OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSED - Performance Review …



UNCONFIRMED MINUTESFEBRUARY 18 – 21, 2019NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, UNITED STATESThese minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.MONDAY, 18-FEB-2019 to THURSDAY, 21-FEB-2019OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSEDCall to Order / Quorum Check – CLOSEDThe Heat Treating Task Group (HTTG) was called to order at 8:00 a.m., 18-Feb-2019 by Chairperson, Cyril Vernault.It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portion of the meeting. Closed Meeting Subscriber Task Group Members introduced themselves.A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)NAMECOMPANY NAME*PedroArandaEaton, Aerospace Group*NigelAshbyGKN Aerospace FiltonCharlesBeargieCollins Aerospace (Goodrich)*ArieBen DovIsrael Aerospace Industries*FrankBrungsMTU Aero Engines AGAnnieBujeaultHéroux Devtek Inc.JeffCerreTextron Aviation*ElizabethChapmanTriumph Group, Inc.MathewChottThe Boeing Company*CraigClasperSpirit AeroSystems*MartinDayHoneywell Aerospace*MarkEmersonRolls-RoyceVice Chairperson*MelissaFacasPratt & Whitney*RonGalleyGE AviationJasonHaleyTriumph Group, Inc.*PeterHammarboGKN Aerospace Sweden AB*BrianHarveyGulfstream Aerospace*LinnieHookTextron Aviation*DavidIsenbergParker Aerospace Group*DeniseJamesTextron AviationShirleyJonesTriumph Group, Inc.*DavidKnackEaton, Aerospace GroupKarolinaKollerAir Force*TakuyaKonnoMitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.*JeffKossThe Boeing Company*Marc-AndréLefebvreHéroux Devtek Inc.*WilliamMaciasCollins Aerospace (Goodrich)*StevenMacKenziePratt & Whitney CanadaDavidMailesSonaca*DougMatsonThe Boeing CompanyKellyMcClurgBell Helicopter - Textron*JohnMerrittLockheed Martin - Sikorsky Aircraft*MelanieMetzgerLiebherr-Aerospace SAS*TimothyNanceCollins Aerospace (Rockwell Collins)MarkNigelsParker Aerospace Group*EddyPhamNorthrop Grumman Corporation*EarlPruettLockheed Martin Corporation*SunderRajanRaytheon CompanySecretary*SalvatoreSantangeloCollins Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand)*SimonScottBAE Systems - Air & Information (UK)JonasSkoogGKN Aerospace Sweden AB*PaulSlaterCollins Aerospace (Rockwell Collins)*ElizabethSmallThe Boeing CompanySallySolimanBAE Systems - Electronic Systems*MarcTaillandierAirbus Helicopters*TakayukiTakahashiMitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.StanleyTrullHoneywell AerospaceAkieUchidaMitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.*CyrilVernaultSAFRAN GroupChairpersonDawnWhisenhunt WagnerTriumph Group, Inc.*TomWilsonBombardier AerospaceBryanWorleyGE Aviation*MarkZellePratt & WhitneyOther Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)NAMECOMPANY NAMELindaAdkinsHaynes International*RoyAdkinsBraddock MetallurgicalMarkAffolterPRI auditor trainee*RobBalizetCanton Drop ForgeAndrewBassettAerospace Testing & Pyrometry Inc.AmyBlanesSolar Atmospheres of CA*NoelBradyPaulo - ClevelandGuyBurnettTHERMAL-VAC TECHNOLOGY, INCCavanCardenasIpsen Inc.DanielChristopherDelta air linesWyattCookDelta air LinesMarioDiPaolaDucommun IncNathanDuchamIpsen Inc.PatrickDurkinTE WireDavidEmahiserGKN Aerospace*EdwardEngelhardSolar Atmospheres Inc.HeatherFalconeTHERMAL-VAC TECHNOLOGY, INCVladFedorchakTE Wire & Cable, LLCJamesFilkowskiTexas Heat Treating*NathanialFlynnCarpenter Technology*MichaelGaspersFPM HEAT TREATINGHugoGuajardoFRISA AEROSPACEGabrielHarrisCascade Metallurgical, IncChristophHenkelAMAG rollingLuisHerreraCPP-Port HuenemeTaylorHirvoArconicDarylHoisagerTexas Heat TreatingJamieJonesSolar AtmospheresKeithKingSolar Atmospheres*JohnKunkleHowmet Castings & Services, Inc.JamesLaFolletteGeoCorp Inc.*ShellyLawlessMeyer Tool, Inc.YvetteLawlorHauck Heat Treatment Limited*RichardLewisPCC Structurals*IainMackenzieBodycote Heat Treatments*ConnieMackeyAdvanced Heat Treat Corp.*CelineMaquiabaBodycoteNathanMcCollumKentucky Rebuild CompanyErdemMermerTAI*TimMitchellMetal Finishing CompanyAnne PascaleMoirouxAubert And DuvalAlexMuenznerSenior Aerospace Ketema*OveisNayeriAIR INDUCTRIES COMPANY (PCC)*KenNelsonContinental Heat Treating*MichaelNiedzinskiConstelliumEsauNunezFRISA AEROSPACECorneliaOrtizCPP Port Hueneme*FrancescoPontoneLeonardo Divisione Aerostrutture*G.R.Porterfield IIISolar Atmospheres, Inc.DanielP?schmannAMAG rolling*AmyPowersMeyer Tool INCSimoneRobinsonArconicBethRobisonDucommun, Inc. - Parsons KS*YeseniaRomeroAluminum Precision Products Inc.JohnRothenbergerCarpenter Technology Corp.*RobertSartoriAccurate Brazing CT*KevinSeidelCanton Drop Forge*PaulSihelnikThe Timken Company*ChadSimpsonPaulo Kansas*JeffreySipfHaynes International Inc.LeahSloanHaynes International, Inc.KlausSommerauervoestalpine B?HLER Aerospace GmbH & Co KGRonaldStewartEllison Surface TechnologiesDonnaSuarezUmbra GroupMattTarbaySolar Atmospheres*RussTischerTECT Power ClevelandNickVecchiarelliYankee Casting Co. Inc.NeslihanWalkerSenior Aerospace, SSPJeffreyWarringtonPark AerospaceMattWattsUltra Electronics*WilfordWeberPFW Aerospace GmbHMatthewWrightC3 DataBrianYazumbekModern Forge IndianaLonYoungMetalcraft TechnologiesPRI Staff Present MarkBurvalMarcelCupermanMichaelHaywardSafety Information – OPEN/CLOSEDReview of Fire Exits in Meeting RoomInform PRI Staff Person of any emergenciesThe Safety Information was reviewed. If there are any emergencies, contact a PRI Staff person immediately.Review Code of Ethics (Ref: Attendees’ Guide) and Meeting Conduct – CLOSED The Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct was briefed to the Heat Treating Task Group (HTTG)Present the Antitrust Video –CLOSEDMarcel Cuperman briefed the HTTG on the policy of PRI expressly prohibiting video or audio recording of HTTG meetings unless formal approval is received from all attendees and recorded in the HTTG meeting minutes.The PRI Antitrust video was played for the attendees. Review Agenda – CLOSEDREVIEW DELEGATION STATUS – CLOSEDStaff Engineers Delegation, review of t-frm-07.Delegation data was reviewed – All reviewers met requirements in OP 1115 for maintaining delegation (≥ 10% Oversight, ≥ 90%concurrence, ≥ 10 audits reviewed in the last 12 months).Motion made by Mark Emerson and seconded by Sunder Rajan to continue to delegate Anne Allen. Motion Passed; Delegation Maintained.Motion made by Doug Matson and seconded by Cyril Vernault to continue to delegate Jerry Aston. Motion Passed; Delegation Maintained.Motion made by Mark Emerson and seconded by Sunder Rajan to continue to delegate Marcel Cuperman. Motion Passed; Delegation Maintained.Motion made by Doug Matson and seconded by Mark Emerson to continue to delegate Mark Burval. Motion Passed; Delegation Maintained.Motion made by Marc Andre Lefebvre and seconded by Sunder Rajan to continue to delegate Rob Hoeth. Motion Passed; Delegation Maintained.Discussion regarding the documentation of re-worked NCR’s being held against the delegation of the reviewer. OP1114 and OP 1115 were reviewed. Of issue is when the NCR is written against a Subscriber’s requirement, that the reviewer would not have knowledge of. Cyril Vernault encouraged that when comments are placed in the audit ballot, it would be noted that the rework should not be counted against delegation. Additionally, the reviewer can start the comment box in the t-frm-07 with a note indicating that a review during the meeting is requested. Then, these issues could be identified and discussed at the HTTG meeting and a decision be made as to whether this should be held against the responsible Staff Engineer’s delegation or not. A discussion regarding the use of the 5th and 6th cycles during the working of the audit. The Operating Procedure (OP) states that the Staff Engineer at his/her discretion can give the Supplier two more cycles to work NCR’s OR send the audit to the Failure Ballot. Justification for cycles beyond the 4th shall be documented.auditor consistency – closedThe +/- 4 data and the auditor scoring were reviewed, highlighting auditors that are prospective candidates for observation due to scoring or duration of time since their last observation. Concerns were raised regarding auditors not arriving on time/leaving early or filling in checklist questions, which were not reviewed with the auditee, at a remote location. ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to notify Auditors (issue warning) regarding “spending enough time at the audit site” The notification will be a reminder regarding showing up on time and not departing early during the week. (Due Date: 1-Jun-2019)Auditor Variation DataMarcel Cuperman presented Auditor Consistency data consisting of the average NCR’s for all Auditors combined and the average number of NCR’s by Auditor from 2015 through 2018. There was a drop in the average NCR’s from 2015 to 2018 from 3.73 to 3.46.OP 1117 Standard Data SetStandard data set results were presented by the Staff Engineer.The data from standardized excel file (a tool developed by Welding and now provided to all Task Groups) regarding findings for the various HT Checklists was briefly presented. It is a dynamic tool that provides drill down capabilities by checklists and Auditors. The Staff Engineers reported that it will be described in more detail (how the form works) at the June 2019 Nadcap meeting.New auditors – closedREPORTS OF AUDITOR TRAINERSOne new Auditors’ report was presented and reviewed. No concerns or issues were identified.auditor observations – CLOSEDOBSERVATIONS COMPLETED SINCE OCTOBER 2018 MEETING – Observations were reviewed with no actions planned.DISCUSS OPTIONS TO IMPROVE SUBSCRIBER PARTICIPATION.The issue of observers not being HT Task Group members was discussed; One point made was ‘Is there a limit to the value of their observations, if they are not involved in the Task Group’. No further actions planned at this meeting.The Auditor Observations Allocation List was reviewed. From the information reviewed it was agreed that additional Auditors need to be observed. PRI staff to send information to HTTG members, so they can choose the audits they wish to observe. ACTION: PRI staff to send information to HTTG members, who can then choose which audits they wish to observe. (This action was completed during the meeting week)appeal analysis & possible appeals – closedOnly one appeal occurred since the last meeting, which was accepted. None were reviewed at the meeting.Review Supplier Advisories Type C – CLOSED.Heat Treat Task group reviewed all new Type C Advisories that were issued since the last Task Group meeting held October 2018 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. No further actions were planned. An issue with a Supplier affecting multiple commodities was discussed. The Nadcap Management Councils (NMC’s) recommendation to the Task Groups is to withdraw the accreditation.Motion made by Mark Emerson and seconded by Cyril Vernault to withdraw accreditation immediately. Vote was 21 to 0 in favor. Motion Passed.ACTION ITEM: PRI to withdraw accreditation. (This action was completed during the meeting week).auditor advisory on ams2750 waiver – closedAuditor Advisory HT 18-010 was issued. Item was not discussed.audit allocation – closedAudit Allocations that have been submitted were shown through 30-Jun-2019. Audits that do not have two reviewers after any new received lists (by Feb 22nd, 2019), will be assigned by HT Task Group Secretary, Sunder Rajan.ACTION ITEM: Sunder Rajan to assign allocations to audits with less than two reviewer members assigned. (Due Date: 15-Mar-2019)lapsed accreditation – closedThe Supplier Lapsed Accreditation list was presented by the Staff Engineer (SE). No concerns were raised by the Task Group.OP 1116 Appendix ht – sub-team debrief – closedA Draft of the proposed new content for OP 1116 Appendix HT was presented by SE. The new content is to cover the issue of returning Auditors. Motion made by Doug Matson and seconded by Cyril Vernault to propose revision of OP1116 APP HT. Motion passed unanimously.ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to send OP1116 APP HT out for ballot. (Due Date: 1-Jun-2019)During this session, the subject was expanded to include a discussion on the modification of the current procedure / questionnaire / training materials to make the prospective new auditor candidates better prepared and the assessment process more robust, particularly with regards to the lesser used Heat Treating activates.ACTION ITEM: Sub-team formed to develop auditor training material – Mark Emerson, Cyril Vernault, David Knack, Sunder Rajan, Ron Galley, Salvatore Santangelo, and Mark Burval (PRI). (Due Date: 1-Oct-2019)Op 1110 failure criteria – closedMarcel Cuperman presented the data analysis for 2018 with the resulting failure limits for Initial and Reaccreditation audits. Motion made by Doug Matson and seconded by Sunder Rajan to leave Initials unchanged from current values. Motion passed 24 to 0. The HT Task Group questioned what impact the change of threshold for failure will have on Merit, Failure etc. Data to be presented by Mark Burval.The impact on failure and merit by the proposed Reaccreditation Failure Criteria was presented by Mark Burval in a special session held on Tuesday 19-Feb-2019. Motion made by Mark Emerson and seconded by Sunder Rajan to adopt the proposed criteria. Motion passed 19 to 4.New Reaccreditation Failure Limits adopted.Days 12345Major Limit12344Total Limit25799The HTTG also discussed Auditor Interviews. All HTTG members are invited and encouraged to participate in the interviews, to ensure that TG member interviewers are in sufficient numbers and rotate in questioning of the candidate, so that everyone has a good opportunity to ask questions. The HTTG discussed scheduling out further or setting standard interview times. No conclusion of the best course of action was determined. google chat subjects and discussions – closedSubject discussions were reviewed by Marcel Cuperman and the HTTG. Responses were noted as follows:Subject A) The previous revision of AMS2759/3F:Discussion: Table 3 note 5 "When part hardness after aging exceeds the required maximum, additional aging shall be performed to reduce the hardness. The set temperature for the additional aging shall be that in Table 3 or up to 20 °F (11 °C) higher. The soaking time for the additional aging shall be not more than 90 minutes except it is permissible to add lag time compensation as specified in 3.4.2.2.1."The current revision of AMS2759/3G:Table 3, note 5 "If hardness exceeds the maximum specified, parts may be re-aged at the same or higher temperatures to obtain the required hardness."The current revision does not appear to define the time for the re-age due to hardness.? Is it expected that the supplier goes back to the table 3 and note 7 to re-age for another 4 hrs. -0/+30 minutes???? Or since it's not addressed the supplier can make their own requirement?Response/Disposition: No Action. This issue cannot be resolved by the Heat Treating Task Group, but by Aerospace Metals Engineering Committee (AMEC).Subject B) We are having a debate relating to the instrumentation requirements for freezers used for the storage of aluminum against AMS2750 and I have been asked to post it here.Discussion: So, the supplier has 3 domestic chest freezers turned up to max setting on a dial. The freezers have a monitoring T/C in them linked to a chart recorder. Two (2) of them also have a digital display between the T/C and the chart which look like a controller but are not wired in to anything other than a T/C.Every 3 months an outside contractor does a `Sat` by comparing the temperature of the monitoring T/C fitted to the?chart recorder. The Sat Test obviously cannot be compared with the dial setting on the deep freeze as there is no visual display or reading. The fitted controlling dial has no ability to be calibrated as an instrument.My understanding is this is an NCR against AMS 2750 para 3.3.3.13.3.3.1 Refrigeration equipment shall have a temperature controller.Response/Action: AMS 2750 Revision F will address and clarify this issue. No further action is needed.Subject C) I recently came across the following NCR:Identified Nonconformance: Customer approval not attained for hardness conversions not covered.Discussion: Requirement: AC7102/5 section 7.1.1: When alloys are not covered by ASTM E140 or EN ISO 18265, is the conversion method used approved by the customer?Finding: The Supplier predominantly uses HR15N for testing medical device hardness acceptance criteria. When testing PH steels where hardness is specified as HRC the supplier uses ASTM E140 Table 1, which is recognized as the appropriate Table by the industry, documented customer approval is not available.Question - First of all since Table 1 is for Non-Austenitic Steels why is it not the correct Table? Secondly, if it is recognized as the appropriate Table by industry, why is this a finding?Response/Action: Table 1 is the correct method of interpreting this value. “Non-Austenitic Steels”. This is not a finding.Subject D) I am performing an audit and this auditee has a large Retort Furnace they use for Nitride- Malcomize processing. The situation is as follows: One rack ~2ft in dia. x 8ft high is mounted to a base and wired with a Thermocouple (TC) in the top zone, middle zone, and 1 in the bottom zone. After parts are loaded, they lower the retort over the rack and then lower the furnace over the retort. The furnace is plugged into power and the 3 dual Thermocouples, one in each zone top, middle, and bottom is plugged into the system. They replace the TCs that are attached to the rack every 90 days. They are performing what appears to be an alternate SAT, but with a 90-day replacement. I believe they are in violation with the requirements. Additionally, they refer to them as load TCs, but they are not in contact with material. I have not witnessed this type of setup before so any insight as to the existence of a finding and the proper use and control of these Thermocouples would be greatly appreciated.Response/Action: Load Thermocouples must always touch the metal, either product or heat sink.Subject E) The audit I am at had three findings in the last audit, all having to do with contract review. Now I have another issue with contract review and the supplier is adamant that this is not a non-sustaining NCR.?Discussion: The response for these findings were the same and is as follows, which had to do with routers having incorrect soak times, and wrong or no vacuum requirements.Root Cause of Nonconformance:a) Inadequate review of job cards prior to issuing to the shop floor. Although review of received work orders is addressed in the Internal Procedure MP-750, it did not include a Quality Manager (or designee) review independent of contract review.b) Inadequate review of the order data input for Customer Specifications.c) Inadequate training to contract review and job planning personnel for order data input.Action Taken to Prevent Recurrence:a) Prior to release to the shop floor a review of job cards shall be conducted by the Quality Manager or his designee. At no time will this review be done by the same person who entered the order. Once the review is complete the Technical Reviewer shall sign or stamp off the Contract/Technical Review and release the order to the floor. Revised internal procedure MP-750 for these actions and conducted training. See attachment 181404-2-4 MP-750 and Trainingb) The information on the job card is automatically pulled directly from the specification data entry in the process system. Therefore, the above review of the job cards encompasses review of the processes planned in the system.c) Training conducted to all customer order receipt and data entry personnel of requirements in the prime specification and the internal procedures as well as a review for data entry errors and/or missing requirements and the general requirements in MP-750 Control of Production and Service Provision. See attachment 181404-2-5 Order Data Entry Training.Now I have an incorrect oil temperature requirement in a router, is this a repeat finding?Response/Action: This is a non-sustaining/repeat finding.Subject F) Dear All,A clarification is requested:Discussion: AMS2759/2 F: Spec for soak time is 60 Minutes Min.Supplier Specifies: 75 Minutes Min.Actual process soak time is 208 Minutes - Is this ok or 75 Minutes should have tolerance?Response/Action: No maximum specified. Supplier can use any maximum, but supplier shall have a maximum called out in his procedure. Subject G) Dear All,?Discussion: Vacuum Furnace is classified as Class IV / Type D by the supplier but based on customer's requirement 1 number load TC is used - will this now be classified as Type B?Response/Action: This is an FAQ Refer to Pyrometry Guide Book (FAQ #24).Subject H) These two underlined segments could be read as in conflict, so the question is, if a survey is done empty, can the load TCs be free?? I feel they need to use heat sinks, but I don’t want to impose new initial TUSs if my interpretation is incorrect.?Discussion: AMS 2750 E 2.2.27 states, “LOAD SENSORS: Sensors that are attached to or in contact with production material, a representation of production material, or are buried in the load of production material and which supply temperature data of the production material to process instrumentation.”?Per the Pyrometry Guide, “Load thermocouples are required for configuration of a furnace to Instrumentation Type A or Instrumentation Type B. Load thermocouples measure metal temperature. If the TUS is performed without a load, the load thermocouples may be inserted in heat sinks that meet the requirements of Paragraph 3.5.10.1 so that metal temperature is measured during the TUS.”Response/Action: Already addressed in Audit Advisory 17-007.Subject I) I have just come across method 2 in AMS 2801 and I have an interpretation question. Discussion: This process is being performed in a Class 2 Type C Air Furnace. This is obvious to me the start of soak is determined by the controlling Thermocouple. 3.2.5.2 Batch Furnaces - Method 2: When the furnace temperature, as shown by the controlling indicator or recording instrument(s), reaches the minimum of the applicable range (See 3.2.5.2.1). This second paragraph I have question about, does the comment "furnace temperature" refer to the lagging Thermocouple, or is this still referring to the control Thermocouple? 3.2.5.2.2 When Method 2 is used, at least 75% of soaking time shall be after the furnace temperature has reached the half-tolerance temperature (See 3.2.5.2.2.1). Response/Action: Must be resolved with AMEC.Subject J) AMS 2759/1 Rev. F Para. 3.5.2?Surface Contamination (specifies:)Shall be in accordance with AMS2759, except partial decarburization shall not exceed 0.005 inch (0.13 mm).Discussion: AMS 2759/1 Rev. F Para. 4.1 Acceptance Testing (specifies: Hardness (3.5.1) and Surface Contamination (3.5.2) on damage tolerant, maintenance critical, or fracture critical parts shall be performed on each lot.Is it the interpretation of the HTTG that Surface Contamination testing of Type 2 parts (less than .020" stock removal AHT) is only required as a lot acceptance test on damage tolerant, maintenance critical, or fracture critical parts?Response/Action: Requirements are controlled by Customer Ordering Information. Refer to AMS 2759.Subject K) Dear All,?Referring the AMS 2759?paragraph 3.10.3 Quench System Monitoring, that?specifies:?Discussion: The Quench System includes the quench volume, type of fluid, recirculation velocity and uniformity, and heat exchange capacity. The consistency of the Quench System shall be monitored quarterly, by processing test parts, as outlined below, which can detect changes in the cooling characteristics of the system. Testing of water Quench Systems is not required. Quench System monitoring test procedures other than those described in 3.10.3.1 shall be approved by the cognizant engineering authority. When destructive mechanical property testing is required for part acceptance, Quench System monitoring is not Required.Question:? Does this test also involve Vacuum furnace with Gas Quenching?Response/ Action: If the Vacuum furnace gas is used truly as a quenching medium, the verification of the effectiveness of the quenching medium, either by destructive part testing (if directed by customer) or by a suitable procedure capable of detecting the changes in the cooling characteristics of the quench medium as per AMS 2759.Subject L) For this advisory issued today (AA 10-008 HT), the final paragraph implies that Potential Impact to Product box must be ticked, elevating a finding for no OE of Direct Verification on file to a Major, correct?Response / Action: Yes; The discrepancy shall be disclosed to the customer. If not, it is a Major finding.Subject M) Auditee is stress relieving a part that is a A356-T6 casting (8" Día x 4" H x 1" Cross section) welded to a 6061 tube (8" Dia. x 20" L x .500" Cross section) per their customers PO at 350F +/-10F for 4 hours -0/+15 Minutes per AMS 2770. There is no such process in 2770 but as it is dictated by their customers PO. I would argue that AMS 2771 section?3.2.12 Annealing would apply.Discussion: AMS 2771:3.2.12 Annealing:?Heating, soaking, and cooling parameters in Table 3 are recommended for annealing of castings. If a partial anneal (stress relief) is required, it shall be as specified by the cognizant engineering organization.?Response / Action: Follow the P.O. Apply the pertinent Spec 2770 or 2771 as applicable.Subject N) AC7101/3 Rev D: (First Revision with this question): 2.5 Machining source: If the machining source’s Nadcap accreditation scope does not include AC7101/7, the laboratory used a machining source qualification procedure which ensures compliance with AC7101/7. This criterion is not applicable when the testing source is provided fully machined specimens by the customer.If a heat treat auditee performs room temperature tensile testing and performs specimen machining in-house what is required to meet the above paragraph?Discussion: A previous auditor answered this question by stating "N/A Not yet covered in MOU".? I understand that the AC7101/7 checklist is not covered by the MOU, but that's not what the question appears to be asking.Since Heat Treat audits do not include AC7101/7 I would expect that the auditee has some kind of "machining source qualification procedure" that covers (ensures compliance with) the stuff in the AC7101/7 checklist for machining unless they get fully machined specimens from the customer?This doesn't mean we auditors will execute the AS7101/7 checklist, but we need to ensure the auditee has a method to ensure the machining source complies with AC7101/7.Response/Action: AC7101/7 shall be followed and its expectations met. If there is no MOU and AC7101/7 is NOT applicable, the suppliers own machining procedures shall comply with the expectation of AC7101/7.Subject O)?I recently wrote an NCR that was voided.? I’m not upset about it, but I have written a similar finding in the past and it was not voided.? I am just a bit confused about interpretation of the Spec and I thought this would be a good one to throw out at the group to see how everyone else would handle it.Discussion: AMS 2750E reads as follows:?3.2.5.5 Calibration of Controlling, Monitoring and Recording Instruments 3.2.5.5.1 Check as-found condition at a minimum of three simulated sensor inputs which represent the minimum, maximum and at least one point in the middle 1/3rd of the furnace Qualified Operating Temperature Range. If necessary, calibrate the instrument in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.?Auditee has a large furnace and a large water quench tank. Auditee’s internal procedure says that water shall always be in the 40F-160F range during the quenching process.Auditee has a data acquisition system that includes a channel for the quench temperature.Auditee calibrates this channel at 0F, 150F, and 300F.?Should this be a finding?Response/Action: Quench Tank and Refrigerators are not furnaces. No need for three-point calibration as for furnaces; but should cover the range (two points Min. and Max.)ht-ststg – openSee HT-STSTG minutes posted at > Resources > Documents > Public Documents > Heat Treating > HTSTSTG.Only Suppliers and Staff Engineers are invited to participate. However, Subscribers are welcome to observe.Wilfried Weber provided a review of the HT-STSTG and then provided an open session for questions to be asked.task group tutorial – openMarcel Cuperman presented the Heat Treat Task Group Tutorial.october 2018 meeting minutes – openCyril Vernault / Marcel Cuperman reviewed the October 2018 Nadcap Meeting Minutes for Heat Treating.Motion made by Cyril Vernault and seconded by Mark Emerson to accept the October 2018 Heat Treating Nadcap Meeting Minutes with a correction to add Chad Simpson – only SVM for Paulo-Kansas and not Alt-SVM for Paulo - Cleveland. Motion Passed with no dissenting vote.Nathan Wright (Company C3Data, LLC Supplier) said that his name was not included. This will be corrected after verifying the attendance roster.Action Item: PRI to review attendance rosters and update the HT October 2018 Nadcap Meeting Minutes if necessary. (Due 1-Jun-2019)Procedure Changes A presentation on changes to procedures was given by Marcel Cuperman.OP1101 - Changes and added provisions were described.OP1102 - Added disposal of electronic records; Changed retention and responsibility in Appendix.OP1103 - Grouped related Items; Removal, addition, and revision of certain “Terms “.OP1107 - Allow Audit Scope to be revised; Changes for including reason for granting, denying extension; Reason for Suspending or Withdrawing Accreditation; Action if Quality System has expired, suspended or withdrawn; clarification of requirements for suspension or withdrawals; Post Accreditation Actions- QM Status Changes, Relocation etc. OP1112 - Ability of NMC to help resolve an NCR; OP1106 to be followed for NCR Challenges. OP1116 - Auditor Staffing – Changes include training completion in 6 months; Auditor Advisory process changes.OP1120 - Changes Effective date of agreements; Balloting of Shard Audit Criteria. OP1121 – Replaced Subscriber Subscription, how to change agreements; clarify use of the terms Subscriber and Provisional Subscriber.OP1122 - Define process for changing Accreditation Options. OP1123 – Supplier Support Committee (SSC) Membership TG Representatives to SSC - One TG Representative per TG.OP1124 - Added process for media reports of unethical behaviorclosed meeting report out – openChairperson Cyril Vernault debriefed the main items discussed during the Closed meeting held on Monday, 18-Feb-2019.RAIL review – openThe Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) was presented by Marcel Cuperman. This was published in eAuditNet on 15-Feb-2019.OP 1117 auditor consistency sub-team update – openCyril Vernault reviewed the status of observations and how the HTTG was not meeting the plan.The HT Task Group discussed the perceived impact of having an observer at the audit, and what actions could be taken to encourage an observation. The next revision of the Observation Procedure was discussed, it includes revised reasons the auditee can use for refusing an observer. Potential concept of having a designated trainer/observer auditor was also discussed. There was no further action.Tabled subject: Trainer/Observer Auditor concept – for Supplier Comments.ssc presentation – openRoy Adkins presented an update on the activities of the Supplier Support Committee (SSC).Address feedback / questions to NadcapSSC@p-r-.failure analysis & vca data – openMarcel Cuperman presented the Audit Failure Data by Sector and in Total Audits Conducted from 31-Dec-2015 through 31-Dec-2018. Failures 2% (2016); 2% (2017) and 1% for 2018. The trend is also going down on VCAs. The data for Initial and Reaccreditation audits was reviewed in the Closed meeting and the Failure Thresholds were not changed for Initial audits but were lowered for the Reaccreditation audits.In 2017 there were 10 Verification of Corrective Action audits (VCA) performed; One failed after the VCA. In 2018, 3 VCA audits were performed with none failing due to VCA. No VCA audits have been performed in 2019.The criteria for VCA was reviewed. No further action was planned.auditor advisories – openAuditor Advisories were presented by the SE. One advisory issued, 18-010 posted in eAuditNet. There are two sections in AMS2750 that require weekly readings; 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.7.6. The relationship between Controller and Monitor Thermocouples is described and examples given.Advisory 17-004 was discussed. A change was made to the advisory regarding the use of Anvils, especially when there is no standard. If there is a consensus requesting a change, the request should be made per the appropriate procedure. ASTM E15 Section 3.2.4.3 was reviewed, and a discussion occurred; Does there need to be a revision to Auditor Advisory to provide clarification.ACTION ITEM: A Sub-team was formed to revise Auditor Advisory HT 17-004: Mark Emerson, Doug Matson, Ed Engelhard, and Marcel Cuperman (PRI). (Due Date: 1-Jun-2019)voting member participation – openThe data on Supplier Voting Member Participation was reviewed by the Chairperson.Submitted m-frm-01 forms were read by Cyril Vernault.Perryman Company Supplier Voting Member Kevin VonScio has missed 3 meetings in a row. Also not present at this meeting, February 2019 Nadcap meeting. Motion by Doug Matson and seconded by Cyril Vernault with 38 to 0 voted in favor of removal of Kevin VonScio’s status as a Supplier Voting Member.Eddy Pham stated he has missed two meetings. A review of the rosters will be made to verify that only two meetings were missed, and voting status retained. Action Item: PRI to review and update Compliance Spreadsheet if necessary and follow-up with Eddy Pham. (Due 1-Jun-2019)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:Subscriber Voting Member: UVMSupplier Voting Member: SVMAlternate: ALTNew Voting Members:First NameSurnameCompanyPosition:(new / updated role)Meetings Attended(Month/Year)Rob BalizetCanton Drop ForgeALT SVM – New RoleOct. 2017Feb. 2019DeniseJamesTextron AviationALT UVM – New RoleOct. 2018Feb. 2019Melanie MetzgerLiebherr Aerospace SASALT UVM – New RoleFeb. 2018Jun. 2018Stanley ReversSpecialist Aviation GroupSVM – New RoleJun. 2017Jun. 2018Anthony RizzoHercules Heat Treating Corp.SVM – New RoleOct. 2016Oct. 2018KevinSeidelCanton Drop ForgeSVM – New RoleFeb. 2017Oct. 2017OveisNayeriAir Industries Company - PCCSVM – New RoleFeb2017Feb2019PaulSihelnikTimkenALT SVM – New RoleOct. 2017Feb. 2019AmyPowersMeyer Tool Inc.ALT SVM – New RoleOct.2018Feb.2019NathanielFlynnCarpenter TechnologySVM – New RoleOct.2018Feb.2019ElizabethSmallBoeingALT UVM – New RoleOct.2018Feb.2019Voting 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)Mark AffolterBodycoteYYKevinVonScioPerryman CompanyYNGrzegorzWrykRolls-Royce PlcYYThe 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). AC7102 Rev. K – Sub-group debrief – openIt was reported that the Sub-team held a meeting. The Sub-team has decided to incorporate Steel, Nickel, Titanium and Beryllium-Copper Heat Treating into the AC7102 core checklist.HTTG Audit handbook – openDiscussion was held about when a minimum soak time is required. The Audit Handbook does not state the need to set the maximum soak time. The language in the Audit Handbook will remain as is. Op 1110 & op 1111 – openFailure Thresholds were presented to the open meeting by Cyril Vernault. Initial audits remain the same and for the Reaccreditation audits, the Majors NCRs and Total NCRs are reduced by one NCR.New Reaccreditation failure limits.Days 12345Major Limit12344Total Limit25799The new limits will be effective on audits after a 90-day notice is sent out.ht-ststg report out – openPresented by Wilfried Weber.Pyrometry guideThe Sub-team have met and made changes to the Frequently Asked Questions. Due to the impending change to AMS 2750 (to Rev F) there will not be any change to the Pyrometry Guide at this time.SSC news – openSupplier news was presented by Roy Adkins. There was much discussion on the results of Failure Ballots that are not failed by the Task Groups. The NMC is creating a Sub-team to address this issue. The NMC view is that a Failure Ballot that meets the Failure Criteria should result in a failure. amec report out – openDoug Matson presented the AMEC report. Status on the revisions of AMS 2750, AMS 2759 (several slash sheets), AMS 2769 and AMS 2801 was presented. ASTM Hardness Spec ASTM E18 revision issued, increased standard test block hardness range for medium from 80 HRB max to 88 HRB max. The dates for the next AMEC and ASTM Committees meetings were given. For details contact Doug Matson.nmc report out – openWilfried Weber gave the NMC report out. The results of the analysis of the potential impact a new definition of Major NCR was reviewed. The NMC assessment is that a dramatic increase in the number of Supplier Advisories would occur, which would lead to a decrease in Auditees merit. Based on these results, the requirements of the procedure are being reviewed.TBD – OPENNo topic for this item.open meeting new business – openRoy Adkins suggested that as part of the work shop, in addition to the tutorial of the various processes, the appropriate checklists also be reviewed to determine the applicability of the checklist contents to that process. The AC7102 Revision Sub-team to address additional information related to number of Job Audits to be performed, and requirements for observation testing. The Sub-team will consider adding boxes to be checked to communicate documents to be submitted before the audit and add the number of Job Audits required referring to each checklist.ACTION ITEM: Existing AC7102 Sub-team to consider adding more information for Job Audits and check boxes. (Due Date: 1-Oct-2019)open meeting tabled subjects – openA discussion on the concept of a Trainer/Observer Auditor was held but the HT Task Group decided not to pursue.q & a session – openQ1: How are the hardness requirements of Non-Flat surfaces to be addressed? A: Sub-team consisting of Mark Emerson, Doug Matson and Ed Engelhard will address this - see section 23.0.Q2. RPS 953 is cancelled and superseded by RRP 54000. There is no more weekly over temp verification in this current Specification. Does that mean this verification is no longer necessary?A: Yes: No longer mandatory. Q3: Boeing specifies Standard Hardness Test Block hardness separation of 10 points; is it 10 points maximum or minimum separation? A: Ten (10) points minimum separation for Boeing.Q4: We are disputing a finding we received as follows:According to AMS 2750 para 3.4.6 Alternate SAT shall be performed for sensors used only once or for multiple sensors replaced at an interval shorter than the appropriate interval. Alternate SAT is performed on Control and Over Temp T/Cs, but they are replaced every two years which is higher than the appropriate SAT intervals. We operate using SAT waiver. SAT intervals do not apply. Per Para 3.4.7. We feel our interval would be waiver and no SAT is needed. Therefore, the stipulations in 3.4.6 Alternate SAT process do not apply. The alternate SAT using the installed control T/C does not violate the stipulation, because SAT waiver removes the interval requirement from our operations.Is the finding justified?A: No. A SAT waiver is all inclusive, if allowed by customer requirement. An SAT is not required. Q5. AC7102 Cleaning: Supplier has only raw stock, no parts. More than 2 mm material removed after heat treatment. Can Supplier put N/A for cleaning in Sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4?A: Yes N/A is OK. Unless customer specifically requires cleaning.Q6: Leak Rate Issue, AMEC 28D LSB had multiple disapprovals. For the new requirement of AMS2769, does NADCAP want us to show objective evidence of the new requirements, pertaining to vacuum level changes and failure criterion? Would we need furnace chart shown in showing vacuum leak during the test?A: This is an AMEC Issue.Q7. The issue of test bar of known hardness and the auditor advisory. What gives NADCAP the authority to override the ASTM E18? How would A2LA or ISO17025 auditors view this? How would the ASTM E18 Committee view this alternate method?A: NADCAP does not override ASTM E18. HTTG issued an advisory to help suppliers, (17-004).Q8: Auditor Consistency – With the survey – Are these done via third party to keep anonymity? Can the survey be made to be all encompassing to include Auditor, Staff Engineer and PRI Staff (Scheduling etc.)? What is the Auditor Training comprised of? How often is this reviewed, and Auditors re-evaluated? Can there be transparency to open the Auditor Training to suppliers for review? With testing, what are passing requirements? Along with the technical training, can personality training be added for auditor training and consistency?A: Auditors are evaluated after each audit. It cannot be viewed by suppliers. Suppliers cannot participate in auditor training.Q9. Audit software used by auditors during audit- can this be made available to suppliers for internal audit use?A: No.Q10. AC7102/5 3.7.6: Is there a record of when Indenters are removed and replaced? Note NA would be applicable for both questions when Indenter is never changed and dedicated testers for dedicated scale used.This implies that we have a log for each hardness tester to record the Rockwell Testers that are used for different scales e.g. C, A, B etc. By performing verification tests this should not be necessary?A: Daily verification log shall have Indenter number that is compared with Indirect Verification. When Indenter is changed a daily verification must be performed prior to use.Q11: Has there been a Task Group resolution regarding third party Pyrometry providers to be available for a supplier audit?A: Yes. Third party service providers can be present at supplier direction to answer any question the supplier may need help with answering. However, the third-party providers are not the active auditees; only consultant capacity.Brazing tutorial – openA presentation on the American Welding Society Committee activities and Specification update were provided by Sunder Rajan. Additionally, a brazing fundamentals tutorial was presented by Mark Emerson.apqp (advanced produt quality planning) – openDoug Matson briefly discussed the concept of Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP), noting that this is something that may be coming to the Aerospace Industry. top ten (10) ncr’S – open Cyril Vernault reviewed the common NCR’s that are found in audits and the location where guidance in the recourse are located for the items. hardness testing – openThere were no updates presented.nmc planning and ops report out – open The report was given by Chairman, Cyril Vernault. Guidance on Failure was given by the NMC. opening comments – closedCall to order and Quorum Check by Chairperson Cyril Vernault.closed meeting new business – closed Marcel Cuperman discussed changes to t-frm-11 per OP1107. When a supplier changes location the TG will be asked what action should be taken - OP1107 4.5.6.1. An e-mail ballot will be conducted to decide what to do. ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to take T-frm-11 to PRI SE-SWAT to consider updating to show if equipment gets relocated, or change in key personnel (Quality, Operators). (Due Date: 1-Jun-2019)ACTION ITEM: Sub-team formed to Identify subjects for Auditor Training in October 2019. Subjects due by the June 2019 Nadcap meeting. Sub-team consists of Cyril Vernault, Doug Matson, Mark Emerson, Sunder Rajan, and Mark Burval (PRI). (Due Date: 1-Oct-2019)The HT Task Group was informed of the need to provide a plan for discussions in Beijing – A translator will be present.It was recommended that Subscribers capture potential Auditor Conference subjects when they visit their supplier facilities or when the opportunity arises. They should e-mail PRI Staff with this information. A standing agenda item is to be added where this information can be reviewed.Chairperson Cyril Vernault described a condition requiring Auditor Training. Issue: Auditor identified a finding and the auditee responded to him that they already knew about the finding, but the auditee did not notify the design authority about the discrepancy. The auditor did not know how to handle this situation. Auditor did not know what action the auditee took regarding this. ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to add subject to auditor training for auditors to review any advisories issued since last audit. (Due Date: 1-Oct-2019)Oversight finding Type C Confirmed Product Impact. According to Earl Pruett, this was not known by the TG for action at the time of the audit review. Was discussed and the Supplier has since been audited with Zero NCRs –with 2 Minors which were voided. Motion made by Earl Pruett and seconded by Cyril Vernault to close the Type C issue. Motion passed. closed meeting tabled subjects – closedThere were no tabled subjects discussed at this time. rail review – closedThe Secretary, PRI Staff and HTTG reviewed the new Action Items from the February 2019 Nadcap Meeting.A discussion was held to determine if the HT Task Group should write an Auditor Advisory on what is an acceptable report. For example, if there are 10 items, will each report need to be signed by a Quality Inspector. A vote was taken, and no further action was to be taken.JUNE 2019 agenda - closedReview items to be discussed at the June 2019 Nadcap Meeting to be held in Paris, France.A preliminary June 2019 HTTG Agenda was reviewed in the meeting. ADJOURNMENT – 21-Feb-2019 – the February 2019 Nadcap HT Meeting was adjourned at 01:30 p.m.Minutes Prepared by: Sunder Rajan, Sunder_S_Rajan@ ***** 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