WELDING

OCTOBER 2016

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTES

OCTOBER 24-26, 2016

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.

MONDAY, 24-OCT-2016 to WEDNESDAY, 26-OCT-2016

OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Welding (WLD) Task Group was called to order at 8.00 a.m., Monday 24-Oct-2016 by Steve Tooley.

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

It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portion of the meeting, except that the Chair invited Richard Freeman to participate in item 6.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME

COMPANY NAME

*

Carlos

Alfaro

Eaton Aerospace

*

Oscar

Andersson

GKN Aerospace Sweden AB

*

Brandon

Beasley

Parker Aerospace Group

Jd

Bodell

309th Maintenance Wing

*

Roy

Bollig

Raytheon

Alexandre

Bourgeois

Bombardier

Ricardo

Bove

Embraer

Daniel

Calderwood

BAE Systems MAI (UK)

*

Saeed

Cheema

Cessna Aircraft Company

*

Craig

Clasper

Spirit AeroSystems

*

Karen

Dannis

BAE Systems – E&I

*

Andrew

Dewhurst

BAE Systems - MAI

*

Chris

English

GE Aviation

Secretary

*

Robert

Gilbert

Lockheed Martin

*

Milan

Hanyk

Honeywell Aerospace

*

Brian

Harvey

Gulfstream

Martha

Hogan-Battisti

Boeing

*

Jerry

Hulin

GKN Aerospace

*

Michael

Irvin

The Boeing Company

*

George

Kaniamos

Lockheed Martin

*

Ralph

Kropp

MTU Aero Engines AG

*

Holger

Krueger

Airbus Group

Vice Chairperson

*

Mitsuharu

Kuya

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD.

*

Mario

Leclerc

Bombardier

*

Joe

Lundin

UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)

*

Scott

Maitland

UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)

Anthony

Marino

The Boeing Company

*

Joel

Mohnacky

UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand)

Jose

Moreno

Airbus

Luis

Pacheco

Embraer

Samuel

Riddle

Leonardo Helicopter Division

Lindsay

Schurle

Spirit AeroSystems

Rick

Skebo

Parker Hannifin

*

Paul

Slater

Rockwell Collins

Yuichi

Sugiyama

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,Ltd

*

Steve

Tooley

Rolls-Royce

Chairperson

*

Andrew

Toth

Rolls-Royce Corporation

Jennifer

Tromble

309th Maintenance Wing

Stanley

Trull

Honeywell Aerospace

*

Akie

Uchida

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

*

Gary

Winters

Northrop Grumman

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME

COMPANY NAME

*

James

Ahlemeyer

Ducommun AeroStructures

Joe

Beauchemin Jr

LAI International

Mark

Blevins

Fluid Conditioning Products, Inc.

*

Graham

Buswell

SPS Aerostructures

Tara

Douglas

Litron, Inc.

Richard

Freeman

TWI Ltd

Travis

Harding

Barnes Aerospace

*

Andrew

Jackson

AMPP Services Ltd

Richard

Kline

X-Ray Industries

Kevin

Klingelhafer

Meyer Tool, Inc.

Shelly

Lawless

Meyer Tool, Inc.

*

Grant

Lilley

Meyer Tool, Inc.

David

McDonald

Exotic Metals Forming Co

*

Melinda

Mitton

Advance Welding

*

Angelo

Monzo

Barnes Aerospace Lansing Div.

*

David

Osenar

PAKO, Inc

*

Stan

Revers

Senior Aerospace - Thermal Engineering

Brian

Reynolds

Alcoa

David

Simon

Barnes Aerospace Lansing Div.

*

Jackie

Sternot

PAKO, Inc

*

Gigi

Streeter

Barnes Aerospace

Awwen

Tyrsson

Barnes Aerospace

*

Christopher

Webb

PCC Structurals Inc.

*

Jack

Winteringham

Alcoa Power and Propulsion

Donald

Woodward

Consolidated Precision Products - Syracuse

PRI / SAE Staff Present

Mike

Gutridge

Jennifer

Kornrumpf

Gabriel

Kustra

Alec

Lownes

Ian

Simpson

Safety Information – OPEN

The participants were notified of the meeting safety requirements.

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

The Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct policies were reviewed.

Present the Antitrust Video – OPEN

The Antitrust policy video was shown.

Review Agenda – OPEN

Ian Simpson reviewed the agenda for the meeting. New business items were identified for inclusion in item 7.0 (in closed meeting) and item 23.0 (in open meeting).

Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes – OPEN

Motion made by Michael Irvin and seconded by Mario Leclerc to accept the June 2016 Nadcap meeting minutes. Motion passed.

Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) Review – OPEN

The RAIL was reviewed by Ian Simpson. There are 2 action items 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.

· 312 – North America Subscribers to determine if they are able to provide hands-on training to auditors on Additive Manufacturing.

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

1.1 Staff Engineer Communiqué – OPEN

Ian Simpson presented a Nadcap Communiqué to the Task Group.

1.8.1 The document transition process is still on-going.

1.8.2 The next Nadcap Task Group meeting will be in February 2018 in New Orleans, LA, USA.

AUDITOR CONFERENCE – CLOSED

The Auditor Conference was conducted at the weekend prior to this meeting, 22-23 October 2016. The Task Group analyzed the effectiveness of the Auditor Conference and the Task Group members who attended stated that it had been positive, noting specifically that there had been good interaction between auditors, that requesting the submittal of questions in advance of the conference had allowed relevant questions to be grouped and handled more efficiently, and that Subscriber specific training was well received. There was some discussion about the possibility of Subscriber specific training being performed more regularly via Webex. It was noted that this item will likely fall into the Nadcap Management Council (NMC) Audit Effectiveness project.

The Task Group agreed that the format of the Conference should remain the same for the 2017 Auditor Conference.

Based on the review, items identified by the auditors, previously identified training items and the review of Auditor Consistency per OP 1117, the following recommendations were made for next year’s Auditor Conference.

· Time allocation for 3 - 4 Subscribers to perform specific training on their requirements (Northrop Grumman, Rolls-Royce and Boeing stated that they would be interested in providing training next year)

· Smart checklist update

· Training items resulting from OP1117 analysis

· Additive Manufacturing update

· Weld failures. Escapes due to these

· Specification updates

· Visual weld inspector certification

· Supplier feedback

· AWS D17.1 revisions

· Opportunity for feedback on checklists

· General question and answer

· NCR grouping re-fresher

· Handbook training (select a handbook and work through it with auditors)

· Calibration requirements

· Visual Inspection (direct and indirect techniques)

· Role plays focusing on remaining calm in difficult situations

There also needs to be provision to allow face-to-face discussions with auditors and for NMC Audit Effectiveness discussion should these be required.

These items will be reviewed again at the February 2017 Task Group meeting to ensure required training items have been captured, and to identify those which can be accomplished in the time allocated for the Conference.

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

As previously agreed all auditor annual reviews were completed by the Staff Engineers, reviewed, and agreed by the Task Group Chair, and then sent to all auditors in September 2016. Discussions, where necessary, were conducted with a Staff Engineer. All auditors were given the opportunity to have a face-to face-discussion with a member of the WLD Task Group. No requests for discussions were received.

All completed evaluations have been posted in the Task Group private forum in eAuditNet.

The Task Group agreed that this methodology was still how they wished to proceed with annual auditor evaluations in subsequent years.

Two auditors requested for items to be discussed by the Task Group; terminology used in checklists with respect to weld qualification / welder qualification, and if in-process correction of torch brazing is actually the correct term, noting that re-brazing usually occurs rather than correction of the braze. Both of these items required discussion in an open meeting and as such were included in item 22. (Note the former item was not discussed due to lack of time, however a sub-team was assigned to review the outstanding items in the rolling list of checklist items).

3.1.2 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.

The Task Group enquired if the red-line chart included voided NCRs. By knowing this they might be able to ascertain if any variation could be attributed to this.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to clarify if red-line chart includes voided NCRs. (Due Date: 21-Feb-2017)

Mario Leclerc has created a modified spreadsheet based on the NCRs per checklist paragraph chart which enables you to drill down into specific auditors, checklist and specific checklist questions. The Task Group agreed that this will enable better analysis of data in this category. There is still however a significant amount of data here and hence a sub-team of Gary Winters and Mario Leclerc agreed to review the data from all charts and provide a proposal to the Task Group on which information could be used to maximize their efforts in analyzing the data. The Task Group requested that the charts be made available and Ian Simpson actioned to post all of the charts in the Task Group private work area in eAuditNet.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to post auditor effectiveness charts in the Task Group Work Area in eAuditNet. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Gary Winters and Mario Leclerc to analyze auditor data and recommend to the WLD Task Group how to focus efforts to maximize the use of this information. (Due Date: 21-Feb-2017)

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.

3.1.3 Auditor Observation Plan

The 2016 observation plan was modified at the July 2016 meeting to add an additional auditor for observation this year. One of the Auditors originally identified for observation this year is no longer auditing. As such the required number of auditors identified for observation, based on the revised plan is 2 high risk and 2 new auditors.

The plan was reviewed to establish Task Group compliance to OP 1117. Both of the high risk auditors have been observed. One of the new auditors has been observed. An observation of the second new auditor was requested but declined by the supplier. Hence the observation of this second new auditor is still required. An observation is scheduled to review this auditor in November 2016. OP 1117 requires the Task Group to have at least observed 75% of those identified by this meeting in order to be ‘green’. Hence the Task Group metric is green.

The Task Group used the prioritization tool to establish those auditors for observation in 2017. Based on the scoring, there are 6 auditors identified as high risk, and a further one new auditor who will need to be observed. Any further new auditors will be added for observation as they are hired.

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. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

3.1.4 Observation Reports

The Task Group reviewed 7 observations. Two observations were of a new auditor. Two further observations covered 2 auditors identified for observation, and the remaining three were routine observations. In general there were only were minor items with respect to areas for improvement, however the majority of these have already been captured in the Auditors annual reviews. Additional items as noted below were made and Staff Engineers actioned to contact specific auditors on the following items:-

· One auditor’s observation noted areas where expectations were not met. The Staff Engineer has already communicated these to the affected auditor, however the Task Group actioned the Staff Engineer to follow-up with this auditor to remind him that he needs to remain calm at all times. The Task Group noted that role play situations at the October 2017 Auditor Conference may also help and added this to the possible list of topics for next year’s conference

· Audit Preparation. The Observation of one auditor noted that perhaps preparation had not been adequate, and also that the linkage between the NCR and the checklist paragraph had not occurred prior to the auditor leaving the facility. This auditor also needs reminding that it is his responsibility to contact the Observer prior to the audit to provide details of travel, accommodation and audit agenda

· An auditor’s pre-audit information stated to remind welders to work to requirements during the audit. The Subscriber expectation is that welders work to requirements at all times, hence stating this could be giving the Supplier the wrong impression. Staff Engineer was actioned to discuss this with the auditor

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to contact an auditor to remind him of the requirements to remain calm during an audit. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to contact an auditor to remind him of the requirements to adequately prepare, provide linkage of NCRs to the checklist paragraphs prior to leaving the Supplier, and the requirements to contact Observers. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to contact an auditor to notify him that he should not be making comments about reminding welders to work to requirements during the pre-audit preparation discussions. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

There were also a number of suggestions noted with respect to handbooks, checklists, and audit processing that the Task Group reviewed as follows:

· Revise handbook with respect to AC7110/5 to define the best method for defining current range for manual welding. E.g. should you use a range, or a maximum current? This was discussed by the Task Group and they decided that no action should be taken as they do not wish to impose requirements on Suppliers. The Task Group’s view is that the method should be established by the Supplier and then the auditor will check for compliance against the requirements imposed by the Supplier

· Revise handbooks, as necessary to define the linkage between WPS and PQR. The handbook was reviewed by the Task Group and they determined that the guidance provided was already adequate and as such no revision is required

· Handbook clarifications to define the Supplemental checklist requirement applicability when the Supplier is the Design Authority. This item required additional discussion in an open meeting. It was therefore added to item 23 and actions as a result of this discussion are noted there

· Should feeler gauges used to measure cavities after defect removal be calibrated. The Task Group noted that these types of items should be controlled in the Supplier’s calibration system; there may not be a need to calibrate on a high frequency, but any item used for measuring a feature does need to be included in the calibration system. The Task Group chose not to expand handbook guidelines to state this noting that it should be covered by the Supplier’s quality system and any compliance issues can still be reported in the weld audit

· Revision of Supplemental checklists to add check box against each U number. The Task Group noted that this does not provide any value, as the electronic checklist in eAuditNet requires a checkbox against each Subscriber who requires a U number

· AC7110/5S does question G.2 also belong in AC7110 or AC7110/5? The Task Group noted that the question is specifically in the Supplement and not in the base checklist as it is a question required by only a few Subscribers

· Proposal for new question in AC7110/5 or AC7110/12 that tests welder’s knowledge of weld symbols. The Task Group discussed the merits of this proposal. They determined that the weld definition on work instructions should not be the responsibility of the welder, and as such a specific test of welder’s knowledge on this subject is not appropriate. They did however note that should a welder’s instruction simply provide the weld symbol, that the job audit would test if the welder is welding in accordance with the symbol requirements

· Modification of AC7110/5 para 7.7 to link rework back to customer specification if this is defined there and a further question to ensure compliance to this. This was discussed by the Task Group and they determined that the existing questions already adequately test this. Additional questions as proposed would be making requirements which are not allowed by Nadcap procedures

· Increase in audit time for satellite audits. An observation had occurred on a satellite audit, where the main audit had not been observed. The comment received was that there was insufficient time to complete the satellite due to the reduced time allocated to the satellite. In subsequent discussion it was noted that for a satellite audit the Nadcap procedures require all of the Suppliers procedures to be common across the main and satellite facilities and this is the reason for reducing the length of the satellite audit. Although eAuditNet schedules the audits with dates showing the satellite is conducted after the main, the auditor should be conducting both audits over the entire audit length, i.e. it is possible to audit the satellite audit within the timeframe defined for the main. This is the usual protocol. With the Observer only witnessing the satellite audit, it is unknown if the auditor had to deviate from usual protocol, which in turn lead to a specific lack of time on the satellite audit. The Staff Engineer was actioned to discuss how to plan auditing main / satellite facilities with the specific auditor, and establish if this lack of time was due to an Observer only observing the satellite audit

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to discuss the best way to set the agenda when a satellite audit is performed in conjunction with a main audit and determine if time to conduct the audit is still considered an issue when performed in this manner. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

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 included in auditor annual evaluations and the Auditor Conference respectively.

The next supplier review data will be available shortly after 31-Dec-2016. Steve Tooley and Ian Simpson agreed to review and provide a summary at the February 2017 Task Group meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Steve Tooley and Ian Simpson to review the supplier feedback data and present to the Task Group at the February 2017 meeting. (Due Date: 23-Feb-2017)

3.1.6 Review Dashboard

The dashboard metrics, as required by OP 1117, were reviewed. All of the 4 required metrics are green, however it was reiterated that an observation for a new auditor is still outstanding for this year.

3.1.7 Identify Training Needs for Auditors

The review of data defined here and also from item 2.0 has resulted in a number of training items for possible inclusion in the Auditor Conference agenda. The Task Group will review again at the February 2017 Task Group meeting to start drafting an agenda.

3.1.8 NMC Annual Report

The Task Group compiled the Annual NMC review and actioned Steve Tooley to submit this to the NMC. It was noted that the report can possibly be revised if the scheduled observation of a new auditor occurs as planned. Steve Tooley agreed to revise if necessary and then submit to NMC.

ACTION ITEM: Steve Tooley to submit WLD’s annual Auditor Effectiveness report to the NMC. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

3.1.9 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 2016 Task Group meeting; hence the following items were briefly reviewed at this meeting to verify that no changes are required.

· 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 2017 meeting.

3.1.10 Actions required by NMC Audit Effectiveness Team

Further to the discussion and template completion at the June 2016 meeting, the Task Group Chair was asked to provide further explanations for each of these items. This was completed and submitted to the Audit Effectiveness team at the end of August. The Audit Effectiveness team commented that while the job selection handbook provided guidance there did not seem to be any defined requirement that required auditors to select the job audits. The Audit Effectiveness team was provided with prior Auditor Conference training material on this item, presentations for the 2016 Auditor Conference that demonstrated this was being included, and a proposed revision to the AC7110 checklist that will state that the Auditor will select the job audits.

3.1.11 Sub-team analysis of high risk auditor

The sub-team of Karen Dannis and Jerry Hulin reported on their analysis of a high risk auditor. The sub-team reviewed audit history and conducted an Observation. The sub-team concluded that there did not appear to be any significant issues, but recommended that the Task Group continue to review data over the coming months to establish if further review is required. They also noted that the Auditor, perhaps, does not write NCRs against checklist items that he considers to be non-value added. The Staff Engineer was actioned to discuss this item with the auditor and have the auditor provide examples of this for further discussion in the Task Group.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to inquire with an auditor about specific concerns with “non-value added” audit questions. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

3.2 Auditor Status

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

SUPPLIER ADVISORIES – CLOSEDReview of Advisories since June 2016 Nadcap Meeting.

5 Supplier Advisories have been issued by WLD since the June 2016 Task Group meeting, #2829, #2844, #2863, #2868 and #2877. It was however noted that advisory #2683 was retracted after a successful appeal. These were reviewed by the Task Group.

One Supplier Advisory was issued by another commodity that could have an effect on the WLD accreditation. This advisory, #2875 was reviewed. No additional actions were identified.

Review of Subscriber Advisories.

During the meeting GE requested a Type C Supplier Advisory (#2885) be issued due to a weld failure escape. The Task Group briefly discussed, and stated that they wished to see the Supplier’s response to the advisory before any subsequent action is taken. The Staff Engineer has scheduled a Webex and invited Subscriber members to attend to discuss subsequent actions.

STAFF ENGINEER DELEGATION – CLOSEDReview of Staff Engineer Delegation

The Staff Engineer reviewed data for Audit Report Reviewers using delegation oversight form t-frm-07, including percentage oversight by Task Group, percentage 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 were met for the delegated Audit Report Reviewers and the following motions were made.

Motion made by Holger Krueger and seconded by Gary Winters to maintain Ian Simpson’s delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Holger Krueger and seconded by Gary Winters to maintain Mike Gutridge’s delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Holger Krueger and seconded by Gary Winters to maintain Wayne Canary’s delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Holger Krueger and seconded by Gary Winters to maintain Gabe Kustra’s delegation. Motion Passed.

1. Intention to use Mike Gutridge as a Consultant Reviewer (CR) after he retires

Ian Simpson notified the Task Group of PRI’s intention to continue to use Mike Gutridge to review audits after he retires. He will be engaged as a Consultant Reviewer. For new Consultant Reviewers there is a lengthy training program to bring the individual up to the required knowledge base. As Mike will be transferring immediately to a Consultant Reviewer once he retires, the Task Group agreed that the training identified on i-frm-17 CR has already been covered and as such can be waived. They also agreed that the overview of reviewed audits as defined in t-frm-05 can also be waived.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to make necessary provisions for Mike Gutridge to continue to review audits as a Consultant Reviewer. (Due Date: 4-Nov-2016)

1. Task Group expectations when a Supplier has to contact the Engineering Authority

Recognizing that it often takes a considerable time for Engineering Authorities to makes decisions on submissions such as Drawing Alterations, Specification Change Requests and similar documents, the Task Group have previously allowed NCR closure once a Supplier provides these types of documents to the Engineering Authority. On a recent audit, this practice was questioned by a Voting member; hence this practice was brought for discussion at this meeting. The WLD Task Group agreed that notification from the supplier and notification from an authorized representative of the Subscriber is needed to close the NCR when these conditions exist. Typically, the Subscriber contact will be the Task Group representative, but could also be the Subscriber NMC representative or other Quality contact as determined by the Subscriber.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to communicate the Task Group’s requirements to gain Subscriber Task Group representative agreement that Suppliers have provided the correct documentation in support of Engineering Change requests to WLD Staff Engineers. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2016)

Auditor exam for additive manufacturing – CLOSED

The Task Group Chair invited Richard Freeman to participate in this part of the closed meeting, as Richard has been heavily involved in the development of the exam.

To support the introduction of the Additive Manufacturing checklist (ref item16.0), the sub-team of Holger Krueger, Rob Gilbert, Andy Dewhurst and Richard Freeman have been developing an exam for auditor candidates. Due to the sensitive nature of the auditor exam, this was included in closed item business in order to protect the content. The exam was reviewed by the Task Group, and a decision taken that a further sub-team should review it. Volunteers for this review team are Chris English, Andy Toth, Jerry Hulin and Milan Hanyk. The exam will be forwarded to them for review and a finalized exam ready for 30-Nov-2016. Once the final exam is received it will be added in the Learning Management System (LMS).

ACTION ITEM: Sub-team of Chris English, Andy Toth, Jerry Hulin and Milan Hanyk to provide review of the proposed Additive Manufacturing auditor exam and provide final exam to PRI. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to have the Additive Manufacturing auditor exam entered into the LMS. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2017)

NEW BUSINESs – CLOSEDWelder qualification record requirements

The Risk Mitigation Team for audit 166863 requested the Task Group review the welder qualification records that were provided by the supplier during the course of the Risk Mitigation Team review. There are essentially 2 issues: record completeness where the qualified range section was not completed with thicknesses against all of the qualified positions, and a record was presented qualifying the welder against AMS-STD-1595 from 2001.

The Task Group noted that the Qualification Test Record was deemed incomplete, and also that if the record did indeed intend to qualify to AMS-STD-1595 that it was not valid (they did however note that this may have been a legacy notation and could well have been intended to reflect a qualification to AWS D17.1). The Staff Engineer was asked to provide feedback to the Supplier in question, so that the issues are corrected and the Supplier not found delinquent in subsequent audits.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to provide feedback to the Supplier on audit 166863 with respect to the completion of the welder qualification test records and the reference to AMS-STD-1595 on the record. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

Subscriber accreditation audit 172872

A Subscriber accreditation audit was balloted to the Task Group and approved but a comment was received that requested the practice of the Subscriber be discussed at the Task Group meeting. In order to rationalize the eyesight tests in use by all operators, including welders, the Subscriber had created a generic procedure defining eyesight for all roles. The concern was that the implementation of such an internal procedure could result in the Subscriber deviating from the flowed specification requirement. The Subscriber Task Group representative for this audit provided an explanation as to why they had taken this approach. This explanation was accepted by the Task Group.

Risk Mitigation – number of cycles

The Task Group was previously notified that the Risk Mitigation process will be transferring to Staff Engineers on 1-Jan-2017. There are however conditions in the new procedure that will require the Staff Engineer to ballot the Task Group for suspension of the Risk Mitigation process due to excessive cycles and response delinquency of Suppliers. Holger Krueger suggested that the Task Group review data of prior Risk Mitigation audits to establish the likely number of audits that will have to be sent for ballot to suspend the Risk Mitigation process due to excessive reply cycles. The Staff Engineer provided data showing the number of cycles required to complete the Risk Mitigation process to date. Approximately 25% of these have exceeded 4 reply cycles. The Task Group noted that they will work to the new process when introduced and will make determinations for Risk Mitigation suspension on a case by case basis.

Review Membership Status – OPEN

8.1 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:.m-frm-01 forms were completed as necessary.

· Subscriber Voting Member: UVM

· Supplier Voting Member: SVM

· Alternate: ALT

· Task Group Chairperson: CHR

· Vice Chairperson: VCH

· Secretary: SEC

First Name

Surname

Company

Position:

(new / updated role)

Meetings Attended(Month/Year)

Carlos

Alfaro

Eaton Aerospace

New UVM

Jun-2012

Oct-2016

Roy

Bollig

Raytheon

New ALT/UVM

Jun-2016

Oct-2016

Graham

Buswell

SPS Aerostructures

New SVM

Feb-2016

Jun-2016

Craig

Clasper

Spirit AeroSystems

Move from ALT/UVM to UVM

N/A

N/A

Brain

Harvey

Gulfstream

New UVM

Jun-2015

Oct-2016

Hirohiko

Hattori

MHI

Remove UVM status (replaced by Mitsuharu Kuya)

N/A

N/A

George

Kaniamos

Lockheed Martin

New ALT/UVM

Oct-2015

Oct-2016

Mitsuharu

Kuya

MHI

Move from ALT/UVM to UVM)

N/A

N/A

Joe

Lundin

UTAS (Goodrich)

New ALT/UVM

Jun-2016

Oct-2016

Stanley

Revers

Senior Aerospace – Thermal Engineering

New SVM

Jun-2016

Oct-2016

Brian

Ricks

Raytheon

Remove ALT/UVM (replaced by Roy Bollig)

N/A

N/A

Akie

Uchida

MHI

New ALT/UVM

Jun-2016

Oct-2016

Jack

Witteringham

Airconic Power and Propulsion (formally Alcoa)

Move from ALT/SVM to SVM

N/A

N/A

ACTION ITEM: PRI to make changes to Subscriber and Supplier Voting status as noted in the table within the minutes. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

8.2 Review Compliance with Voting Requirements of Present Voting Members

The compliance to voting requirements per PD 1100 was reviewed.

There are no Subscribers or Suppliers who have missed the last 2 ballots, however GKN Aerospace Sweden did miss 2 consecutive ballots since the June 2016 Task Group meeting. The GKN Aerospace Task Group representatives reaffirmed their commitment to the process, and the Chair agreed to maintain their membership on this occasion.

Triumph has not met the required minimum attendance. Rodney Holt provided the Chair with the reasons for non-attendance over the last year. Due to exceptional circumstances, the Chair agreed to maintain Triumph’s voting status.

Supplier Support Committee (SSC) Report – OPEN

9.1 Ian Simpson gave the presentation on SSC activities on behalf of Mike Schleckman. This gave information on its role, current activities, the mentoring program and SSC initiatives and events. SSC provides an avenue for Suppliers to have input and give feedback to the Nadcap system, and provides answers and support for Suppliers who have questions and problems. The 2015 Supplier Survey closed in February 2016, data analyzed and results are being published this meeting.

There are also sponsored events organized which include items such as Subscriber Updates for Suppliers, Nadcap from a Chairperson perspective, calibration best practice, and AS9100 Rev D change summary.

NMC Metrics – OPEN

10.1 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 30-Sep-16 were green.

A review of all monthly metrics since the last Task Group meeting was performed and no red metrics have occurred in this period.

Specification Changes – OPENRichard Freeman provided an update on the status of American Welding Society (AWS) specifications.

· AWS D17.1 - Major revision in work for procedure qualification, visual acuity, welder qualification for tack welding and manned space flight. An expected release date to occur around the end of 2017, or early 2018

· AWS D17.2 - Planned next revision for end of 2018

· AWS D17.3 - 2nd edition has been issued. Already started work on 3rd edition. Topics to be covered include tack welding, rework and repair, self-reacting Friction Stir Welding, Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing and residual oxide defect

· The next AWS D17 Committee meeting will be at the FABTECH / AWS show in Las Vegas, 14-17 November 2016

Holger Krueger provided an update on the status of ISO specifications. The ISO Committee met in Miami on 19-20 Oct-2016.

· ISO 19828 Visual Inspection – Expected to be published Quarter 2 / 2017. Holger gave additional information on the content of this procedure including weld features, requirements of inspector (knowledge, experience, eyesight) and physical properties where inspection is conducted (access to weld, lighting conditions, inspection equipment)

· ISO 24394 Welder Qualification. Systematic review in progress. Changes to table that depicts test pieces and welding positions, additional welding positions introduced, new material group for nickel, welding operator qualification will be relayed to welding process and machine type (no longer includes material and thickness), eyesight restrictions to be defined on test record, specific requirements for structural welding of castings, new options for vision test – To be balloted ending Quarter 2 / 2017

· ISO 11745 Amd1 – Brazer Qualification. Amendment introduced new vision test, which was accepted and specification issued in April 2015

· Eyesight requirements. Agreed to 3 alternative options that will be adopted for welders, brazers, operators and inspectors

· ISO 16338 – Resistance Welding – correcting clear annulus zone definition and incorrect table. Expect to release in Quarter 1 / 2017

· ISO 17533 – Welding information in design documents. Published in August 2015

· ISO 17927 – Fusion welding of metallic components. Intend to split into 2 sections: process requirements and acceptance requirements. Work continues on this specification. Process requirements draft complete

· Additive Manufacturing. A new working group was created. Initial projects include Standard on qualification on machines for powder bed fusion with laser energy, standard on qualification of operators for powder bed fusion, and process specification for powder bed fusion

· Brazing. Brazing of metallic components will be the next project for the sub-committee

· Topics under discussion: Electron beam welding, Laser beam welding, Linear and orbital friction welding

The next ISO meeting will be 7-9-Mar-2017 at the University of Coventry, UK.

Richard Freeman 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 / Welding / Data Folder).

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to post the AWS and ISO Committee update presentations in eAuditNet. (Due Date: 30-Nov-16)

annual review of op 1114 appendix wld – OPEN

12.1 Disposition of OP 1114 Appendix WLD ballot comments

At the June 2016 Task Group meeting, the Task Group proposed revisions to their appendix of the Task Group Operation procedure, OP 1114. This procedure was balloted to the Task Group and NMC, and ballot comments resolved directly with the commenters without the need for Task Group disposition. As such the procedure was subsequently issued, and hence no further discussion was required on this item.

The Staff Engineer noted that NMC had approved revisions to OP 1114 to require suppliers to perform self-audits. This revision allows the Task Group to define number of job audits required and states that this should either be defined in the Task Group Operating Procedure appendix (i.e. OP 1114 App WLD), or directly in the checklist. The Task Group decided that it is more visible to suppliers if defined in the checklist. Review of base checklist, AC7110, is included in item 22.

Overview of Auditor Conference – OPEN

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

· General training was predominantly focused on travel security, and included a brief update on Audit effectiveness

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

· Smart checklists including current status and feedback from Auditors on how this is working in practice

· Task Group Administrative issues on, Auditor Advisories, Handbook revisions, Accepting NCRs on-site, Job Audit Selection, Auditing Suppliers who are Design Authorities, Time Management, Feedback on checklists

· Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, Boeing and GE specific training

· Update on specification revisions (AWS and ISO)

· Best Practice for Audit Preparation

· ISO Visual Inspection of Welds

· Visual Weld Inspector certification

· Resistance Weld Nugget Evaluations

· NMC Audit Effectiveness: Job Selection; Level of Documentation requiring review; Validation of Customer requirements

Resistance weld coupon evaluation – OPEN

Andy Toth discussed an issue that he has been repeatedly seeing on resistance welding coupon evaluation reports. He has seen numerous reports where only single values for penetration have been entered in the logs for the top and bottom thicknesses. As a result Andy states that he is unsure if the Supplier is evaluating penetration in all locations and only recording single values, or if the Supplier is not evaluating penetration in all of the expected locations. Task Group discussion ensued and noted that the Task Group is not able to impose requirements. As such, Subscribers need to review their requirements and bring this to the February 2017 meeting so that the Task Group can decide if change to the checklist and / or handbook can be made.

Further discussion ensued with respect to possible differences between machine / schedule qualification and production test coupons. i.e. the former may well be performed in a laboratory environment while the latter are typically performed on the shop floor and will likely have inferior preparation.

There was a wider discussion on the overall quality of weld evaluations reports. There are many different flow-down requirements for the sources evaluating welds. These are Subscriber driven. It was re-iterated that Nadcap cannot flow down requirements for sources of weld evaluations.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add discussion item with respect to evaluation of welds to the February 2017 meeting agenda. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to review requirements for weld evaluation test reports for further discussion at the February 2017 meeting. (Due Date: 22-Feb-2017)

diffusion welding – OPEN

15.1 The AC7110/8 checklist for Diffusion Welding was drafted to accommodate Smart Checklist, incorporate items from the rolling action item list, and to allow superplastic forming. This draft was sent to technical ballot, and notification sent that resolution of comments would occur at this meeting. The Task Group reviewed and dispositioned all of the ballot comments.

During the course of the review it was however noted that there are some legacy questions that still reference the need for additional Nadcap accreditations to be held. As such the Task Group decided that a further full letter ballot is required to enable comments on any items within the checklist to be commented on.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to incorporate the ballot comment dispositions to the AC7110/8 checklist and re-send on another letter ballot to the Task Group. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

The Staff Engineer noted that the handbook will also require revision; however this can wait until we are closer to having the checklist approved.

Additive Manufacture – OPENRichard Freeman gave a presentation on progress of checklist development, Auditor training requirements, auditor exam, and handbook development. Details of each item are below:

Since the June 2016 meeting, the checklist which covers laser and electron beam powder-bed Additive Manufacturing, was sent on an affirmation ballot to the Task Group. There were some minor editorial comments that were addressed without the need for Task Group disposition. The checklist was then sent to NMC ballot and the checklist was subsequently approved as no comments were received on this ballot. The Staff Engineer has made the necessary editorial revision to OP 1114 Appendix WLD to recognize the new checklist, AC7110/14. The checklist however cannot be published until such time that an effectivity date is known. The effectivity date will not be known until we have a much clearer definition of when auditor training and examination will be finalized (See subsequent paragraphs).

Per agreement at the June 2016 Task Group meeting, all auditors currently qualified in electron beam and or laser welding were invited to be trained in Additive Manufacturing. Of those eligible, ten requested training. Also, one auditor currently in training has experience of the process and was also therefore included in the training program. The 2 Auditors who previously stated they had knowledge of the process were found not to have extensive knowledge of this variation of Additive Manufacturing.

Theoretical training in the process was given by Richard Freeman at the Auditor Conference immediately preceding this meeting. This was well received and provided the necessary background for the additional hands-on training and examination.

Subsequent to the theoretical training the Task Group previously stated that they would require practical training, examination and interview prior to allowing the auditors to audit the process. Previously GKN Aerospace and MTU have volunteered to provide practical training for up to 5 auditors. Based on the limited feedback from Subscribers on the likely number of Suppliers, this appears to be sufficient at this time. GKN Aerospace have committed to providing practical training in January 2017. PRI have identified auditors for this training and have made the necessary arrangements for them to attend this.

It was also again noted that a source for practical training in the US would be extremely beneficial, and any Subscriber who has this ability was asked to consider if they could help train auditors. Richard Freeman noted that there may be an opportunity to utilize a facility in the US for training; however this is an independent facility and not a Subscriber. Details of this would still need finalizing before this route could be utilized.

At the February 2016 Task Group meeting, Subscribers were asked 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 audit. Since June 2016, a further two Subscribers have provided information to PRI, and the total number of Suppliers identified as likely requiring an audit as approximately ten. It was re-iterated that without this information, we do not know how many Auditors are required and when we need them to be qualified by.

Subscribers were reminded that training costs will be significant and that it is important to train the required number of Auditors based on number of expected audits.

The exam that has been drafted was reviewed in item 6. The Task Group further discussed what actions would be required after the exam had been completed by the auditor. It was noted that the exam was very comprehensive and as such it was questioned whether an interview prior to approving the auditor to audit this process is actually required. At which point:

Motion made by Michael Irvin and seconded by Saeed Cheema to waive the auditor interviews for auditors who have completed theoretical and practical training and successfully completed the exam. i.e. once the candidate receives the training and passes the exam, they will be approved as an auditor for AC7110/14. Motion Passed.

Richard Freeman presented the sub-team’s proposed handbook that will support the checklist. There were a few minor revisions, but the technical content was approved. The handbook requires editorial changes to remove some redundant verbiage, and re-formatting.

A supplier asked if the suppliers will be notified when the checklist is issued. The Staff Engineer stated that notification is required as a checklist has a 90 day effectivity from the date of issue. The Staff Engineer however agreed to verify the notification process was indeed in place.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to make editorial revisions as necessary to the Additive Manufacturing handbook and send to Task Group Subscriber members in advance of issue. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to determine if mass e-mail to the Nadcap supplier base is needed to notify them of the AC7110/14 checklist being issued. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

The timeline for the introduction of the checklist was reviewed. This brings together, checklist approval, Auditor training, and Subscriber mandates. The critical path is now approval of auditors. Assuming no slippage, then the anticipated date that we will be ready to audit is April 2017.

Create NMC Feedback Chart – OPEN

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

NMC Meeting Report – OPEN

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

· The Risk Mitigation process will change to being performed by Staff Engineer from 1-Jan-2017

· There is a new report tool dashboard that enables Subscribers to review status of Observation audits

· The Audit Effectiveness team reported on the status of this project, including items on forum for confidential feedback from an auditor about a Supplier, self-audit requirement, job tracker implementation, multiple contacts for each supplier in eAuditNet, analyzing time it takes to verify corrective actions from prior audits

· Self-Audit. All commodities are required to mandate self-audits. Those commodities who do not currently mandate these, such as welding, are required to ballot their checklist with this incorporation by January 2017

Forum for Supplier Issues – OPEN

19.1 Prior to the meeting, a Supplier requested guidance on bend testing requirements of AWS B4.0 and AWS D17.1 Annex C. Previously, welder qualifications performed using bend testing to MIL-STD-1595 had the completed requirements defined within the specification, however it has been noted that these later specifications do not define the number of specimens required and in addition AWS B4.0 does not actually state the bend test types that are required. The Staff Engineer has already requested the Task Group representative who is also a member on the AWS Committee to review, and the feedback received was they did intend to mirror MIL-STD-1595 requirements when they wrote these specifications. The Task Group discussed this item and agreed that they are unable to provide guidance as they are not the authority for AWS. As such they deferred to provide any guidance on this and suggested that any Supplier with an issue request a formal interpretation directly from AWS.

A Supplier noted that they are having difficulty with flow down issues from Suppliers higher up the chain. The specific issue related to Boeing requirements. As such Michael Irvin provided guidance on what they should do in this situation.

A Supplier asked how Export Controlled data is to be sent to PRI in support of responses to NCRs. The Staff Engineer noted that this should be e-mailed directly to restricteddata@p-r-i.org

The ‘Instruction on how to respond to NCR’ that is provided as a link from each NCR in an audit is currently being revised and this item is being addressed in that revision.

Multiple Suppliers commented that they were opposed to the self-audit being mandated, and also asked the Task Group to review the additional documentation being required prior to the audit. The Task Group responded that the self-audit is a mandate from NMC and as such there is no option but to require it. They did agree to review the additional information that is being requested. This was conducted during the review of the AC7110 checklist. (see item 22)

review of supplemental checklist questions – OPEN

20.1 Nadcap procedures make provision for unique Subscriber requirements to be verified via supplemental checklists. Where possible, the desired outcome when developing checklists is to agree on a baseline requirement and include it in the main checklist. When agreement can’t be gained and a Subscriber has a requirement that they need to be checked, these items are placed in Supplemental checklists. Although the number of Supplemental checklist requirements is not extensive, the Task Group decided to review to establish if any existing Supplemental checklist requirements could be adopted in the main checklist. The Task Group started to review AC7110/3S, but it quickly became apparent that each Subscriber Task Group representative needs to review their existing Supplemental requirements to establish if they are still required. PRI agreed to develop a table with each supplemental requirement defined so that Subscribers can verify if it is a requirement that they still need to test via the Supplement. Subscribers are to review and come to the February 2017 meeting prepared to discuss further.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to formulate a table with supplemental questions and send out to Subscribers. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Each Subscriber to review supplemental questions to verify (1) that the requirement is flowed down from a specific Subscriber requirement and (2) whether it can be removed. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2017)

Auditor Advisories – OPENOne Auditor Advisory has been issued since the June 2016 Nadcap Meeting. This advisory was specific to functionality of the Job Tracker enhancement, which is only relevant to auditors. As such the advisory was closed and is not posted for Supplier review.

The Task Group was reminded that open advisories are posted in eAuditNet (Resources / Documents / Public Documents / Welding / Auditor Advisories).

Checklist Items – OPEN

22.1 Handbook Revisions

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

The Task Group was asked if a description of blind joints could be given as related to AC7110/1 para 7.4. The Task Group developed verbiage for the handbook.

The handbook associated with leak rate test in AC7110/3 Para 5.6 does not give any details. Based on a recent audit, the Task Group thought it would be beneficial to add some information here. The Task Group developed verbiage for the handbook.

The handbooks for filler control in the fusion welding and laser welding should have notes explaining what is required when powder is used instead of filler wire. The Task Group developed verbiage for the handbook.

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to revise the AC7110/1 handbook to include information on blind joints and further changes as defined in the minutes at para 22.2, i.e. clarification on in-process correction and ability to set flame condition under some gas mixture conditions. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to revise the AC7110/3 handbook to include information on leak rate. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to revise the AC7110/5 and /6 handbooks to include information on how to complete the filler supplements when filler is used in the powder form. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

22.2 Checklists Revisions

The base requirement checklist (AC7110) was revised to incorporate items from the rolling list of checklist items and to add some items proposed by the NMC Audit Effectiveness team. This was balloted to the Task Group in March 2016. The Task Group deferred the ballot comment disposition at the June 2016 meeting, as the NMC indicated that they would be further reviewing the requirements for self-audit, and this item constituted the majority of comments on the ballot. Formal notification was sent that resolution of comments would be addressed at this meeting.

Since the June Task Group meeting, the NMC have approved revisions to OP 1114 and OP 1105 that require Suppliers to provide a self-audit to the auditor at least 30 days prior to the audit. Significantly, the approved revisions will not be mandating the self-audit to be attached to the checklist at this time. Attaching the self-audit, by the Auditor, was a major issue for the Auditors who commented on the ballot, and the approved procedure changes allowed the Task Group to easily address these comments. Once the Task Group started to review the ballot comments in conjunction with the revisions to Operating Procedures, it became apparent that the checklist required numerous changes, not only to items in the original draft, but also items not previously identified for revision. At this time the Task Group agreed that formal disposition of comments would not address all items that are now required due to procedural revisions. As such the decision was taken to start reviewing the draft checklist in its entirety and perform a full letter re-ballot. The Task Group made numerous changes and instructed the Staff Engineer to re-ballot.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to incorporate the ballot comment dispositions to the AC7110 checklist, include additional changes as agreed at the meeting and send the second draft on letter ballot to the Task Group. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2016)

The Task Group maintains a rolling list of items for requests on checklist revision. Since the last Task Group meeting in June 2016, numerous items have been requested to be added to the list. The Task Group dispositioned the first 4 as follows and then formed a sub-team of Holger Krueger, Saeed Cheema and Ralph Kropp to disposition the remaining items due to the lack of time:

· The term ‘in-process correction’ used in the AC7110/1 braze checklist may not be accurate as brazements are usually completely re-brazed when not meeting requirements. The Task Group agreed to revise the handbook to clarify that an in-process correction means re-braze for this process. This revision is incorporated into the handbook and is to be issued as defined in the action at para 22.1

· An auditor suggested adding a checkbox to the top of all job audits to note if the job is Export Controlled. The Task Group agreed that this was a good idea and agreed that these changes should be made going forward

· In torch brazing, when an air/fuel mix is used, the oxidizing flame condition cannot be achieved. The Task Group agreed to make notation in the handbook to address this and is to be issued as defined in the action at para 22.1

· In torch brazing, when induction coils are purchased as off-the-shelf items, is it acceptable to simply reference the Manufacturer’s part number. The Task Group have concerns simply allowing this as this would not necessarily take into account any damage that may have occurred. The Task Group may be willing to look at this item again if the proposal incorporates a check on the coil prior to use

ACTION ITEM: Sub-team of Holger Krueger, Saeed Cheema and Ralph Kropp to disposition the remaining items on the rolling list of checklist revisions. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

Boeing previously requested the Task Group to consider moving the currently unique to Boeing requirements for reviewing disqualification requirements when determining extended welder qualification from AC7110/12S to the baseline checklist AC7110/12. At the June 2016 meeting, all Subscriber members were actioned to establish if the requirements currently listed as Boeing specific, could be agreed as baseline and adopted into AC7110/12. Michael Irvin reiterated that disqualification needs to be a part of the review to allow extended qualification for qualifications to AWS D17.1 and Boeing specifications. In the subsequent discussion there was some agreement that it may be possible to re-write and move some of these questions, however there was no agreement to move them in their entirety, as such, at this time, the questions will remain in AC7110/12S as Boeing specific questions.

22.3 Smart Checklist

At this time, the only existing checklist that has not yet been approved to use modified cycle is the diffusion weld checklist, AC7110/8. Per item 15.0 this checklist is however in the process of being converted.

The new checklist for Additive Manufacturing has not been formatted for modified cycle at this time. It is recognized that this checklist will likely require revision to accommodate feedback from the initial audits of this process, and it will be converted to allow modified cycles at that time.

New Business Items – OPEN

23.1 There has been much confusion among Auditors, Suppliers and Subscribers about when a Subscriber’s User number needs to be included in the audit scope. The main complication is when the Supplier holds the design authority for the parts they are welding. Gabe Kustra provided a draft flowchart that shows when a User number is or isn’t required. Some feedback was received and will be incorporated and then sent to Task Group Voting members for further comment. The intent would be to include this in the handbook as guidance for when User numbers need to be included in the audit scope.

ACTION ITEM: Gabe Kustra to update flowchart for the applicability of User numbers in audit scope with comments received at the October meeting and send out to the WLD Task Group Subscriber and Supplier voting members for comment. Gabe to also will provide background as to the purpose of the flowchart. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Voting members to provide feedback on the draft flowchart for the applicability of User numbers being incorporated in audit scope. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2017).

Milan Hanyk raised a comment that the handbook for AC7110/5 and Top 10 findings with respect to electrode control have conflicting information. The Task Group agreed that the handbook is correct (i.e. that control is to the point of release of electrodes to the shop floor). As such the Top 10 finding document requires revision to align with the handbook.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to revise the top 10 findings document for electrode control to align with the AC7110/5 handbook. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2016)

Andy Toth raised a question about how the checklists are used to evaluate the laboratory’s ability to evaluate welds.

The Staff Engineer noted that AC7110/13 is used to check independent laboratories ability to assess welds (metallurgical and bend testing), and is performed by the Materials Testing on Weld’s behalf. The exact same questions are used in the welding and welder / weld operator checklists (i.e. AC 7110/3, /4, /5, /6 and, /12) when the evaluation is being performed by the welding supplier. In these cases the assessment is performed by the welding auditor.

Subsequent discussion ensued about how coupon preparation is controlled at which point Andy Toth stated he would investigate further and make any proposals for checklist changes at future meetings.

ACTION ITEM: Andy Toth to further evaluate and if required propose changes to checklists with respect to evaluation of welds / welder qualifications at Captive Labs. (Due Date: 21-Feb-2017)

february 2017 Agenda – OPEN

Several items from this meeting will require additional time in the February 2017 meeting. The Task Group agreed that until the existing work items are nearer completion, no further projects should be undertaken. The February 2017 agenda will therefore only include standard items, and items that require additional discussion based on this meeting. The Staff Engineer will incorporate any items that the Task Group reviews on an annual basis at the February 2017 meeting, and an item on Task Group succession as the initial term of the Chair is nearing completion.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to develop an agenda based on the items of the October agenda, and include any items that the Task Group includes on an annual basis for the 2017 February meeting. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2016)

Review of Action Items – OPEN

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

Review of Meeting Effectiveness – OPEN

26.1 The meeting was considered to be effective in meeting its goals. It was noted that participants at the rear of the room could not read items on the screen. i.e. the screen was not of sufficient size for the room. Suggestions included larger screen, rearrangement of room to make the ‘U’ wider and shallower. Also if the Task Group size continues to expand then the use of microphones may be required in the not too distant future.

Next Meeting – OPEN

27.1 As the NMC meeting will be on Thursday, the Task Group requests to meet Tuesday to Thursday. Hence the meeting will be 21-23-Feb-2017 in New Orleans, LA, USA.

ADJOURNMENT – Wednesday 26-Oct-2016 – Meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Chris English chris.english@ge.com

***** For PRI Staff use only: ******

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select one)

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*If yes, the following information is required:

Documents requiring revision:

Who is responsible:

Due date: