OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSED - Performance Review …



UNCONFIRMED MINUTESFEBRUARY 19 - 21, 2019NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, USAThese 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, 19-FEB-2019 to THURSDAY, 21-FEB-2019OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSEDCall to Order / Quorum Check – CLOSEDThe Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) Task Group was called to order at 8.00 a.m., 19-Feb-2019 by Steve McCool.It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS with a valid badge were in attendance during the closed portion of the meeting.Introductions were performed.A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)NAMECOMPANY NAME*PhilippeBarreBombardier Aerospace*AndreBartheSAFRAN GROUP*PeterBartschPremium AEROTEC GmbH?AnnieBujeaultHeroux Devtek Inc?AlanChattersRaytheon*DavidCohnThe Boeing Company*MarthaCordovaThe Boeing Company*RichardCostantinoCollins Aerospace (Goodrich)?YannikDufourSonaca SA*MattEstepTextron Aviation*StevenGarnerEaton Aerospace Group*NicolasGarrigouSAFRAN Group*FredericGirardPratt & Whitney Canada?Greg GoldhagenCollins Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand)*Jim GravesRolls-Royce Corporation*LuisGrijalvaLockheed Martin Corporation*HarryHahnGE Aviation?YusukeHamada Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.*TerryHamptonRaytheon Company?KenHarrisonBAE Systems Air & Information*JohnIleyAirbus Commercial Aircraft*YoshiharuKuzeMitsubishi Heavy Industries *Marc-André LefebvreHeroux-Devtek, Inc.*FredLutzSpirit AeroSystems?DavidMailesSonaca*GiacomoMaioneLeonardo S.p.A. Divisione Velivoli*SteveMcCoolHoneywell AerospaceVice Chairperson*FabrizioMontagnoliLeonardo S.p.a. – HelicoptersSecretary*PatricNilsson-AlveblomGKN Aerospace - Sweden AB*DaleNorwoodParker Aerospace Group*Justin PayneTextron Aviation*KylePlatzbeckerCollins Aerospace (Rockwell Collins)*RobertRainoneCollins Aerospace (Goodrich)*DavidRoycePratt & Whitney*Uri SolIsrael Aerospace Industries*MichaelSpeerAirbus Helicopters?NormanTremlayLockheed Martin - Sikorsky Aircraft?AkieUchidaMitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.*AndyWilliamsGulfstream Aerospace Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)NAMECOMPANY NAME?LindaAdkinsHaynes International Inc*ChristopherAndersenPrecision Castparts*AnitaAndrewsJames Fisher NDT Limited?UmitAytarTAI?DavidBullardHi-Tech Metal Finishing*GrahamBuswellSPS Aerostructures Ltd?DouglasCampionAero Turbine Inc*Claude ChambonAubert & Duval?GenaroChicoShimadzu Precision Instruments?CarlaCrawfordLevel 3 Associates?CathyDalyArconic?ShivDassMagellan Aerospace Processing NY?SharonDavisNortheast Testing & Mfg, LLC.?Mario DiPaolaDucommun Inc?ThomasFletcherArconic Engines*RichardGassetLISI Aerospace*DavidGrayMitchell Laboratories Inc.?ChristophHenkelAMAG Rolling GmbH?Fabienne HéronBabb Co?SaraKarrSMC Aerospace*DonKleinArrow Gear?JeremyKruegerBarnes Aerospace?YanickLavalleeArconic - RTI Claro*ShellyLawlessMeyer Tool, Inc.*GrantLilleyDoncasters?EmilyLonghoferLee Aerospace Inc.*SharonMackPM Testing Laboratory Inc.*JosefMaiervoestalpine Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG?TevisMaloneyTriumph Fabrications - Phoenix*ZacharyMedeirosTimken Aerospace?CarmenMejiaShimadzu Precision Instruments?AlexanderMeltonDelta TechOps?ScottMinadeoVoss Industries*Dave MitchellComposite Inspection Solutions?BenMoidellVoss Industries?JeffreyMonksThe Equipcon Group*BlairO'ConnellElement Materials Technology?DavidPaganPCC Structurals Inc?JoeyParkDt&C?PaulPetersenMetal Finishing Company*VittoriaPianeseLeonardo Aerostructure?DanielPoschmannAMAG Rolling GmbH*CurtPowellPCC Structurals?AmyPowersMeyer Tool, Inc?JonQuinlanWeber Metals Inc.?BethRobisonDucommun Inc Parsons KS*YeseniaRomeroAluminum Precision Products?BrunoRoostFranke Industrie AG*Eric ShawHexcel Corp?ToddSibeliusHayes International, Inc.?James SiegerValence Surface Technologies?DonnaSaurezUmbra Group?MichaelSzaroletaCrestview Aerospace LLC?PatrickTallquistArconic*Buket TopelTEI Tusas Engine Industries*SavasUlucanLISI Aerospace*IsraelVasquezLinear Motion?JenniferWaldrepDoncasters Southern Tool?AprilWatsonHYTEK FINISHES*Gary WhiteOrbit Industries Inc.?DonaldWilsonKaman Composites PRI Staff Present PhilipFordElizabethStranoSafety information:Reviewed Fire Exits in Meeting RoomInform PRI Staff Person of any EmergenciesReviewed Code Of Ethics (ref: attendees’ guide) and meeting conductPresented the Antitrust Video (only @ the first open and first closed meeting of the week for each Task Group)Review of the Agenda for the meeting in New Orleans done by Phil FordAcceptance Of Meeting Minutes – OpenThe minutes from the October 23 – 25, 2018 meeting in Pittsburgh, USA were reviewed, and a single change required before being approved as written. Section 8.0, second bullet last line states “this item was clarified to be sent to the Penetrant Method Team” the “Penetrant” needs to be changed to “Magnetic”.Motion made by Frédéric Girard and seconded by Dave Cohn to approve the minutes from the Pittsburgh, USA meeting. Motion passed.ACTION ITEM: Staff to update the Nadcap Meeting Minutes Section 8 with the term “Penetrant” being replaced by “Magnetic”. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)REVIEW DELEGATION STATUS – CLOSEDLiz Strano presented the Staff Engineer Delegation, which shows 100% staff delegation. The t-frm-07 was not presented as agreed by the Task Group.Motion made by David Cohn and seconded by David Royce to continue Staff Engineer delegation for all reviewers. Motion Passed.TASK GROUP REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS - CLOSEDPhil Ford presented the NDT Task Group Resolutions items.Supplier Advisory #3228 (associated NDT Audit #182416) was raised after a self-disclosed finding, based on this disclosure most Nadcap commodities suspended or withdrew the Auditee’s accreditations. The Nadcap Management Council (NMC) reviewed all data and consistency between commodities and recommended that all Task Groups withdraw the Auditee’s accreditation. It is a recommendation, but any different decision needs to be justified to the NMC. David Cohn asked the reason why the NDT Task Group did not withdraw the accreditation at the previous meeting. The investigation performed by Airbus Helicopters revealed that there was no requirement to look for cracks on those parts, so it was closed and managed directly by Airbus Helicopters. David Royce stated that if there is no requirement to look for cracks and the cracks were not detected than that was not an issue, the NDT Task Group should not suspend or withdraw the accreditation based on something that is not required. Furthermore, David Cohn stated that any further decision on this requires more information. Steve McCool pointed out potential ethical behavior involved in this issue. David Royce agreed with David Cohn because NMC’s request appears driven by other reasons more than a deviation from Subscriber requirements.Motion made by David Cohn and seconded by Dave Royce to withdraw the accreditation of audit #182416. Motion 1 abstention, 99.9% negative. Motion not carried.The general consensus from the NDT Task Group was a disagreement with the approach used because more details are needed to evaluate the entire circumstances.Motion made by David Royce and seconded by David Cohn for the NMC to provide additional circumstances about this issue. Motion Passed.After the above motion, Richard Blyth came in the meeting to explain and provide further details about this issue: the feeling that this occurrence was not just an isolated case but a potential systemic situation involving the Auditee’s management, which forced the NMC to decide that this issue can be detrimental for the Nadcap program. The main concern was that this issue was declared by the Auditee after a strong pressure that led to a self-disclosed finding, so the fact that it was forced, led to consider a further ethical issue based on a cultural approach put in place, which could be also applied in other commodities. This was the reason the NMC requested each Task Group to withdraw the accreditation in all commodities.Mark Aubele furthermore reported the fact that the Auditee was strongly encouraged to declare its self-disclosed finding by other companies. This behavior loses ethical trust in the general approach of any technical matters.Motion made by David Royce and seconded by Harry Hahn to withdraw the current accreditation after NMC clarification and at the recommendation of NMC. 15 positive, 4 negative, 1 abstention. Motion Passed.ACTION ITEM: Staff to withdraw the current accreditation for audit #182416. (Due Date: 01-Mar-2019)Patric Nilsson-Alveblom (GKN Aerospace Sweden) discussed the Type C, Supplier Advisory #3231 and the associated suspension of the NDT audit #181885 accreditation. GKN received a number of non-conforming products from the sub tier Supplier. It was stated that GKN found the presence of linear indications detected during visual inspection and at penetrant testing on those parts where a clear NDT requirement is defined. A batch of 145 parts already inspected and approved by the Auditee was sent to another NDT Supplier. All parts sent for second scrutiny were reviewed and considered defective. Many causes of this situation were evaluated: operator did the inspection very quickly, proper tools were not used, evaluation was not performed correctly, operators were not aware of the applicable acceptance criteria. GKN suspended the Supplier’s certificate of approval. It was reported that the Auditee has introduced some corrective actions to avoid the repetitive issue. Steve McCool asked if GKN was confident in the corrective actions and it was reported that GKN has stopped using the Auditee for the moment. Justin Payne stated that the original advisory was raised by GKN, not Nadcap, so this appears to be a scenario that is out of Nadcap NDT Task Group scope because the NDT Task Group should now put in place actions based on an Subscriber audit, not a Nadcap audit; the Task Group could ask for a new audit to verify the same that was achieved in the previous audit without real added value. Steve Garner proposed a Verification of Corrective Action (VCA) audit on the GKN findings and David Royce stated that a VCA cannot be performed or a suspension done based on a finding that is not managed by Nadcap. Ralph Kropp (MTU) clarified the correct flow down of activities: Nadcap audit, issue of eventual findings and the Subscriber is required to inform the Task Group if they find deviations or issues that may impact on the Nadcap accreditation, so it is correct that the NDT Task Group has to decide what to do in this case. GKN was surprised about the fact that the Nadcap audit did not find this, but it was stated that this is probably due to the parts presented during the audit and that NDT Auditors are not to carry out inspection of the parts. Justin Payne said that Auditors cannot find everything so we cannot expect this to happen. David Royce stated that even if many efforts were in place to avoid this situation, there could always be a certain probability that these situations will happen. Phil Ford clarified that a VCA audit is typically done on a specific issue, not in the case of a full audit. Ralph Kropp (MTU) said that, based on the evidence provided by GKN, the Auditee has training and procedural issues, so they need a full audit, not a VCA. Steve McCool asked to the Task Group what the general consensus is (VCA or full audit). Phil Ford added that the Auditee has a suspended accreditation and to have a full audit would mean that the Task Group would need to withdraw their current accreditation.Motion made by David Royce and seconded by Andre Barthe to withdraw the Auditees accreditation for audit #181885 approval. Motion Passed. 1 abstention.ACTION ITEM: Staff to withdraw the current accreditation for audit #181885. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)Motion made by Jim Graves and seconded by Steve Garner to perform a full audit based on the previous Nadcap audit (all methods and AC7114) of the Auditee. Motion Passed.Steve McCool highlighted 5 findings raised against the Nadcap checklist: the nature of the findings were that they should have been detected previously. He encouraged the Task Group to share this type of information if they happen in the future with other Subscribers.Steve McCool asked for a general feeling of a basic examination to be performed for Level 3 qualification to be done just once. The discussion took place and the general consensus was that it is the choice of the employer.Phil Ford reported that an Auditee had made a mistake in scheduling their Nadcap audit #182418: it was scheduled for 18-22 Feb 2019. On Jan 21st PRI received an e-mail to reschedule the audit due to medical issues of the inspectors missing. They rescheduled the audit to April 2019 (first option). As PT and MT are located in the Chemical Area, in error, they rescheduled the Chemical audit instead of the NDT audit. Now they have rescheduled their NDT audit in April. The Auditee is requesting an extension of previous audit #168255 of 90 days to the current accreditation.Motion made by David Royce and seconded by David Cohn to grant 90 days extension of their actual accreditation. Motion Passed.ACTION ITEM: Staff to extend the current accreditation for audit #168255. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)NEW BUSINESS – CLOSEDPhil Ford requested a clarification regarding an ISO17025 accreditation. He asked if the NDT Task Group needed to see the NDT scopes listed in the schedules of an ISO17025 certificate.Motion made by David Royce and seconded by David Cohn to state that we do not require the NDT scope in the ISO17025 certificate as only the Quality System portion was required. Motion Passed.ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to notify Jim Lewis of the Task Group decision. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)Phil Ford informed the Task Group that Chris Stevenson will be retiring so he will leave the RT Method Team Chair position open. Staci Patterson-Bright of Eaton Aerospace could be his replacement and she is in principle agreeable and available. Further confirmation will be needed for her official availability for the June 2019 Paris meeting.ACTION ITEM: Staff to correspond with Staci Patterson-Bright to ensure she is able to attend the Nadcap meetings. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)David Royce asked for details regarding an Auditor who was terminated due to their absence from the Auditor Conference. PRI Staff explained that Auditors shall participate at the Auditor Conference and that their contract can be terminated at any time and especially when training is confirmed then missed with no reason. No actions or clarification are required from the Task Group.TASK GROUP REVIEW OF AUDITS – CLOSEDLiz Strano presented 1 Overturned Failure and 1 Failure (too many findings).OP 1117 AUDITOR CONSISTENCY - CLOSEDLiz Strano presented the Auditor Consistency report.OP1117 was reviewed: all conditions are green except for Subscriber Observation Audits. In February just one observation was performed but not actually included in eAuditNet, 0 out of 12 targeted observations have been completed; 5 observations of the 12 listed are scheduled. Another 5 observations are in place but not on the Auditors in the list. An email has been sent by Staff requesting the change of observations, but no change of plan was performed. Another relevant issue was raised regarding Auditees who deny the presence of the Observer. Steve McCool asked Gary White to inform Auditees about the expectations of the Nadcap program for their availability to accept observations. The selection of Auditors was presented.Phil Ford clarified that Observations are not to be used as a review of the Auditees site and the rules defined in OP1117 need to be followed. The requirement is to perform the observation of an Auditor.David Cohn presented the Auditor Consistency Team’s work with the target to create a team of highly motivated and competent Auditors performing the audit in the best way. A detailed analysis was shown regarding several items of improvement to be shared with the NDT Task Group looking for feedback. Steve Garner requested details related to the process behind the approval of an Auditor and Liz Strano summarized the steps to be eligible as an Auditor. Steve Garner pointed out that he didn’t find any issues from a technical point of view for Auditors but, in his experience, the most relevant issues are related to the auditing process itself. No other specific issues were identified/proposed by the NDT Task Group.Phil Ford presented, just for information, a matrix that came out from Planning & Ops last October at the Pittsburgh meeting regarding audit consistency and reporting method. PRI will send the file “Non-Destructive Testing Auditors Evaluation Tool” with instructions to the Subscribers to see how this tool works and the Auditor Consistency group will use it to determine if there is an issue with an Auditor. This file will be considered confidential so shall not be copied or distributed.ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to send the report out to all Subscriber Voting Members. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)Phil Ford reported on the Task Group Corrective Action Request (TGCAR) process, which is still in a trial stage. An NDT TGCAR was raised against an Auditee and Auditor. Part of the corrective action is to discuss the actions taken with the NMC. Staff have worked with the Auditors and Louis Truckley to put controls in place and questions in the checklist to resolve the issues. PRI Report / RAIL / NMC Metrics / New Members Presentation - OPENPhil Ford presented the “New Membership presentation”.Liz Strano presented the PRI Staff Report stating that we are continuing to review Auditor candidates, especially unrestricted Auditors. There are currently 63 Auditors and 4 Staff Engineers. 1 Auditor in training, no new approved Auditors since October 2018, no upgrading and 1 loss. Auditor Observations were presented explaining the reason for the “red” status. Staff delegation was also presented showing Staff at 100% Staff Engineer delegation. It was reported that 63 out of 1150 NCR’s were voided, 30 were voided by the Subscriber Customer as the Auditee has shown they met the requirement, 5 as they were combined with other NCR’s, 24 duplicated in main and satellite or AQS audit and 4 were raised by the Subscriber and then voided as the Auditee was able to prove they met the requirement. Three new Auditor Advisories were issued in 2019 covering Subscriber updates and the pre-cleaning specification issues.Liz Strano presented the Rolling Action Item List (RAIL), which shows just two items still open, method of addressing the NDT TGCAR is still ongoing and the NMC checklist questions. Steve McCool and Phil Ford are still working to add one question to the AC7114 checklist to avoid the additional questions from the NMC; this activity is still on-going.Clarification Data Base - OPENAndy Bakewell is going to retire so there is a need for his replacement. Phil Ford presented the Clarification Data Base (CDB), pointing out that this tool is available in eAuditNet for information. Phil Ford and Steve McCool asked for a volunteer to replace Andy. No volunteers are available; the potential last Nadcap meeting with Andy Bakewell’s presence will be October 2019.Supplier Report & Discussion - OPENGary White presented the Supplier Support Committee (SSC) Task Group Report.Nadcap and NDT Procedure Review - OPENLiz Strano presented the NDT procedures review. No updates in Appendix 1114 and Appendix 1116.Liz Strano presented changes to OP1101 rev 18-Dec-2018, OP1101 rev 06-Nov-2018, OP1103 rev 18-Dec-2018, OP1112 rev 19-Oct-2018, OP1113 rev 31-Jan-2019, OP1116 rev 01-Nov-218, OP1120 rev 05-Oct-2018, OP1121 rev 25-Jan-2019, OP1122 rev 26-Nov-2018, OP1123 rev 07-Nov-2018, OP1124 rev 19-Oct-2018. Phil Ford presented changes to OP1107 rev 14-Feb-2019.Technical Issues and Open Discussion Items - OPENSteve Garner presented the case of an Auditor that raised an NCR due to the impression of inadequate UV-A light level in the rinsing station (excess penetrant removal); highlighting that a minimum intensity UV-A value should be considered in the PT checklist. There is no fixed value requirement in the checklist but some of the Subscribers do have supplemental questions, so these could be used to include an agreed value to avoid such situations. A discussion was raised analyzing the actual requirements of different Subscribers. It was stated that the ASTM E1417 requires an adequate condition without specifying values leaving this to the Subscribers.Motion made by Dave Gray and seconded by Fred Lutz to consider 100 microwatts / cm2 with white light at 10 foot-candles or less or at least 50 microwatts / cm2 with white light at 2 foot-candles or less. 10 abstentions, Motion passed. This motion will be added to the Document Change Spreadsheet (DCS).Motion made by David Royce and seconded by Rick Gasset to consider the check of lighting condition in the rinsing station as weekly. 11 abstentions, Motion passed. Add in DCS.ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to add the item to the DCS and checklist. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)Phil Ford explained the scenario related to the “Visual Inspection” checklist. After a feedback from an e-mail, it has been shown that some Subscribers were interested in the Visual checklist so there is a need of volunteers to prepare this checklist. The following will be part of the Ad-Hoc team: Jim Graves, Patric Nilsson-Alveblom, Steve Garner, Chris Stevenson, Steve McCool, Christopher Andersen, Tevis Maloney, Grant Lilley, Dave Marcyjanik (Staff Engineer).ACTION ITEM: Staff to set up a new Ad-Hoc team and add to the presentation. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)Phil Ford reported that NDT was asked by the NMC if they wished to add new questions in the checklist to address “Remote Inspections” where an NDT test house performs “on wing inspection”. The intent is they will get the accreditation for a remote facility to do on-site inspections. Phil Ford asked, “Is the Task Group interested in adding these types of questions to cover this case?” John Iley from Airbus stated they were interested in this issue; Jim Graves is also interested considering they are requiring Nadcap in R&O; Israel Vasquez pointed out that limitations to on-site audits must be considered for the safety of auditors. The Task Group is looking for new volunteers to put in place the “Remote Service Provider” checklist and the following names were collected: Jim Graves, Dave Mitchell, John Iley, David Cohn, Chris Stevenson, Israel Vasquez, Gary White, Fabrizio Montagnoli, David Gray, Ken Harrison, Mark Aubele (Staff Engineer).ACTION ITEM: Staff to set up a new Ad-Hoc team and add to the presentation. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)A discussion was held on Tuesday the 19th in the Chemical Processing (CP) Task Group about the etch checklist. Chemical Processing will remove pre-penetrant etch to incorporate all etch in one document. AC7108/15 will be deleted and included in the AC7108/2. Frederic Girard said that there were some issues on AC7108/2 and that the method team requires to put together all the questions in one checklist, but the different requirements of each Subscriber could lead to additional supplemental questions. Liz Strano showed the modifications done by CP on the MOU such as: AC7108/2 will be maintained by the CP Task Group but balloted to the NDT Task Group for comment and the AC7114/13 checklist will be maintained by the NDT Task Group but balloted to the CP Task Group for comment. Both Task Groups will develop training for PRI Auditors and Audit Report Reviewers. Liz Strano presented the AC7114/13 changes anticipating the potential need for supplemental questions. General info is the same as before, minimum of one job audit is required for each etch inspection method. The Auditee shall do in any case 3 job audits if they have less than three etch methods. Section 3: 2 hours formal training on the job training, experience of 20 hours. Israel Vasquez questioned the previous requirement of 40 hours that now becomes 20 hours, but Frederic Girard explained that they left the minimum requirement having now the possibility for supplemental questions. A discussion took place about color perception for what is considered adequate for this inspection; in particular it was suggested that the need to look for gray scale more than near vision acuity for etch inspection. Jim Graves said that in Rolls-Royce they ask for gray scales as a vision test in this case. It was clarified that the colors used in the method must be used for the vision assessment as stated in NAS410/EN4179 and already reported in the AC7114 para. 5.4.5. An advisory will be issued with an effective date. David Royce proposed to consider this requirement fulfilled during the practical examination at the next renewal of the certification. This question was already written in the checklist and no NCR’s have been issued. The AC7114 checklist already states that color assessment must be done in accordance with the method used so no reason to clarify with additional questions. A potential advisory to clarify the intent of the Task Group that the practical exam is a means of compliance to prove this capability (color used during the process). Changes to para. 3.1.2.5 have been performed including ISO18490 and colors to be used. Reworded the question. Curt Powell proposed to consider some questions as “NA” in the case of Pre-penetrant etch. David Royce suggested to create a separate section for pre-penetrant etch. In Para.3.1.2.8 deleted the 30 days and just referred to re-examination requirements from NAS410/EN4179; para. 3.1.2.9 Re-certification requirements: duration of the certification from 3 years to 5 years but some standards require even 1-year certification, if recalled by documentation; recertification requirements due to different requirements and standards proposed wording referring to “in accordance with the written practice,” and the referenced customer specifications was added. Para. 3.1.3.1 added “a minimum of 20 questions” in accordance with ARP1923; para. 3.1.3.6 included the word “documented”; para. 3.1.3.7 consistently revised as per para. 3.1.2.9, para. 3.1.3.7 modified CAG and add “NA”: personnel performing the process may be qualified only. Para. 3.1.4 add section NA in case of qualification only; Para. 3.1.4.1.2 deleted “classroom” left “formal” for consistency; add a CAG in para. 3.1.4.1.4 to clarify in CDB the Subscriber requirements; a few cosmetic changes in Section 5; para. 5.4 removed “posted” leaving just “available”; para. 5.6 “visual standard shall be adequate”, proposal to go back to the CP Task Group to ask for clarification of the “inadequate” case; Compliance section 9.0: 9.1.10: the term “approved” was replaced by “qualified or certified as required”. All the revisions will be shared with the CP Task Group.ACTION ITEM: Staff to set up a meeting with the CP Staff Engineer. (Due Date: 31-Apr-2019)New Business - OPENNo new business as it was discussed under Technical Issues.VOTING MEMBER updates & COMPLIANCE WITH VOTING REQUIREMENTS – OPENThe following requests for additions or changes to voting membership were received and confirmed by the Task Group Chairperson pending verification of PD 1100 requirements:Subscriber Voting Member: UVMSupplier Voting Member: SVMAlternate: ALTTask Group Chairperson: CHRVice Chairperson: VCHSecretary: SECNew Voting Members:First NameSurnameCompanyPosition:(new / updated role)Meetings Attended(Month/Year)NormanTremblayLockheed Martin / SikorskySubscriber Voting MemberOctober 2018February 2019YanickLavalleeArconic Titanium and Engineered ProductsSupplier Alternate Voting MemberOctober 2018February 2019AmyPowersMeyer Tool Inc.Alternate Supplier Voting MemberOctober 2018February 2019JasonWilliamsAurora Flight Sciences (A Boeing Company)Supplier Alternate Voting MemberOctober 2017October 2018Stanley ReversSpecialist Aviation groupSupplier Voting MemberOct 16Oct 17ToddSibeliusHaynes InternationalSupplier Voting MemberOct 18Feb 19ThomasFletcherArconic Engines (Firth Rixson Forgings Ltd)Supplier Voting MemberJune 2018Feb 2019Motion made by Gary White seconded by Dave Mitchell to approve the above changes to voting membership. Motion Passed.Motion made by Gary White seconded by Rick Gassett to approve Todd Sibelius as new supplier voting member . Motion Passed.Voting Membership Removed: The following people had their voting membership removed due to not meeting requirementsFirst NameSurnameCompanyBallot Response Met (Y/N)Meeting Attendance Met (Y/N)NANANANANAChanges to Voting Memberships Since the Last Meeting:First NameSurnameCompanyPosition:(new / updated role)FredLutzSpirit Aero SystemsSubscriber Voting MemberJimWinterSpirit AeroSystems Inc.Alternate Voting MemberThe compliance to voting membership requirements per PD 1100 were reviewed. Voting rights were added/updated/removed by the Task Group Chairperson as noted above.All additions and changes are pending completion of all required steps on the Nadcap Membership Form (m-frm-01). Motion made by Harry Hahn seconded by Steve Garner to approve the above changes to voting membership. Motion Passed.Method Teams & Document Change Spread Sheet - OPENPhil Ford presented the “Method Sub Teams” with the following changes:AC7114 and /11: added Ken Harrison (Subscriber) and Fred Lutz (Subscriber).AC7114/1: added Yanick Lavallee (Supplier)AC7114/2: no changesAC7114/3 and /7: Phil Ford as new Staff Engineer, Kevin Pickup (Subscriber) deleted, added Fred Lutz (Subscriber), Josef Maier (Supplier) and Alban Bakia (Supplier)AC7114/4, /9, /10: Stacy Patterson-Bright (Subscriber) to be included as Co-Chair, Norman Tremblay (Subscriber),AC7114/5: added Ken Harrison (Subscriber) and Norman Tremblay (Subscriber), Buket Topel (Supplier)AC7114/13 added Topel Buket (Supplier), Israel Vasquez (Supplier).Auditor Consistency: David Cohn (Subscriber) as new Chair and Steve McCool (Subscriber) stepping down to be part of the Team.Phil Ford presented the 2019 NDT Document Change Spreadsheet (DCS). The AC checklists were reviewed to show the changes, looking forward to the next coming ballot that will be performed shortly.AC7114: Para. 5.1.5.7 (Responsible Level 3 definition from NAS410) and Para. 5.1.17 were discussed for potential redundancy: a discussion took place and finally an additional Compliance Assessment Guidance (CAG) under Para. 5.1.17 was agreed to be the exact wording of NAS410/EN4179; the CAG will clarify that individuals or organizations may be identified in a procedure, letter or memo linked to the written practice. Par. 5.3.17: removed a portion of CAG related to NANDTB because it was redundant with para. 5.3.16.3. New question was added in all checklists (here para. 9.1.3) related to the existence of a procedure in place to assure fixed equipment is re-qualified after relocation or maintenance before the equipment is returned to production. A discussion took place to understand the purpose behind this question. Steve McCool replied that this question was added to answer a request from NMC to put in place process change controls with new questions in the checklist; to reduce impact. Based on the fact that the NDT commodity has a Level 3 in place to assure the process is maintained within the requirements, just a new question set into AC7114 was added to address the physical moving of NDT equipment within the facility or to an entirely new address and the implementation of a new process, the substantiation of the process after the move or new process and notification of their customers. With this, a reasonable compromise has been achieved.AC7114/1: Para. 5.9.3 added clarification for known defect standard; a discussion took place referring to the added part of the CAG due to temporary changes of the panel status; Fabrizio Montagnoli reported the scenario that was behind the request to make the modification and the general consensus of the Task Group was that if there is a change of the number of stars on the known defect standard (i.e. more stars visible than what reported on the base line) there is no issue at all on the process itself, conversely the opposite is not acceptable and investigation must be in place. This interpretation is also supported by wording included in Para. 5.9.1 where the requirement is “not falling below that of the unused materials”. Based on this a consistency alignment between two paragraphs is proposed changing the CAG below para. 5.9.3, deleting the text related to the “same number of indications”. Additional changes have been done in the compliance section referring to new wording at Para. 6.1.A.8 including “Subscriber” in the Pre-cleaning process specification. New questions related to wearing vision correction are included in the Compliance section and the redundant question at the bottom of the checklist has been removed. A new question is included at the last section to ask for Certificate of Conformity (CoC); it was clarified that this CoC cannot be expected of the parts processed the day of the audit, but it will for a previous/historical performed job.Changes on wearing vision corrections and CoC have been performed for consistency on all NDT TG AC7114/xx checklists.AC7114/2 and AC7114/3: main changes in the compliance section.AC7114/4: the biggest change is on the new section related to Film Digitization (Section 5.12).AC7114/5: minor changes.AC7114/10: vast amount of changes throughout the document.Phil Ford reported that the agreed or proposed changes will be balloted so there will be time for all Subscribers/Suppliers to make their official comments on the NDT Checklists. For comments not related to the balloted changes, the Task Group recommend that they are sent to Phil Ford, not to make the comment in the ballot.ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to set checklist changes and send to the Coordinator. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2019)Method Team Report Out – OPENThis was done at the end of the main session.Ad Hoc Team Break Out Session – OPENPhil Ford introduced the Ad Hoc Team presentation reporting that Visual Inspection and Remote Service Provider checklists will be included in the next report.Ad Hoc Team Report Out – OPENThis was done at the end of the main session.OP 1110 Audit Failure – OPENPhil Ford presented OP1110 the annual review as required at the beginning of the year.A review of the audit failure criteria is presented based on the fact that the NMC wants to have similar criteria for all the Task Groups. The NDT Task Group is working on a threshold which is not in line with what is being applied in other Task Groups or defined in the OP, that’s the reason for a plan for consistency. The current data shows, as example, for initial audits a threshold set at 99.02th percentile that means one failed out of 102. The actual criteria are shown and compared with the proposed new ones:Actual Initial audits with number of NCR’s per audit day2 major / 3 minor from the 1st up to the 5th day (included), then 1 major / 1minor (98%)Actual Reaccreditation2 major / 2 minor from the 1st up to the 3rd day (included), then 1 major / 2minor (98%)To bring the threshold at 98th percentile:Initial audits with number of NCR’s per audit day: 2 major / 2 minor everyday (98%)Reaccreditation audits with number of NCR’s per audit day:1 major / 2 minor everyday (98%)Even with the change in place, there is no relevant impact on failure; Curt Powell told that lowering the bar to bring up more evidences is not an added value; Liz Strano replied that this is in principle the consequence of the continuous improvement required by the Nadcap program; Steve McCool highlighted that this is a matrix shared between all Task Groups to have similar threshold, David Royce complained about these new criteria because it appears the purpose is to highlight just more failures. Phil Ford explained that the previous threshold was a deviation from the Nadcap system, so we need to be in line with general the NMC approach, that’s the reason to have these criteria reviewed with NDT Task Group. Motion made by David Royce and seconded by David Cohn to approve the proposed changes to OP1110. 4 abstentions. Motion Passed.ACTION ITEM: Staff to send the new numbers to Mike Graham for inclusion into the OP 1110. (Due Date: 01-Mar-2019)Report Out of Planning & Operations Meeting – OPENSteve McCool reported on the Planning and Operations meeting. The NMC is revising auditor practices; in particular a proposal was left on the table to include the “potential product impact to be evaluated” with a dedicated box that, if selected, an automatic release of a Nadcap Auditee Advisory, that means an immediate loss of the Auditee Merit on the current audit and the following audit. This will impact deeply the NDT Auditee merit. Steve McCool spoke with the next NMC Chair to highlight that this scenario does not work properly in the future as is and must be changed. No added value is behind this proposal so a reworking is required for the future. The NMC is looking for Subscriber volunteers to work on this item. Gary White will check the possibility to have Suppliers involved in this group because no confidential information is involved as originally thought by the NMC who limited the participation to Subscribers only. If the NMC imposes 67% of audits with any NCR’s related to “possible impact” loose merit on the current audit and 99% of those will lose merit on the following audit; the approach has to be changed because the numbers presented are not representative of the NDT Task Group condition.Beijing meeting is under planning and PRI is looking at visas and accommodations issues. There was a request to have the agendas ready as soon as possible. Failure ballot: The NMC is creating a guideline to help Task Groups when a failure is really a failure to avoid additional work. The intent is to evaluate real failure ballots just removing situations where the issue is time.Unified checklist (AC7000) taking common questions from the existing checklist and then to be removed from the actual checklist in the next revision. Questions involved are related but not limited to Quality System and Non-sustaining corrective actions, without adding any extra time to the audit.From an auditor feedback, a guide for the Auditors to help them in the job audit requirements is suggested. It is the Auditor who drives the selection of the parts which are available by the Supplier during audit.Concern regarding the decision at the NMC level making things more difficult to be followed as an example, but not limited to the new checklist questions added for the “general” questions. Standardization of all commodities does not always help in making the process easier. NDT believes adding additional checklists makes the Nadcap process more difficult for the Auditor, Auditee and Staff. Any concerns with checklists should be dealt with in the existing checklists.Report Out on the SSC Meeting – OPENGary White provided a presentation and update on the Supplier Support Committee (SSC) MeetingReport Out on AQS Liaison Meeting - OPENNothing to report by David Cohn.Develop Agenda for June 2019 Meeting – OPENSteve McCool discussed planning for the June 2019 meeting. Discussion to maintain meeting schedule in June for 3 days.ACTION ITEM: Staff to set up June agenda. (Due Date: 01-Mar-2019)RAIL & Clarification Data Base Review – OPENNothing for clarification.Phil Ford stated that the RAIL would be updated with all the action items from this meeting once the minutes were ready.Meeting Facilitation – OPENThe first day there were some issues with refreshments. There was a fire alarm issue and the handling of the process by the hotel, issue was brought to Kellie O’Conner to address.Motion made by David Cohn and seconded by Justin Payne to adjourn. Motion passedADJOURNMENT – 21-Feb-2019– Meeting was adjourned at (11.00) a.m.Minutes Prepared by: Fabrizio Montagnoli, fabrizio.montagnoli@***** 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: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download