motion opposed.

Motion made by Andy Toth and seconded by Hana Renstrom to submit a final written warning to this Auditor, addressing the concerns of professionalism and NCR writing skills and to communicate the plan to terminate if there are additional concerns/complaints raised by suppliers. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to discuss and follow-up with written warning to an auditor regarding his professionalism. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2018)

There was further discussion with respect to another auditor about excessive talking on non-audit related matters.

Motion made by Michael Irvin and seconded by Saeed Cheema to have discussion with an Auditor regarding excessive talking and storytelling during audits. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to discuss concerns with an auditor with respect to his excessive non-audit related discussions during audits. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2018)

Some Supplier comments related to not having sufficient feedback from the Auditor with respect to post audit actions. The Task Group noted that the information is in the General Auditor Handbook, but that it would be beneficial if a template of required items was used in both opening and closing meetings. Michael Irvin agreed to develop this.

ACTION ITEM: Michael Irvin to draft a template for content of opening and closing meetings. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

The next supplier review data will be available shortly after 31-Dec-2018. Steve Tooley, Milan Hanyk, Alexandre Bourgeois and Ian Simpson agreed to review and provide a summary at the February 2019 Task Group meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Steve Tooley, Milan Hanyk, Alexandre Bourgeois and Ian Simpson to review the supplier feedback data and present to the Task Group at the February 2019 meeting. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

3.1.6 Auditor Observation Plan

The observation plan for 2018 was developed at the October 2017 Task Group meeting using the prioritization tool that the Task Group has developed and was revised at the February 2018 meeting.


CONFIRMED

Since the plan was developed one of the new hired auditors has resigned, hence the revised plan requires 4 risk and 7 new auditors to be observed. It should be noted that the Task Group have hired an additional new auditor, but as this is very recent hire, the new auditor has not yet been added to the plan. It was noted that this auditor has already been observed.

The Task Group reviewed the Observation Plan to establish progress. To date, of the 4 identified risk Auditors, 2 have been observed. Of the 7 new Auditors (this was 8 but has reduced to 7 based on the resignation of one new Auditor), 5 have been observed. It was however noted that 2 further observations are scheduled before the end of the year that will reduce the gap between planned and completed observations.

The Task Group was reminded of the OP 1117 requirements and that failure to observe the defined Auditors will require declaration to the NMC. Subscribers were therefore encouraged to observe those identified Auditors before year end.

The Task Group was also reminded that there are several auditors who are not high risk but have not been observed for a number of years. These auditors are defined as ‘Routine’ in the Observation plan and should take precedence to those with no annotation.

Ian Simpson provided a demonstration of how eAuditNet can be searched to find the required auditor’s schedules. Subscriber members noted potential audits that they could observe.

The Task Group used the prioritization tool to establish those auditors for observation in 2019. Based on the scoring, there are 4 auditors identified as high risk, and an additional 5 new auditors who will need to be observed. (This number is expected to change based on trainee auditors becoming approved, and if any of the currently listed new auditors are observed before the end of 2018). Any new auditors will be added for observation as they are hired. The plan will be reviewed again at the February 2019 meeting once all 2018 observations have been completed.

The Observation plan needs to be revised based on the prioritization tool data. The Staff Engineer was actioned to do this.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to update the Observation plan to incorporate the prioritization scorecard information and post in the Task Group work forum. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2018)

3.1.6 Review Dashboard

The dashboard metrics, as required by OP 1117, were reviewed. Three of the four metrics are green, however the Observations Completed metric is yellow. To be green this metric requires that 75% of the planned observation have been completed by this meeting. At this time 64% of the planned observations have occurred. There are still 4 planned observations required this year. Two of these have an identified Observer, however there are 2 without Observers identified.

The Task Group was reminded that failure to meet the plan will require the Task Group to notify NMC.

3.1.7 Identify Training Needs for Auditors

The review of data defined here, and from section 2.0, has resulted in a number of training items at the 2018 Auditor Conference. The Task Group also identified a number of items for consideration in the 2019 Auditor Conference.

3.1.8 NMC Annual Report

The Task Group drafted the Annual NMC review and actioned Steve Tooley to submit this to the NMC. It was noted that the report should be revised to reflect the end of year Observation status before it is submitted. Steve Tooley agreed to revise as necessary and then submit to NMC.


CONFIRMED

If the auditors identified for observation cannot be observed by the end of 2018, the report will show the Task Group failed meet their observation plan. The report will serve as notification to the NMC on this item.

ACTION ITEM: Steve Tooley to submit WLD’s annual Auditor Effectiveness report to the NMC. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2019)

3.1.9 Actions required by NMC Audit Effectiveness Team

The NMC Audit Effectiveness project is nearing completion.

There is one item that the NMC sub-team still require information on:

Audit Language: obtain feedback from Auditors regarding difficulties when the audit is conducted in a language not spoken by the Auditor.

NMC asked for feedback to be obtained during Auditor Conferences.

Ian Simpson discussed with Auditors at the June Auditor Conference and provided to the NMC. This was also discussed at the October Auditor Conference, and Ian Simpson will provide feedback to the NMC.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to provide audit language feedback information to the NMC. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2018)

3.1.10 OP 1117 items not requiring review at this meeting

There are a number of items that OP 1117 requires the Task Group to review on a periodic basis. All of the items were reviewed at the February 2018 Task Group meeting; hence the following items were not reviewed at this meeting:

Audit Report Reviewer feedback Communication plan Weld specific appendix to the Observer form Weld specific training Proficiency testing

It was confirmed that none of these items require change at this time. Full review of these will occur at the February 2019 meeting.

3.1.11 Chris English presented on NCRs that he considered to be non-value added. This was discussed in the closed meeting due to specific auditors being cited. Once it was determined the types of NCRs that were causing concern, the discussion was halted and added to item 20.0, for further discussion in the open meeting.

3.2 Auditor Status

The Staff Engineer gave an update of new auditor candidates and the status of process restriction removals for current auditors.

It became evident during a process restriction interview that we need a method to bring auditors up to speed with current technology when they are trying to have restrictions removed. In the case identified the auditor did have experience in the processes however this was many years ago. The auditor had also seen the processes in use during a training audit and did understand the theory, but the interview team could not allow the candidate to move forward and asked that the Task Group discuss this item at this meeting.

Before implementing a new process, the Task Group wished to have data on which processes / process combinations could cause issues and asked the Staff Engineer to provide data.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to create an Auditor process qualification gap matrix for review at the February 2019 Task Group meeting. (Due Date: 19-Feb-2019)

The Staff Engineer also asked about previous decisions with respect to auditors becoming approved for Additive Manufacturing (AC7110/14). The Task Group have allowed auditors who have approval for electron beam or laser welding to be trained (in theory and practically), and once the exam is passed to become qualified without the requirement for an interview. The Staff Engineer enquired if the Task Group would be willing to allow auditors without electron beam or laser approval to be approved for Additive Manufacturing. In this case the Staff Engineer suggested that once training is complete and the exam passed, an interview be conducted which would then bring the candidate back in-line with the traditional process restriction removal process.

Motion made by Andy Dewhurst and seconded by Jerry Hulin to revert to the defined process restriction approach for auditors without laser or electron beam processes approval when attempting to have their Additive Manufacturing restriction removed. Motion Passed.

The Task Group were also asked if they would approve the Staff Engineers to conduct Additive Manufacturing audits. The Task Group recognized that both Ian Simpson and Gabe Kustra had been significantly involved in the development of the checklist as well as the auditor training, and as such agreed to this, without any requirements such as interview, exam or training audits being imposed. It was however noted that this should only be utilized in back-up situations.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to remove process restriction of AC7110/14 for Ian Simpson and Gabe Kustra. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2018)

4.0 SUPPLIER ADVISORIES – CLOSED

4.1 Review of Advisories since June 2017 Nadcap Meeting.

6 Supplier Advisories have been issued by the WLD Task Group since the June 2018 Task Group meeting; #3164, #3168, #3177, #3186, #3202 and #3220. Advisory #3177 was subsequently retracted after a successful appeal. These were reviewed by the Task Group.

4.2 Review of Subscriber Advisories.

No Subscriber Advisories were brought up for discussion by the Task Group.

5.0 STAFF ENGINEER DELEGATION – CLOSED

5.1 Review of Staff Engineer Delegation

The Staff Engineer reviewed data for Audit Report Reviewers using delegation oversight form t-frm-07, which includes percentage oversight by the Task Group, percentage of NCRs concurred with by the Task Group, minimum number of audits per year, and other items pertaining to audit completeness. All requirements of OP 1115 (Delegation of Audit Report Reviewer) were met for the delegated Audit Report Reviewers and the following motions were made:

Motion made by Saeed Cheema and seconded by Michael Irvin to maintain Ian Simpson’s delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Saeed Cheema and seconded by Michael Irvin to maintain Gabe Kustra’s delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Saeed Cheema and seconded by Michael Irvin to maintain Mike Gutridge’s delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Saeed Cheema and seconded by Michael Irvin to maintain Wayne Canary’s delegation. Motion Passed.


CONFIRMED

6.0 NEW BUSINESS – CLOSED

6.1 Demonstration of functionality between Letter ballots and Audit ballots

Steve Tooley asked the Staff Engineer to provide a demonstration of eAuditNet functionality to enable newer Subscriber Voting members to note the difference between letter ballots and audit ballots. In subsequent discussion it was noted that ‘Letter ballots’ is no longer a term utilized in OP 1101 (Document Control). Ballots requiring Voting Members to vote on are now called ‘Approval Ballots’.

7.0 REVIEW MEMBERSHIP STATUS – OPEN

7.1 Confirm Any New Voting Member Applications

The following requests for additions or changes to voting membership were received and confirmed by the Task Group Chairperson pending verification of PD 1100 requirements. The Nadcap Membership form, m-frm-01, were completed as necessary.

Subscriber Voting Member: UVM Supplier Voting Member: SVM Alternate: ALT Task Group Chairperson: CHR Vice Chairperson: VCH Secretary: SEC

New Voting Members:

First Name Surname Company Position: (new / updated role)

Meetings Attended(Month/Year)

Natalie Cullen Kreisler SVM Oct 2017 Oct 2018

Chris Davison Spirit AeroSystems

ALT/UVM Feb 2018 Jun 2018

Steve Garner Eaton ALT/UVM Oct 2017 Oct 2018

Kevin Klinghafer Meyer Tool SVM Oct 2017 Oct 2018

Takayuki Takahashi MHI ALT/UVM Jun 2017 Oct 2018

Junji Tsuji IHI SVM Oct 2017 Jun 2018

A m-frm-01 was submitted by Stan Revers to become a SVM. Stan was previously SVM for Senior Aerospace – Thermal Engineering. PD 1100 allows the voting status to be retained by the individual when they transfer to another Supplier but requires the Task Group Chair to reconfirm the person. Steve Tooley wishes to know what Stan can offer the Task Group in his new position. As Stan was not present at this meeting, Steve stated he was not prepared to simply grant SVM status at this time. When Stan provides this information, Steve will reconsider allowing the SVM status to be transferred.

The following attendees noted that this is the first time they have attended, and it is their intention to become voting members in the future:

Matthew Chott - Boeing Chris Michlaei - RFC Aerospace Bob Olevson - Veridiam Tino Volpe - Senior Aerospace - Metal Bellows


CONFIRMED

7.2 Review Compliance with Voting Requirements of Present Voting Members

The compliance to voting requirements per PD 1100 was reviewed.

It was noted that Rodney Holt of Triumph had now missed 3 consecutive meetings. Steve Tooley stated that he would contact Rodney to establish if there were any reasons that would allow for continued membership.

In terms of balloting, the review identified that AMPP, BAE Systems E&I, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd – AIR, Leonardo Helicopters, and Raytheon all missed 2 consecutive letter ballots. (It was noted that BAE Systems E&I, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd – AIR and Leonardo Helicopters were delinquent at the June 2018 meeting and had received Chair agreement to maintain voting status based on commitment to future ballots. There has only been one approval ballot since June 2018 and this was again missed. The agreement from the Chair in June did not allow 2 additional ballots from that date to be missed, hence not voting on this approval ballot has caused the delinquency to show again). PD 1100 requirements have not therefore been met in order to retain membership.

During the discussion it was noted that there has been confusion based on changes in OP 1101 that changed ‘Letter ballot’ to ‘Approval Ballot’. Andrew Dewhurst noted that he has set rules in his e-mail account to specifically highlight e-mails with ‘Letter Ballot’, and as such now automated e-mails are titled ‘Approval Ballot’ these notifications have been missed. Based on this Steve Tooley agreed to maintain all Voting Members who have not met the requirements for voting on Approval ballots.

ACTION ITEM: Steve Tooley to contact Rodney Holt to determine if there are mitigating circumstances that warrant his membership status to be maintained even though he has not met the minimum attendance requirements of PD 1100. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2018)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to remove voting status of Rodney Holt if no / inadequate response is received with respect to his future meeting attendance commitment. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2018)

Since the June 2018 Task Group meeting, the Voting status of Phillipe Corre has been removed. Per the actions defined at the June 2018 meeting, the Task Group Chair requested Phillipe to provide reasons why his voting status should be maintained. No response was received, and the Task Group Chair therefore chose not to maintain Phillipe’s voting status.

Grant Lilley has moved to a new company and per PD 1100, the Task Group Chair allowed voting status to be maintained at the new supplier.

Voting Membership Removed: The following people had their voting membership removed due to not meeting requirements

First Name Surname Company Ballot Response Met (Y/N)

Meeting Attendance Met (Y/N)

Philippe Corre Airbus Helicopters

No No

Changes to Voting Memberships Since the Last Meeting:

First Name Surname Company Position:(new / updated role)

Grant Lilley Doncasters – SVM (transferred voting status from prior


CONFIRMED

Southern Tool Supplier)

All changes are pending completion of all required steps on the Nadcap Membership Form (m-frm-01).

ACTION ITEM: PRI to make changes to Voting status as noted in the table within the minutes. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2018)

8.0 SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE (SSC) REPORT – OPEN

8.1 In the absence of Bruno Roost, Ian Simpson presented the SSC report. The report gave information on the SSC role, current activities, the mentoring program, Business Development Tool, SSC Helpdesk, and SSC initiatives and events. The SSC provides an avenue for Suppliers to have input and give feedback to the Nadcap program and provides answers and support for Suppliers who have questions and problems.

The SSC sponsored events at this meeting include keys to a successful audit, eAuditNet supplier tutorial, and how to become a Supplier Voting Member (SVM).

The SSC 2017 Supplier Survey closed on 28-Feb-2018. Since the survey closure the SSC Leadership Team have been reviewing and analyzing the results. These were presented at the SSC General Meeting on 19-Jun-2018. The survey results assist the SSC Leadership Team in identifying Supplier needs and define the direction the SSC needs to move forward with.

An Auditee Communication kit is now sent to all auditees when an audit is scheduled.

Items with respect to Supplier news included, changes to the SSC leadership, update on the 2017 Supplier Survey, update on actions from prior meetings, status of requested improvements (‘Watch list’ for accreditation status, multiple eAuditNet contacts, NCR editing prior to audit submittal), changes to the SSC Operating procedure, update on technical symposia, proposal for new NMC core checklist and its contents.

9.0 NMC METRICS – OPEN

9.1 Ian Simpson reviewed the NMC metrics, including:

Accreditations Issued/Lapsed, Eligible Merit, On-Time Certification, Staff Cycle Time Initial, Staff Cycle Time Reaccreditation, Task Group Cycle Time Initial, Task Group Cycle Time Reaccreditation, Supplier Cycle Time Initial, Supplier Cycle Time Reaccreditation. All metric charts for the period ending 31-Aug-18 were green, except Task Group Cycle Time for Reaccreditation, which was yellow. This non-green metric has been previously discussed and the Task Group chose to take no further action.

The Staff Engineer also noted that the monthly metrics (Jun-2018, Jul-2018 and Sep-2018) since the last Task Group meeting were reviewed and no red metrics have occurred in these months.

10.0 SPECIFICATION CHANGES – OPEN

10.1 Gary Coleman provided an update on the status of American Welding Society (AWS) specifications.

AWS D17.1 (2017) – The need for a 2nd amendment has been identified to correct Table 5.5 and the footnotes of table 7.1. The intent is for this amendment to be issued before year end. Work has already started on a 4th edition although this will not be released until 2020/2021. This will include items from recent enquiries and items that were deferred from the last revision.


CONFIRMED

AWS D17.2 – 3rd Edition has just been released. The major revision items are visual acuity testing and personnel training (operators performing testing, metallographic evaluation and visual inspection). Some new business items have been identified.

o Clarify intent of Design Certification and Standard Certification Methods.

o Address definition of “Coring”. Coring is defined but not referenced in specification.

o Review Table 10 for applicability, Table 12 for acceptance criteria, tables do not align.

o Annex for UT inspection of resistance welds being considered.

o Definition of Production Time – continue to clarify intent.

o Address process completion and rework of nonconforming welds.

AWS D17.3 - 3rd edition is being worked on. Section 8.2 being revised to allow WPS qualification on identical machines with limited testing; commentary section being written for joint tracking, joint line remnant (residual oxide defect), exit hole closure, inspection frequency of stir tools. Section 8.2.3 being revised to add test specimen configuration and acceptance criteria. Scott Rose is a new co-chair for this sub-committee.

The next AWS D17 Committee meeting will be in conjunction with FABTECH, 6-8-Nov- 2018 in Atlanta, GA, USA.

Holger Krueger presented updates for ISO/TC44/SC14 (Welding in Aerospace) and ISO/TC261/JWG5 (Additive Manufacturing (AM) in Aerospace)

The following items were noted for ISO/TC44/SC14.

Eyesight requirements agreed, and alternatives are to be implemented into standards when they are next revised.

ISO 24394 (Welder and welding operator qualification test). This is in final draft status.

ISO 17927 (Fusion welding of metallic components in aerospace). Part 1 is in Draft International Standard ballot. Part 2 draft has finished and will be sent on Draft International Standard ballot.

A process specification for brazing of metallic aerospace components has been approved as a new project (ISO/PWI 22161). The initial development will be based on the existing DIN 65170.

A future new standard on electron beam and laser beam welding can be started once the existing EN 4677-001 is withdrawn.

Linear and orbital friction welding are potential future processes; however, the proprietary nature of these processes means that this might not be pursued.

The following items were noted for ISO/TC261/JWG5 (Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace)

This new Joint Working Group first met in October 2017.

The working group has already agreed to work on the following items;

o Acceptance testing of powder-bed fusion AM machines for metallic materials for aerospace. This project is approved (ISO ASTM NP52941) and will be based on DIN 35224.


CONFIRMED

o Qualification of operators for AM powder bed equipment used in aerospace applications. This project is approved (ISO ASTM NP 52942) and will be based on DIN 35225.

o Process specification for direct energy deposition used in aerospace applications. A DIN Committee is currently developing a specification that can be used as the basis for this process, and will become ISO ASTM PWI 52943.

o Process specification and quality requirements for aerospace hardware produced with AM. This specification will be ISO ASTM PWI 52944.

o The Committee are observing the status of a European standardization project on mechanical properties of additively produced metallic products.

A draft on ‘Additive Manufacturing – System performance and reliability – Standard test method for acceptance of powder-bed fusion machines for metallic materials for aerospace application’ was completed and will be sent on a 3-month Draft International Standard ballot. At this time this standard will be specific to laser beam equipment; electron beam machines will be covered in the future using the same concept.

An ISO joint group, JG 72, are intending to address control plans for machines and facilities covering initial acceptance testing, fixed process, lower and upper process limits.

Discussion on a draft for ‘Qualification of operators for AM powder bed based equipment used in aerospace applications’ continued. It was decided to add electron beam machines operators to the scope. This was finalized and will go on a 3-month Draft International Standard ballot.

The Chairman of ISO/TC261/JG74 has presented a concept for qualification of personnel. It was agreed that ISO/TC261/JWG5 will continue to work on operator qualification for powder bed Additive Manufacturing. The JG74 group will prepare a document for Direct Energy Deposition.

The next ISO Committee meetings are planned for 9 to 11 April 2019 in Hamburg, Germany. The Welding Committee will meet 11-Apr-2019 and the AM Committee will meet 9 to 10-Apr-2019.

Gary Coleman and Holger Krueger gave permission for the AWS and ISO Committee updates to be posted in eAuditNet. This will be added to the Public Documents section for Welding (Resources / Documents / Public Documents / Task Groups / Welding / Data Folder).

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to post the AWS and ISO Committee update presentations in eAuditNet. (Due Date: 30-Nov-18)


CONFIRMED

11.0 REVIEW REVISION TO AWS D17.2 – OPEN

11.1 At the June 2018 meeting, a sub-team of Holger Krueger (Sub-team Leader), Marco Poletto, Dag Lindland, Paul Slater and Gary Coleman was assigned to start the review of the resistance weld checklist AC7110/4. The sub-team was actioned to review the incorporation of items from the rolling action item list, review of comments made from a draft Task Group Corrective Action Report (TGCAR), and key items that are likely to be implemented based on the forthcoming revision of AWS D17.2. The sub-team reported on their actions to date. All rolling action item listed items have been addressed, the advanced notification items from the change to AWS D17.2 have been addressed, and the TGCAR was reviewed but based on lack of clarity only minor changes have been suggested based on this. The Task Group reviewed changes proposed to date and made some minor modifications. The sub-team noted that additional work is now required as the new revision of AWS D17.2 has been formally issued. This will ensure any additional changes are reviewed and incorporated where necessary. The sub-team will therefore remain in place and will report again at the February 2019 meeting. Milan Hanyk and Andy Toth requested to be added to this sub-team.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to include agenda item for review of AC7110/4 checklist revision to the February 2019 agenda. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Sub-team of Holger Krueger, Marco Poletto, Dag Lindland, Paul Slater, Gary Coleman, Milan Hanyk and Andy Toth to continue with the review of the AC7110/4 checklist and provide update at the February 2019 Task Group meeting. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

12.0 REVIEW PROPOSALS FOR WELD EVALUATION

12.1 At the June 2018 Task Group meeting, Marco Poletto agreed to provide a proposal for revision to the existing resistance weld evaluation, and to provide a proposal for a new fusion weld evaluation. This was based on a comment from an Audit Observation that noted these items could be better assessed by the auditors if the Task Group provided additional guidance on what was required.

Marco was not present but had provided these to Ian Simpson to present. The resistance weld evaluation essentially expands on the existing evaluation. This was reviewed and there was agreement that this proposal would add value. It was noted that some modification is required to note dimensions of where the spots per unit length, and overlap are measured. Andrew Dewhurst volunteered to make these changes. Once these are complete this figure will replace the existing figure used in the AC7110/4 handbook.

ACTION ITEM: Andrew Dewhurst to make changes to the proposed resistance weld figure to define dimensions of where spots per unit length and overlap are measured. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to replace the existing resistance weld evaluation with the one proposed by Marco Poletto and subsequently modified by Andrew Dewhurst. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

The fusion weld evaluation proposal is new but checks on features seen in fusion welding and touched upon in the metallurgical evaluation sections of both AC7110/5 (fusion welding) and AC7110/12 (welder and welding operator qualification). This was reviewed by the Task Group however it was rejected as the existing evaluations contained in AC7110/5 and AC7110/12 were recognized as already being acceptable.

13.0 AUDITOR CONFERENCE SUMMARY – OPEN

13.1 The Auditor Conference was held the weekend preceding the Task Group meeting. The Staff Engineer presented a summary of the items / discussions that occurred, which included:

Auditor Consistency including recap of OP 1117 and Supplier feedback comments.


CONFIRMED

Update on Audit items: Auditor Advisories, Checklist revisions, Handbook revisions, NMC Audit Effectiveness (audit language), Time to provide objective evidence, WPS setting traceability, Self-audits, Job audit selection.

Lockheed Martin, Textron Aviation, Airbus, and GE specific training. Update on specification revisions (AWS and ISO). Audit preparation. On-site audit introductions / protocol. How to deal with difficult suppliers. NCR writing re-cap. Orbital Tube Welding.

There were technical discussions on:

Use of AWS D17.1 qualification for weld repair of castings Fillet weld size when not defined in the flow down

The following suggestions for checklist revision were made:

Do not require an NCR when non-procedural checklist questions have not been answered in the self-audit. OP 1105 (Audit Process) requires all questions to be answered in the self-audit. Ian Simpson has already asked the document owner for consideration. This is being raised to NMC for consideration. No changes can therefore be made at this time.

Is it possible to collapse data collection fields in the job audit once the job has been identified as Export Controlled? Noting ‘Export Controlled’ in each of these fields is redundant. Ian Simpson will investigate if this is possible.

Can GE please add their unique requirements to the AC7110/5S checklist for orbital welding. Subsequent to this GE have provided the information they require. There is an action in item 20.0 for this checklist to be balloted now that this information has been received.

Can the Task Group review the use of the word ‘control’ as used in AC7110/5 paragraph J.4 for tack welding? This is included in discussion in item 20.0.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to investigate if it is possible for Export Control data entry fields to collapse once a job is identified as Export Control. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

Other discussion items: Design Authority Suppliers. These types of suppliers can effectively write their own

specifications and it can be difficult to audit knowing that industry standards are not being met. The Task Group does recognize this but notes that to gain a Nadcap accreditation all checklist items must be met. Also, as part of the NMC Audit Effectiveness Committee’s work, Task Groups are to define what types of product are to be welded. The Job Selection Handbook published by WLD states that for an initial audit the Supplier must weld parts to an Industry Standard specification in these situations and as such new Design Authority Suppliers must be able to demonstrate they meet industry requirements.

When to use superseded specifications. As noted in prior discussions and per the guidance in the AC7110 handbook the WLD Task Group cannot provide guidance here as this is specific to the Subscriber and contract that is flowed down.

When an Observer receives information from the Auditor it would be beneficial to receive recognition. The Task Group Subscriber members acknowledged this and noted that they would do this in the future.


CONFIRMED

14.0 AUDITOR ADVISORIES – OPEN

14.1 No Weld Specific Auditor Advisories have been issued since the June 2018 Nadcap Meeting:

As per an action from the June 2018 meeting, Advisory 10-003-WLD relating to special application qualifications for welders has been cancelled. When investigating the relevant paragraphs in AWS D17.1 revision 2017 to issue a new advisory for this item, it was evident that AWS had incorporated the items that the original advisory was issued for. Gary Coleman confirmed that AWS had acted based on the inquiry that was raised at the time, and as such it was determined that a replacement Auditor Advisory was not required.

14.2 Potential new Auditor Advisories

Ian Simpson has been in discussion with SAE Technical Consultant Kevin Groeneveld with respect to an interpretation question on AMS 2694 (In-process Welding of Castings). The question which originated from a Nadcap auditor is regarding the welder qualified thickness when the test piece in Figure 1 is utilized. Kevin Groeneveld has discussed this with AMS Committee Members and advised that the thickness ‘t’ as noted in paragraph 3.8.5.5 relates to the actual weld thickness (i.e. in Figure 1 from right hand side to left hand side this equates to 1/8”, ¼”, ½”, 9/16”). Based on the fact that an auditor had asked for an interpretation, the Task Group discussed whether an Auditor Advisory was required. Casting suppliers noted that it is rare that the standard test piece is used, and on this basis the Task Group elected not to issue an Auditor Advisory.

15.0 ADDITIVE MANUFACTURE – OPEN

15.1 Richard Freeman gave an update on the status of Additive Manufacturing (AM).

At this time 5 Suppliers have been accredited to AC7110/14. Airbus again confirmed it has mandated this process. No other Subscribers have yet mandated.

There has been an open action item since February 2016 for Subscribers to provide details of Suppliers that they would wish to be audited, mandates that are likely to be made, and timescales for audits. To date, there has been very little information provided by Subscribers in terms of potential mandates and the number of Suppliers likely to require an audit.

As per an action from the June 2018 meeting, the sub-team has reviewed comments from the rolling action items list and identified revisions to the AC7110/14 checklist. None of these were considered significant enough to warrant a change to this checklist at this time. There were changes that can be made to the associated handbook which the sub-team agreed to incorporate and forward to Ian Simpson for issue. The Task Group agreed that handbook changes proposed by the sub-team can be implemented without any further review of the entire Task Group.

ACTION ITEM: Additive Manufacturing sub-team to incorporate changes to the AC7110/14 handbook and forward to PRI for issue. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2019)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to issue the updated AC7110/14 handbook. (Due Date: 31-Jan-2019)

The plan for qualifying further auditors was reviewed with the Task Group. Two additional European auditors were trained in theory at TWI’s facility in April 2018 and practical training at GKN’s Filton facility in August 2018. These auditors subsequently completed the exam and have had their restriction removed against this process.

US auditor training is being conducted in conjunction with the October Auditor Conference. Practical training occurred off-site at a machine manufacturer’s facility, and theoretical training was conducted immediately after the conference by Richard Freeman. These auditors will be forwarded the exam for completion. Upon successful completion, those with electron beam and / or laser weld qualification will have the restriction removed with no further action required. The one auditor who has undertaken the training that does not have approval in these weld processes


CONFIRMED

will undergo the formal process restriction route and have an interview with the Task Group, as previously noted in item 3.2.

It was noted that at this time there is still no specific need for collaboration with the Materials Testing Group (MTL), however both sub-teams remain in place for when there is a need to further discuss testing requirements.

Historically, due to the non-existence of Industry Standards controlling the AM process, the Task Group has developed the checklist based on common Subscriber requirements. The Task Group is however aware that Industry Standards are starting to be issued. The expectation at this time is that there will likely be 2 to 3 Industry standards available in 12-18 months’ time. The Task Group agreed that assuming this comes to fruition that it would be prudent to review the checklist against the standards once multiple ones are available. It was noted that if there is a delay, the sub-team will start to review the checklist against the standards available at that time.

The need for checklists to assess additional Additive Manufacturing sub-processes was discussed. Ian Simpson noted that although there had been much desire to create the existing checklist, and many Subscribers participated in its development, without mandates the number of audits is low. The cost of development, especially with respect to training of auditors has been high and as such to enter the arena with a further checklist will require Subscribers to have a firm commitment (including mandates) before this is enacted on.

Holger Krueger specifically asked if the Task Group would be willing to support the development of a checklist for non-metallic materials. Based on the prior discussion Subscribers were asked to assess if they have a need for a checklist to cover this.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to determine if they have a need for an Additive Manufacturing checklist for non-metallic materials. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

16.0 FORUM FOR SUPPLIER ISSUES – OPEN

16.1 With regard to borescope inspection of tubes (to be audited as part of AC7110/5 Supplement M), a supplier commented that an auditor without at least cursory borescope inspection knowledge might have a hard time understanding the images that are often seen during borescope inspection. It is well known that newer borescopes have exceptional clarity, and this can sometimes result is those with an ‘untrained’ eye to question minute details of the image. The Task Group response to this is that AC7110/5 Supplement M is new, and they need to accumulate some experience and data from audits / auditors. If the concern raised by the supplier becomes an ongoing issue, it will be addressed with auditors. In the meantime, the Task Group will continue to provide some high-level training to auditors covering ‘typical’ tube weld defects.

17.0 DISPOSITION OF OP1114 APPENDIX WLD BALLOT COMMENTS – OPEN

17.1 Provision was made in the agenda to review and disposition any comments resulting from the ballot of OP 1114 Appendix WLD (Additional Task Group requirements for welding). The procedure was balloted successfully with one editorial comment in the Task Group ballot, and subsequently no comments in the NMC ballot. As such the procedure was issued. As there were no changes affecting accreditation there was no requirement for a 90-day effectivity.

18.0 CREATE NMC FEEDBACK CHART – OPEN

18.1 The Task Group generated the feedback chart for presentation by Steve Tooley at the NMC meeting.

19.0 NMC MEETING REPORT – OPEN

19.1 Steve Tooley gave a summary of key items that were discussed in the Planning and Operations meeting and NMC meeting. Key items were:


CONFIRMED

Audit Effectiveness update. This is coming to its conclusion and going forward is being incorporated into the new NMC sub-team for Continuous Improvement. The only outstanding work reported is on audit language – issues where the auditor speaks a different language to the Supplier. The NMC team has asked for feedback from all the commodities at the Auditor Conference and will be analyzing this information.

Auditees without aerospace work. Controls implemented to define the job audit requirements, the need for Subscriber customers to be identified, and a designation in the Qualified Manufacturer’s List (QML) denoting if aerospace hardware was not used in the audit. Ian Simpson was asked to determine if this notation in the QML is checklist or audit specific.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to establish if the eAuditNet enhancement that notes in the QML if job audits were used is checklist specific or related to the audit as a whole. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

A proposal to revise a major NCRs criterion from ‘Evaluate product impact’ to ‘Actual or Potential product impact’ is being implemented. The NMC however require some additional work to verify that this will not significantly impact the number of suppliers on merit. Task Groups were therefore requested to analyze 5% of audits from the prior year against the new definition to see what effect this would have. This was previously requested but placed on hold until further NMC actions were completed. As there is already an outstanding action on this no further action item is being added.

Annual Auditor Consistency reports. These are provided to the NMC every year, however to date Task Groups have not received any feedback. Since the June meeting the NMC have reviewed and noted some items for review. Going forward this will be handled by the new Continuous Improvement NMC sub-team.

Relocation of handbooks. This has been delayed while PRI investigated the possibility of a wholesale change to the documents posted in eAuditNet. While it is noted that significant change to document structure is required, this is a large task and hence the decision to move the handbooks to be adjacent to the checklists will be made and then further revisions made in the future. PRI are still determining if this move would cause any permission violations for those who post the documents. Once this is resolved the change will be made.

An outstanding action for several meetings has been to establish if there is any inconsistency in how failures are handled. The vast majority of Task Groups reported that there are no issues. However, an NMC team is to analyze a few isolated issues.

Mario Leclerc has been working with PRI to develop the auditor evaluation tool. Mario was invited to the P&O meeting to demonstrate. This was well received by other Task Groups.

The following items were noted in presentations from other Task Groups in the NMC meeting:

Metallic Material Manufacture (MMM) Task Group are investigating if a checklist to control powders used in AM is required.

Fluid Distribution Systems (FLD) are developing a checklist to cover tube / pipe manufacture.

Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) are developing Visual Inspection and Computer Tomography checklists.


CONFIRMED

20.0 CHECKLIST ITEMS – OPEN

20.1 Status of AC7110/5

Ian Simpson noted that the fusion weld checklist, AC7110/5 Revision I was issued on 11-Sep-2018 with an effective date of 06-Jan-2019. The handbook that supports this new revision has also been issued.

At the June 2018 meeting, GE stated that they required the supplemental checklist AC7110/5S revising to add additional requirements for the new Orbital weld section of AC7110/5. GE have identified the questions from AC7110/5 Supplement M that require additional questions but have not yet provided the actual questions they wish to ask. Other Subscribers were asked if any changes were required. Honeywell and BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd – AIR provided changes to the Staff Engineer. Once GE provides their revisions, the AC7110/5S checklist will be balloted.

Subsequent to this discussion, GE have provided their requirements for the AC7110/5S checklist.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to incorporate changes to AC7110/5S as provided by Subscribers and ballot to the Task Group. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

20.2 Handbook Revisions

Several handbooks were revised based on actions from the June 2018 Task Group meeting. Changes for the majority of these were defined in actions in the June 2018 minutes. The handbook to support AC7110/5 Revision I was also completed post June 2018 meeting. This was assigned to a sub-team and quorum achieved. Per the June meeting, the Task Group agreed that the sub-team could develop the handbook as required based on the revision to the checklist. Ian Simpson provided a summary of the changes made and reviewed specific changes as requested by the Task Group.

The Staff Engineer noted the following items for discussion relating to possible handbook revisions:

Andy Toth proposed verbiage to state that NCRs for violations against Subscriber fixed process approvals should only be issued after discussion with the relevant Subscriber Task Group representative. After some discussion the following motion was made:

Motion made by Michael Irvin and seconded by Alexandre Bourgeois to make a change to the Handbook that no NCR should be issued against data cards approved by the Engineering Authority, and that in instances where errors are found these should be noted in the Auditor Notes section of the audit. Motion Passed.

There are several paragraphs in the handbook where this verbiage is applicable.

Scott Maitland proposed that a clarification be made in the AC7110/5 handbook against paragraph I.1.2.d to note that ‘against’ means with reference to and not attached to. This was agreed by the Task Group

Milan Hanyk requested a change in the intent of M.1. The current verbiage states it applies to manual welds as well as automated. The Task Group had previously agreed that this supplement was for automated orbital welding and that if any Subscriber requires it to be applicable for manual welding they should address this via the associated supplemental checklist. Hence the Task Group agreed to this revision. Subsequent discussion ensued about the applicability of the new Supplement M, specifically the use of the terms ‘orbital’ and if the supplement is limited to tubes. The original sub-team was actioned to address these items. Note that Chris English will lead based on the impending retirement of Les Hellemann, and Andrew Dewhurst is added to the team.


CONFIRMED

The AC7110/5 Rev I handbook team suggested copying the guidance that has been added against paragraph 3.1 (Customer Specifications) into all handbooks where this question is applicable in the corresponding checklist. The Task Group agreed to this but noted that this question should be added to the core checklist and then removed from each of the process checklists going forward. In addition, a note is to be added at the start of the job audit section to remind auditors to note the revision level being used and the connection between the original definition and the in-use specification / revision.

Andy Toth requested discussion about applicability of recording resistance tack weld production tests in the weld register. Andy’s proposal is that resistance tacking when used as a manufacturing aid does not require to be recorded in the weld register. The Task Group agreed and provided verbiage for the AC7110/4 handbook.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add verbiage to all handbooks that support process checklists to note NCRs should not be issued against deviations to Fixed Process Control, and instead provide details of any issues in the Auditor notes section of the audit summary. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to issue an Auditor Advisory to note NCRs should not be issued against deviations to Fixed Process Control, and instead provide details of any issues in the Auditor notes section of the audit summary. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2019)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add clarification verbiage to the AC7110/5 handbook with respect to what ‘against’ is referring to in para I.1.2.d. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add verbiage as used in the AC7110/5 handbook at para 3.1 into all handbooks where the corresponding question exists in the checklist. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add verbiage at the start of the job audit section in all process handbooks to note specification revision is required to be defined, and that the link between original definition and what is being used, should these be different. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to issue an Auditor Advisory to note at the change in handbooks at the start of the job audit section that requires specification revision to be defined, and to state the link between original definition and what is being used, should these be different. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2019)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson remove the reference to manual welding in the AC7110/5 handbook at para M.1. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add clarification verbiage to the AC7110/4 handbook with respect to recording resistance tack weld information in the weld register. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2018)

ACTION ITEM: Chris English, Andy Toth, Saeed Cheema, Christopher Webb, Jim Ahlemeyer, Marco Poletto , Eric Przybylowicz, Rod Deming, Jackie Sternot, Ralph Kropp, Natalie Cullen, Gary Coleman, and Andrew Dewhurst to review the AC7110/5 handbook with respect to orbital definition and if the intent is to limit to tubes or not. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

20.3 Checklists Revisions

The following items have been submitted and included in the rolling list of items for requests on checklist revision.

Suggestion to revise terminology in questions 6.1.1 to 6.1.3 in AC7110/5 (These questions apply in other process checklists as well). The suggestion is to replace ‘Welding Schedule’ with ‘Welding Procedure specification (WPS)’ and replace ‘welding procedure’ with ‘process specification for welding’. The Task Group rejected this proposal.


CONFIRMED

Suggestion to include a question in AC7110/12 (welder / welding operator qualification) that verifies the correct tube diameter is included in the qualifications. Task Group rejected this proposal citing that it is already covered by paragraph 3.23

Suggestion that AC7110/3 (electron beam) and AC7110/6 (laser) weld checklists in the header for paragraph 13 have the standard verbiage of ‘Compliance – This job audit is only required for a modified scope audit’ added. This was agreed.

Suggestion to add requirement for Certificate of Conformity (for filler material) into paragraph F.2 (AC7110/5). The Task Group rejected this proposal.

Suggestion that the stress relieve supplement is not required if the Supplier already holds a Heat Treatment accreditation. The checklist is already structured in this manner, and hence proposal rejected.

Suggestion that AC7110/12 addresses disqualification criteria. The Task Group have previously discussed this and as no consensus was reached, Boeing added questions in the AC7110/12S supplemental checklist. Proposal to change the AC7110/5 checklist was rejected. Any Subscriber who requires to verify this item can utilize the questions already in use by Boeing.

Suggestion for revision to AC7110/5 paragraph M.1 to recognize that programs may be set based on tube size / thickness not necessarily part number. Andy Dewhurst was invited to join the sub-team to present his case.

Suggestion to ask questions to test metallurgical assessments for production welds in electron beam and laser checklists. Proposal agreed for inclusion at next revision.

Suggestion to remove a job compliance note that has become redundant when the question that asks if the job audited is Export Controlled was added. This was agreed.

Suggestion to change the word ‘control’ in AC7110/5 paragraph J.4 as it is confusing to non-native English speakers. The Task Group noted that adequate explanation already exists in the handbook and as such the proposal was rejected.

Suggestion to determine if AC7110/4 is appropriate for heat shield manufacturers. The Task Group noted that the audit verifies process control and is not a product audit. As such this is an issue to be resolved between the Supplier and the Subscriber to determine if they can be exempt from any mandate. Subscribers were tasked with reviewing and determining if they should be mandating AC7110/4 on this type of supplier.

Suggestion to move AC7110/5 paragraph 3.1 from the process checklist to the core checklist. This was agreed by the Task Group. Once AC7110 is revised, the question will be removed from the process checklists at their next revision.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers mandating AC7110/4 for heat shield manufacturers need to verify that the checklist is valid. If not, the mandate needs to be removed. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

20.4 Revision to base checklist AC7110

As noted in the June 2018 minutes, the Task Group have deferred making changes to align with the revised checklist template since NMC are in the process of developing a common checklist to be used for all commodities.

The NMC have provided Task Groups with the intended verbiage for 3 new questions on Change Management and asked each Task Group to develop guidance for when these questions are introduced. The Staff Engineer showed these questions to the Task Group and explained the background for why NMC wished to include these types of questions.

It was noted that comments about these were made at the Planning and Operations meeting, and that these may change based on this discussion. On that basis the Task Group decided to wait for final verbiage before making any attempt to provide guidance.

20.5 Requests made at Auditor Conference for checklist / handbook revisions

All items were discussed in either item 13.1 or 20.3.


CONFIRMED

20.6 Non-value-added NCRs

Chris English continued the discussion he started in the closed meeting so that Suppliers could understand his concerns. Several examples of questions where he sees this as an issue were presented. In most cases the questions are considered acceptable, however guidance in the handbook could be improved. A sub-team of Chris English, Mike Irvin, Gabe Kustra, Christopher Webb, Natalie Cullen, Jackie Sternot, Scott Maitland and Oscar Andersson agreed to review further.

ACTION ITEM: Sub-team of Chris English, Mike Irvin, Gabe Kustra, Christopher Webb, Natalie Cullen, Jackie Sternot, Scott Maitland and Oscar Andersson to propose Handbook changes where non-value-added NCRs are being issued. (Due Date: 20-Feb-2019)

21.0 NEW BUSINESS ITEMS – OPEN

21.1 No new business items were identified.

22.0 FEBRUARY 2019 AGENDA – OPEN

22.1 Several items from this meeting will require additional time during the February 2019 meeting. Standard items for the February meeting include complete review of OP 1117 requirements, annual review of Top 10 NCRs, annual review of Frequently Asked Questions, annual review of OP 1110 Mode B failure criteria. Additional time is still required to complete AC7110/4 review of the handbook supporting AC7110/5 Supplement M, and revisions proposed based on the non-value-added NCR sub-team.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to develop an agenda for the February 2019 meeting based on the items of the October 2019 agenda, include any items that the Task Group includes on an annual basis, inclusion of time to complete review of AC7110/4, proposals for handbook changes related to non-value-added NCRs, Orbital weld sub-team handbook update. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2019)

23.0 REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS – OPEN

23.1 All action items were reviewed for proper assignment and due date.

24.0 REVIEW OF MEETING EFFECTIVENESS – OPEN

24.1 The meeting was considered to be effective in meeting its goals.

25.0 NEXT MEETING – OPEN

25.1 As the NMC meeting will be on Thursday, the Task Group requests to meet Tuesday to Thursday. Hence the meeting will be 19-21-February-2019 in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

ADJOURNMENT – Thursday 25-Oct-2018 – Meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Chris English, [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]