OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN - Performance Review...

WELDING FEBRUARY 2016

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTESFEBRUARY 23-25, 2016

MADRID, SPAIN

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

TUESDAY, 23-FEB-2016 to THURSDAY, 25-FEB-2016

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Welding (WLD) Task Group was called to order at 9.00 a.m., Tuesday 23-FEB-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.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Osawonuyi Agbonkonkon Parker Hannifin AerospaceOscar Andersson GKN Aerospace Sweden ABMark Bredbere The Boeing Company

* Joakim Carlsson GKN Aerospace Sweden AB* Saeed Cheema Cessna Aircraft Company (Textron

Aviation)* Cedric Colas SAFRAN Group* Gary Coleman The Boeing Company* Karen Dannis BAE Systems* Andrew Dewhurst BAE Systems - MAI

Vukile Dumani GKN Aerospace* Robert Gilbert Lockheed Martin* Milan Hanyk Honeywell Aerospace* Les Hellemann GE Aviation Secretary* Val Henry SAFRAN Group

Jose Hidalgo Carmona Airbus Defense and Space* Tommy Howland Spirit AeroSystems* Jerry Hulin GKN Aerospace* Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines AG* Holger Krueger Airbus Group Vice Chairperson* Mitsuharu Kuya Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI)* Dag Lindland Pratt & Whitney* Scott Maitland UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)

Timothy Nance Rockwell Collins* Marco Luigi Poletto Finmeccanica SpA - Aeronautics Sector* Paul Slater Rockwell Collins* Steve Tooley Rolls-Royce Chairperson

Kara Warrensford Honeywell Aerospace* Gerhard Westenrieder MTU Aero Engines AG


CONFIRMED

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

Graham Buswell SPS AerostructuresMarta Davila ITP Industria – Turbo PropulsionRichard Freeman TWI Ltd

* Grant Lilley Meyer Tool, Inc.Tony Poole Paradigm Precision BurnleyBrian Reynolds ALCOA

* Mike Schleckman VOSS INDUSTRIES, LLC* Christopher Webb PCC Structurals Inc.* Jack Winteringham Alcoa Power & Propulsion

PRI / SAE Staff Present

Gabriel KustraIan Simpson

1.2 Safety Information – OPEN

The participants were notified of the meeting safety requirements.

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

The Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct policies were reviewed.

1.4 Present the Antitrust Video – OPEN

The Antitrust policy video was shown.

1.5 Review Agenda – OPEN

Ian Simpson reviewed the agenda for the February 2016 Nadcap meeting. New business items were identified for inclusion in item 8.0 (in closed meeting) and item 23.0 (in open meeting).

1.6 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes – OPEN

Motion made by Mike Schleckman and seconded by Holger Krueger to accept the October 2015 Nadcap meeting minutes. Motion passed.

1.7 Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) Review – OPEN

The RAIL was reviewed by Ian Simpson. All items with a due date of February 2016 or prior are either closed or are included in this meeting for discussion, except for item 218 (Logistics of Observing a new Auditor within the time frame required by OP 1117). It was however noted OP 1117 has had the verbiage removed that defined actual timeframes and as such the Task Group agreed to close this item.

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

1.8 Staff Engineer Communiqué – OPEN

Ian Simpson presented a Nadcap Communiqué to the Task Group.


CONFIRMED

1.8.1 Procedure transition phase 2 has commenced. This is the complete review of Operating Procedures.

1.8.2 WLD has a new Committee Service Representative (CSR), Jennifer Kornrumpf.

1.8.3 Next Nadcap Task Group meeting will be in June 2016 in London, UK.

2.0 AUDITOR CONFERENCE – CLOSED

At the October 2015 Task Group meeting, the Task Group identified a number of training items for consideration for the 2016 Auditor Conference.

Items identified include those items identified by the auditors, previously identified training items and the review of auditor consistency per OP 1117.

A draft agenda had been developed by Ian Simpson. This was reviewed by the Task Group and modified to include additional items as required based on the review of auditor consistency data (ref item 3.1). Where possible Task Group members were assigned to each item, and they will be responsible for coordinating / development of training material. Final assignments will be made at the June 2016 Task Group meeting.

The Staff Engineer was assigned the action of updating the agenda based on the discussion at this meeting, and forwarding to the Subscriber Voting Members.

A training item on weld failures was included with Steve Tooley identified as the lead. In order for this to be included Steve Tooley requested subscriber members to provide him with some examples of failed welds.

It was also noted that some time be made available for discussion on Additive Manufacturing, during the discussion in item 16.0.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to update the Auditor Conference agenda and send to Subscriber Voting Members. (Due Date: 30-APR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Subscriber members to provide Steve Tooley with examples of weld failures that can be used at the October 2016 Auditor Conference. (Due Date: 21-JUN-2016)

3.0 AUDITOR EFFECTIVENESS – CLOSED

3.1 Review of OP 1117

Ian Simpson informed the Task Group that the auditor consistency procedure (OP 1117) has been revised. The Task Group took some time to review the changes to understand the implication of these.

The following items were discussed:

3.1.1 Annual Review of Auditors

The Task Group has developed a template for annual auditor feedback. This has been successfully used in 2014 and 2015. The Task Group reviewed the template to ensure it still meets OP 1117 requirements and their specific requirements and concluded this to be the case. As such the Task Group agreed to use the same methodology in 2016. i.e. an evaluation will be developed for each WLD auditor by the Staff Engineers. This will be sent to each auditor before 30-SEP-2016. Any auditor with areas of concern will have a discussion with a Staff Engineer. Auditors without concerns can be sent evaluations and can request a discussion with the Staff Engineer if they wish. All auditors have the opportunity to have a discussion with a Task Group representative at the October Auditor Conference should they desire.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineers to create annual auditor assessments and discuss these with auditors as deemed necessary. (Due Date: 30-SEP-2016)

3.1.2 Standard Data Set

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

It was noted from these charts that the procedural question against electrode control in AC7110/5 is now the most written Non-Conformance Report (NCR) and this was written across the entire auditor base. Subsequent discussion noted that this was a new checklist question that Suppliers had not prepared for. The Task Group noted that it was a valid question and current guidance in the Audit Handbook was correct.

There was some discussion on the red-line chart about how do we know what represent outlier situations. Scott Maitland volunteered to perform an analysis and present back to the Task Group at the June 2016 Task Group meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Scott Maitland to analyze red-line chart and provide recommendation for baseline limits. (Due Date: 21-JUN-2016)

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 observation plan for 2016 was developed at the October 2015 Task Group meeting using the prioritization tool that the Task Group has developed. The Task Group reviewed the plan and prioritization tool to ensure no changes were required. No changes were made. To date three observations for 2016 have been requested. One of these is for an observation of an auditor who was hired in 2015. The Task Group was encouraged to review and establish if they are able to observe any of the auditors who have been identified for observation in 2016.

Ian Simpson provided a demonstration of how Subscribers can locate auditor’s schedules and also where the observation plan is posted.

Task Group members were reminded that to request an observation, they can do this directly in eAuditNet providing that the audit is at least 14 days in advance of the request. If the audit they wish to observe is scheduled less than 14 days away, then a request to PRI Scheduling Department is required.

Task Group members were reminded that the Audit Observer metric report is now automated and hence, if a request to observe an audit is made and they are no longer able to attend, it is imperative that the observation is cancelled.

3.1.4 Observation Reports

The Task Group reviewed 3 observations. None of the observations had any specific issues that the auditors who were observed need to address.

One of the observations recommended that a refresher in how to evaluate resistance welds be added to the 2016 Auditor Conference. This was added to the draft agenda.

3.1.5 Supplier Feedback


CONFIRMED

Steve Tooley and Ian Simpson reviewed the Supplier feedback information and provided a summary to the Task Group. Some auditor specific and generic items that all auditors would benefit from were identified, noted on the summary report, and included in the 2016 Auditor Conference agenda.

One item was discussed further. An NCR was written for a Supplier not including weld penetration requirements being assessed at inspection. (They were utilizing an alternative technique to ensure weld acceptability). The Supplier in this case was the Design Responsible authority and allowed the alternative approach in their specification. After some discussion the Task Group agreed that in these situations, the Supplier would be deemed compliant.

Auditors are however encouraged to write issues such as this in the auditor comment box so that Subscribers are aware of possible issues that they need to address.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to notify the auditor, who wrote an NCR against a Design Responsible Supplier for lack of penetration assessment, of the Task Group’s position. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add an item to the 2016 Auditor Conference to define how Auditors should document issues at Suppliers who are the Design Responsible Authority. (Due Date: 30-APR-2016)

The next supplier review data will be made available shortly after 30-JUN-2016. As this is after the June 2016 Task Group meeting, there will be no Supplier feedback data to review at the June 2016 meeting.

3.1.6 Annual Review of Audit Report Reviewer Feedback

Ian Simpson provided a summary of items noted by the Audit Report Reviewers over the last 12 months. The item that affects auditor evaluation most is audit completeness errors; although to place this in context over 80% of audits do not have any issues. The second highest item is NCR rework, which is due to items such as insufficient information being provided and incorrect grouping of issues. There have also been some errors on completion of the required 3rd job audit when the modified cycle checklists are in use. All of these items have been addressed by specific feedback in each audit report review; by some generic training at the October 2015 Auditor Conference; by individual training as part of the 2015 annual auditor reviews.

As such Staff Engineers do not recommend any generic training is required to address any items noted in this review. Items that are specific to individual auditors will be addressed in the per audit reviews and in the 2016 annual auditor evaluation. The Task Group concurred with the recommendation.

3.1.7 Annual Review of Communication plan

The Task Group previously agreed that the following would be the best method of communicating between themselves and the auditors:

No internet forum discussion group, instead using the Staff Engineers as a single point of contact for general and checklist issues

Subscriber Task Group representatives can be contacted for subscriber specific questions either directly or via the Staff Engineer

Suggestion for checklist content / revisions can be provided to the Staff Engineer directly at any time, in response to the annual review or at the Auditor Conference

The Nadcap Management Council (NMC) previously agreed that this was sufficient to meet the Open Communication requirements imposed by (the now obsolete) NOP-012. This is still a requirement in OP 1117, and although the verbiage has changed it is not significant. As such the Task Group considers that this methodology still meets the procedural requirements.


CONFIRMED

The Task Group confirmed that this is how they wish to communicate with the auditors.

3.1.8 Requirement for WLD specific observation appendix

The Task Group have previously discussed if a WLD specific appendix is required for the Auditor Observation form and decided that it was not required. This was reviewed again, and the Task Group confirmed that a Weld Specific appendix is not required; citing that the current Observation report addresses all of the items that the Task Group wishes to address.

3.1.9 Annual Review on Auditor proficiency testing

The Task Group had previously decided that proficiency testing is not required, as the Task Group imposes process restrictions where an auditor does not have the required experience for any specific weld process. To have a restriction removed the auditor would need to be interviewed again, hence the Task Group are effectively testing the auditor’s knowledge and do not therefore require a test to determine this.

The Task Group does however recognize that if a new technology is introduced, then they may require proficiency testing to determine the auditor’s knowledge of this.

3.1.10 Annual Review of Weld Auditor training material

The Task Group has developed WLD specific training for new auditors. The Staff Engineer has made some editorial changes (e.g. staffing, location of procedures) and added a new section on modified cycle audit requirements. This was reviewed by the Task Group. The Task Group recommended that the training includes a note that a modified cycle audit can be changed back to standard cycle if deemed appropriate by the Staff Engineer and Task Group Chair, and some guidance on job selection. The Staff Engineer was actioned to make these revisions and send to Subscriber Task Group Members for review. Once agreed by the Task Group, it will be used for any new Auditors.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to incorporate the Task Group’s comments on WLD specific auditor training and submit to the Subscriber Members for review. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Subscriber members to review changes to WLD specific auditor training package and provide feedback to Staff Engineer. (Due Date: 15-APR-2016)

3.1.11 Review Dashboard

The new revision of OP 1117 has revised the dashboard metrics. The metrics were reviewed by the Task Group; three of the four metrics are green, and the metric for number of auditor observations completed being yellow. As noted in item 3.1.3, Task Group representatives were encouraged to review the Observation Plan and encouraged to observe auditors where possible.

3.1.12 Identify Training needs for Auditors

The review of data defined here and also from item 2.0 has resulted in identified training items that have been included in the Auditor Conference agenda.

3.1.13 Annual report to the NMC

The Task Group completed the annual report at the October 2015 Auditor Conference. Steve Tooley submitted this to both the Metrics and Oversight NMC Committees due to uncertainty of which NMC sub-committee required this. No feedback has been received to date. It should be noted that the current revision of OP 1117 is clear that this report is sent to the Oversight Committee.

3.1.14 Deep dive analysis on procedural NCRs


CONFIRMED

The sub-team reported that they had interviewed a Supplier who had failed an audit and received multiple NCRs for procedural deficiencies. This Supplier stated that extensive personnel changes including multiple Quality Managers had occurred since their first Nadcap audit and that the priority for the required procedures had fallen within their organization. They felt that some of the personnel given responsibility for the Nadcap requirements in their organization, while qualified overall, may not have had adequate experience in that specialty. Their staff had limited technical expertise in aerospace, they did not have a Welding Engineer nor was the previous Quality Manager experienced in aerospace. In addition, they felt the audit was a good teaching exercise for their staff. For future audits they felt a self-audit prior to the actual audit would be valuable as well as review of the checklist and handbook.

Discussion ensued about how the Task Group might impose minimum qualifications of personnel at the Suppliers. There is however no universally agreed requirements for this, hence if any Subscriber does require this, the option would be to include this in Supplemental checklist requirements.

As previously discussed by the Task Group, and NMC, the mandate of a self-audit would help Suppliers adequately prepare for the audit. The Task Group has drafted a change to their AC7110 checklist to mandate this, however the Task Group agreed that it would wait until verbiage had been finalized by the NMC. Once NMC provide verbiage, the Staff Engineer will ballot the AC7110 checklist to the Task Group. See item 22.2 for action items.

3.1.15 Audit Effectiveness based on NMC feedback

At the October 2015 Task Group meeting, auditors were addressed by the NMC to establish if there are additional tools that can be made available to help the auditors perform the audit. The NMC has been analyzing the data from all Task Groups and will be providing feedback and requesting Task Groups to take actions on a number of items. This feedback has not yet been received but is expected after this meeting.

3.2 Auditor Status

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

4.0 SUPPLIER ADVISORIES – CLOSED

4.1 Review of Advisories since October 2015 Nadcap Meeting.

Five Supplier Advisories have been issued by WLD since the October 2015 Task Group meeting, #2734, #2750, #2755, #2767 and #2775. These were reviewed by the Task Group. Note that advisory #2767 was retracted based on a successful appeal from the Supplier.

Three Supplier Advisories were issued by other commodities that could have an effect on WLD accreditations. These advisories, #2747, #2749 and # 2770 were reviewed. No additional actions were identified.

4.2 Review of Subscriber Advisories.

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

5.0 STAFF ENGINEER DELEGATION – CLOSED

5.1 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, 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.


CONFIRMED

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

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

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

5.2 The Task Group reviewed non-delegated reviewer, Gabe Kustra’s concurrence data, and agreed that he was making good progress towards becoming delegated. The Task Group will review this again at future Task Group meetings, with the intention to delegate him at the earliest opportunity.

6.0 SUBSCRIBER DEVIATIONS – CLOSED

6.1 No Subscriber Deviations were requested for review.

7.0 OP 1110 FAILURE CRITERIA – REVIEW OF RAW DATA – CLOSED

7.1 Data for reaccreditation audits for the 12 months, 1-Jan-2015 to 31-Dec-2015 and for initial audits for the 24 months, 1-Jan-2014 to 31-Dec-2015 was reviewed by the Task Group. (At the February 2013 Task Group meeting, the Task Group stated that in future they would use 24 months of data for initial audit review due to the smaller population which is influenced significantly by a few outliers).

The raw data included the Supplier names and NCR numbers and allowed the Task Group to investigate if there were anomalies that were influencing the failure criteria.

A summary of data analysis was prepared for presentation and vote in item 13.0.

8.0 NEW BUSINESS – CLOSED

8.1 Auditor Candidate exam

The Staff Engineer reported that the sub-group assigned to review the Auditor Exam had completed this task. Changes were made to bring the exam up to date and re-structure to allow the exam to work more effectively in the Learning Management System. At the October 2015 Task Group meeting, the sub-group was delegated to make the necessary decisions on behalf of the Task Group, hence the revised exam will be implemented by PRI.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to make editorial changes as necessary on the revised Auditor Exam and implement within the Learning Management System. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

9.0 REVIEW MEMBERSHIP STATUS – OPEN

9.1 The following subscriber members were noted as attending their first WLD meeting.

Mark Bredbere – Boeing Vukile Dumani – GKN Aerospace Oscar Andersson – GKN Aerospace Sweden

9.2 Robert Gilbert of Lockheed Martin attended his second meeting. The Task Group Chairperson agreed to the appointment of Robert Gilbert as Subscriber Voting Member (UVM) for Lockheed Martin and m-frm-01 was completed.

Karen Dannis of BAE Systems attended her second meeting. The Task Group Chairperson agreed to the appointment of Karen Dannis as UVM for BAE Systems and m-frm-01 was completed.


CONFIRMED

Cedric Colas of SAFRAN attended his second meeting. The Task Group Chairperson agreed to the appointment of Cedric Colas as Alternate Subscriber Voting Member (ALT / UVM) for SAFRAN and m-frm-01 was completed.

9.3 Task Group meeting attendance and ballot participation was reviewed per Program Document PD 1100 requirements.

BAE Systems MAI, Cessna and Gulfstream have all missed 2 consecutive letter ballots, and by default would lose their voting status. The Task Group Chair however noted that these 2 letter ballots occurred over the end of year holiday period, and in light of previous good history elected to maintain these Subscriber’s Voting status.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add Robert Gilbert as UVM for Lockheed Martin. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add Karen Dannis as UVM for BAE Systems. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add Cedric Colas as ALT/UVM for SAFRAN. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

9.4 Historically the WLD Task Group had limited the number of Supplier Voting Members (SVM) via their appendix to OP 1114. This procedure has however been revised since the last Task Group meeting and the limit on the number of SVMs was removed. As such any Supplier representative who has met the required attendance can request SVM status, and providing the Task Group Chair agrees, they will be appointed as SVMs.

The following Supplier representatives meet the attendance criteria and requested SVM status:

Jack Winteringham of Alcoa attended his second meeting. The Task Group Chairperson agreed to the appointment of Jack Winteringham as Alternate Supplier Voting Member (ALT/SVM) for Alcoa and m-frm-01 was completed.

Grant Lilley of Meyer Tool attended his second meeting. The Task Group Chairperson agreed to the appointment of Grant Lilley as SVM for Meyer Tool and m-frm-01 was completed.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add Jack Winteringham as ALT/SVM for Alcoa. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to add Grant Lilley as SVM for Meyer Tool. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

10.0 SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE (SSC) REPORT – OPEN

10.1 Mike Schleckman gave a presentation on SSC activities. 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. Current activities involve mentoring suppliers, metrics, supplier surveys, help desk at Nadcap meeting, and education.

There are also sponsored events organized which include items such as Subscriber Updates for Suppliers, Nadcap from a Staff Engineer perspective, Nadcap from a Chairperson perspective etc. Steve Tooley gave a presentation on the latter item to the SSC.

The SSC are in the process of collating data to establish how successful the Mentoring program is.

11.0 NMC METRICS – OPEN

11.1 Ian Simpson reviewed the NMC metrics, including:


CONFIRMED

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 were green, except Task Group Cycle Time for Initial and Reaccreditation which were yellow. These non-green metrics have been previously discussed and the Task Group chose to take no further action.

12.0 SPECIFICATION CHANGES – OPEN

12.1 Gary Coleman 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. Expected release not until early 2017.

AWS D17.2 - planned next revision for 2018 timeframe

AWS D17.3 - 2nd edition available to public within about a month

The next AWS D17 Committee meeting is in the second week of May outside New Orleans

Holger Krueger provided an update on the status of ISO specifications. The ISO Committee has however not met since the October Nadcap meeting; hence status in general is as reported in the October 2015 minutes, with the following exceptions

ISO/WD 19828 – Visual weld inspection requirements has been distributed and the ballot closes 29-Jun-16

The ISO Committee will meet the week prior to the June 2016 Nadcap Meeting at DIN in Berlin, Germany. This meeting has been moved as it was originally scheduled for the University of Coventry in the United Kingdom

Holger Krueger and Gary Coleman gave permission for the ISO and AWS 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 ISO and AWS Committee update presentations in eAuditNet. (Due Date: 31-MAR-16)

13.0 REVIEW OF OP 1110 FAILURE CRITERIA – OPEN

13.1 Annual review of OP 1110 Mode B failure criteria

The Staff Engineer provided a summary for the prior 12 months for reaccreditation audits and 24 months for initial audits. Based on the recommendations in OP 1110 to calculate failure criteria, the data suggested that minor modifications should be considered for the number of Major NCRs in reaccreditation audits.

There was some discussion as whether a change should be made, or retained at the existing limits.

Motion made by Les Hellemann and seconded by Mike Schleckman to approve keeping the failure criteria as it is currently defined. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to communicate the WLD OP 1110 Mode B failure criteria to the document owner. (Due Date: 14-MAR-2016)


CONFIRMED

14.0 ANNUAL REVIEW OF TOP 10 NCRS – OPEN

14.1 The Task Group publishes a Top 10 NCRs document in eAuditNet in the Weld Public Documents application. The NCRs written in the last 12 months were analyzed and the current Top 10 NCRs were reviewed and agreed.

The Task Group supplements the Top 10 NCRs document with guidance that provides information on the checklist requirement, examples of NCRs and helpful hints on how to be compliant. Four of the latest Top 10 NCRs are new to the last 12 month’s list, and of these 3 have not been in a top 10 previously; hence additional guidance needed to be developed for these 3 new entries in the top 10. The Task Group defined the additional information during the meeting and hence the Supplemental guide can be posted.

The Task Group also decided that it would be beneficial for the existing top 10 guidance to remain; hence the new top 10 will be an addition, not a replacement.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to post the new Top 10 NCRs document that was agreed by the Task Group at the February 2016 meeting. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

15.0 DIFFUSION WELDING – OPEN

15.1 Marco Polleto has previously requested the Task Group to consider revisions to the Diffusion Welding checklist, AC7110/8. The Task Group has deferred decision on this item until such time Marco was present and able to present the reasons for revision in person. Marco presented a summary of his requested changes for consideration. The Task Group agreed that a sub-team should review, and incorporate additional changes as required to allow modified cycle audits, and present back at the June 2016 Task Group meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Sub-team of Marco Poletto, Scott Maitland and Andy Dewhurst to review the proposed revision to the AC7110/8 checklist, provide any additional revisions, format to allow modified cycle checklist and present back to the Task Group. (Due Date: 22-JUN-2016)

16.0 ADDITIVE MANUFACTURE – OPEN

16.1 The Additive Manufacture sub-team has continued to develop the Additive Manufacturing draft checklist. The latest draft incorporates comments made at the October 2015 Task Group meeting, and subsequent input from sub-team members. Richard Freeman gave a summary of the revisions that have occurred.

It was noted that the Task Group need to be clear about the specific limits of the checklist, i.e. that it applies to laser and electron-beam powder bed Additive Manufacturing of metallic materials.

At the October 2015 meeting the Task Group also discussed the process for legalizing the checklist, i.e. to meet the checklist vision as defined in PD 1100. An action was taken for Subscribers to identify if requirements existed in their specifications in order to establish that the checklist was not making requirements. Responses to this action were reviewed by the sub-team and it was confirmed that checklist questions are based on requirements that are common among Subscribers.

Holger Krueger commented that there is the possibility of a German DIN standard to control the process being available by the end of 2016. In turn that could be used as the basis for an ISO specification in a relatively short time thereafter. Hence in addition to Subscriber specifications, there will be National and International standards available in the next year or so.

The sub-team still has a few outstanding items, mainly surrounding electron-beam equipment questions. They however anticipate having a draft complete by the end of March 2016. PRI will then format and ballot the checklist to the Task Group by mid-April 2016. If these targets are met, then ballot comments can be dispositioned at the June 2016 Task Group meeting.


CONFIRMED

The Task Group discussed plans for hiring Auditors. There are two main options available: train existing auditors or find auditors with this specialized knowledge. It was agreed that the former option would likely be easier. The Task Group however needs to consider what training is required. Richard Freeman agreed to investigate what would likely be required in a training syllabus. Ralph Kropp and Vukile Dumani both offered to train up to 5 auditors on equipment specific requirements at their facilities (MTU and GKN Aerospace respectively). It was noted that if a similar offer in the US region could be made available then there would be sufficient resource to enable existing auditors to be trained.

Subsequent discussion centered on the likely number of Suppliers who would need to be audited, mandates and the timescales for requiring audits at these Suppliers. Until this is known, the number of auditors required cannot be confirmed. As such, Subscribers agreed to provide the names of Suppliers that they would initially mandate to have this particular version of Additive Manufacturing accreditation. The names would be kept confidential by PRI and is only to be used to determine the numbers of audits.

Richard Freeman also agreed that he would survey the industry to determine how many Suppliers are using this process for aerospace applications.

The Task Group also discussed items such as development of an auditor exam, audit handbook, the need for Supplemental checklists, further checklists to cover additional variants of the process. While all of these are recognized as required in the future, the immediate concerns of checklist approval and auditor training / hiring are more applicable at this time.

The sub-group will however look to develop a supporting handbook as soon as the checklist is approved, or certainly nearing completion.

ACTION ITEM: Sub-team to complete the draft Additive Manufacturing (laser and electron beam powder bed for metallic applications) checklist and submit to PRI. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to ballot checklist for Additive Manufacturing to the Task Group. (Due Date: 15 -APR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to provide list of Suppliers to PRI that they plan to have accredited to the Additive Manufacturing checklist. (Due Date: 31-MAY-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Richard Freeman to survey the industry to ascertain the number of Suppliers who are providing Additive Manufacturing (laser and electron beam powder bed) to the Aerospace industry. (Due Date: 31-MAY-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Richard Freeman to investigate the development of a training syllabus that could be used to train existing auditors in Additive Manufacturing. (Due Date: 31-MAY-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Richard Freeman, Steve Tooley and Ian Simpson to develop a timeline for the introduction of the Additive Manufacturing checklist including checklist approval and trained auditor capability. (Due Date: 31-MAY-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers in North America to determine if they would be able to provide hands on training of Additive Manufacturing equipment to Nadcap auditors. (Due Date: 22-JUN-2016)

17.0 CREATE NMC FEEDBACK CHART – OPEN

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

18.0 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:


CONFIRMED

From 2018, a standardized agenda where the NMC at large meeting will always occur on Thursday morning will be used. The Task Group will need to adjust their agenda to suit this, but could utilize Mondays for auditor training when there are split (US and Europe) Auditor Conferences

A new feature for Subscribers obtaining weekly e-mails defining their Suppliers who were audited in the prior week is being rolled out

The NMC Audit Effectiveness team has identified approximately 21 action items. These are roughly evenly split into items that simply require re-enforcement of existing requirements and those that require procedural / policy revisions. This information will be flowed to Task Groups in the coming weeks

The Risk Mitigation process will be performed by Staff Engineers in the future. The required changes to procedures are approved, however an eAuditNet enhancement is required before this can be fully implemented

A new dashboard feature that identifies how many observation audits by commodity and by Subscriber is to be rolled out. It was stressed if planned observations can no longer be performed, they must be cancelled to avoid inaccurate reporting

19.0 FORUM FOR SUPPLIER ISSUES – OPEN

19.1 No requests from Suppliers were received

20.0 ANNUAL REVIEW OF FAQ – OPEN

The Task Group publishes a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document in eAuditNet in the Weld Public Documents application. This was reviewed for existing content and new questions which the Task Group has repeatedly been asked over the prior 12 months. This was reviewed and changes made.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to replace the existing Frequently Asked Questions document with the revision agreed by the Task Group at the February 2016 meeting. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

21.0 AUDITOR ADVISORIES – OPEN

21.1 One Auditor Advisory has been issued since the October 2015 Nadcap Meeting. This was reviewed by the Staff Engineer.

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

22.0 CHECKLIST ITEMS – OPEN

22.1 Handbook Revisions

The Staff Engineer has received the following requests for handbook revisions:

An Auditor noted that the intent associated with the Stress Relief question still has legacy verbiage indicating that this must be performed at a Nadcap accredited facility. The verbiage should be revised to require the use of a Customer approved source. The Task Group agreed and the Staff Engineer actioned to revise all handbooks where this question is used.

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to revise the intent in all handbooks that use the Stress Relief question to note the use of Customer approved sources and not Nadcap accredited facilities. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)


CONFIRMED

Subscriber members had an action from the October 2015 Task Group meeting to determine if any additional guidance was required with respect to the material grouping associated with cleaning tools (AC7110/5 paragraph 7.1.3). No additional information was presented here and as such no further change to the handbook is required.

A Supplier suggested that the acceptable objective evidence associated with paragraph 3.24.2 in the AC7110/12 handbook be revised to note that it is the specification that requires restrictions to be defined and not a form as currently written as forms are typically suggested and not mandated. The Task Group agreed that this revision is required.

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to revise the AC7110/12 handbook at para 3.24.2 to reference specification requirement rather than suggested form. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

An Auditor requested that the Task Group review the Job selection handbook. There are 2 items that the Task Group were asked to consider: Option 4 (Supplier with no Prime Customer) does not give an option to review Aerospace parts from a non-mandating Customer; there is no guidance on job selection when the Supplier is also the design authority for the parts. Both items were discussed by the Task Group: Option 4 was revised to recognize that it covers Suppliers who are the Design responsible authority and also to allow options for selection of non-Nadcap mandating Subscribers. It was also recognized that some Suppliers may need to be assessed to a mixture of combinations and a line item added to note this. The selection table also uses the historical term ‘Prime’, which needs to be revised to ‘Subscriber’.

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to replace ‘Prime’ with ‘Subscriber’ and include revisions to option 4 in the Job Selection handbook and post it. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

An action item from the review of rolling action items at the October 2015 meeting was how the metallographic evaluation of resistance weld coupons (per the AC7110/4 handbook) relates to the captive labs for qualification tests and process control tests. The sub-team presented their proposal, however the Task Group reviewed the existing guidance and decided that no changes were required.

Chris English also requested the Task Group review the AC7110/4 handbook with respect to the preparation of coupons. The presented verbiage was not agreed to as it could lead to NCRs based on opinion. The Task Group did however agree to take a further review of this item in the future and therefore added it to the rolling action item list for checklist issues.

22.2 Checklists Revisions

The inertia weld checklist (AC7110/7) completed NMC ballot without any comments, hence the planned review and disposition of comments that was planned for this meeting was not required. The Staff Engineer revised the associated handbook and requested the Task Group to review this in December 2015, in order to support the issue of the checklist. Subsequently the checklist was issued with an effectivity date of 27-MAR-2016.

The supplemental checklist for resistance welding (AC7110/4S) completed NMC ballot without any comments, hence the planned review and disposition of comments that was planned for this meeting was not required. The Staff Engineer revised the associated handbook in association with General Electric (The only Subscriber who made revisions to their requirements) in November 2015, in order to support the issue of the checklist. Subsequently the checklist was issued with an effectivity date of 28-FEB-2016.

The stud weld checklist (AC7110/9) was revised to allow modified cycle audits and also incorporate items from the rolling list of checklist items. This was balloted to the Task Group. Formal notification was sent that resolution of comments would be addressed at this meeting. Each ballot comment was reviewed and addressed. Changes that were agreed are all editorial, hence the Staff Engineer is able to incorporate and ballot directly to the NMC without the requirement for a further ballot to the Task Group.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to complete ballot resolution process for AC7110/9 and subsequently ballot to NMC. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

The braze checklist (AC7110/1) was revised to allow the use of Hydrogen Generator as an alternative heat source. This was balloted to the WLD Task Group and also the Heat Treat (HT) Task Group as notification of changes to them is required as per the Memorandum of Understanding between the two Task Groups. Formal notification was sent that resolution of comments would be addressed at this meeting. Each ballot comment was reviewed and addressed. Changes that were agreed were all editorial, hence the Staff Engineer is able to incorporate and ballot directly to the NMC without the requirement for a further ballot to the Task Group.

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to complete ballot resolution process for AC7110/1 and subsequently ballot to NMC. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

The welder / weld operator qualification checklist (AC7110/12) has been issued with an effectivity of 28-FEB-2016. Significant changes were made to this checklist and hence now it has been issued revisions to the supplemental checklist are required so it fully aligns with the main checklist. The Staff Engineer has drafted changes to the AC7110/12S checklist and this was sent to the Subscriber Members in January 2016. Some revision items have been provided and the Task Group was reminded that any changes need to be submitted in the near future in order for this checklist to be balloted.

Gary Coleman asked the Task Group to consider moving the currently unique to Boeing requirements for extended welder qualification from AC7110/12S to the baseline checklist AC7110/12. Some discussion ensued and while in general Boeing’s position was recognized, the fact that not every Subscriber utilizes AWS D17.1 means that this adoption is unlikely at this time. Subscriber members did however volunteer to review in more depth and come to the June 2016 Task Group meeting with a definitive answer.

ACTION ITEM: Subscriber Members to provide revisions to AC7110/12S to Staff Engineer. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to ballot AC7110/12S to Task Group. (Due Date: 30-APR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to determine if the currently unique Boeing requirements for extended welder validity can be adopted into the baseline checklist. (Due Date: 22-JUN-2016)

The Task Group reviewed potential changes to the base checklist (AC7110) at the October 2015 meeting. The main item of discussion was the inclusion of a self-audit. This subject is however also being discussed by the NMC and as such the Task Group decided to wait until a final decision from NMC has been flowed to the Task Groups. At this meeting it was reported that the NMC has still not finalized verbiage for self-audits. Scott Maitland volunteered to verify the latest NMC proposal for self-audit and subsequently propose a way forward for the Task Group for this checklist.

ACTION ITEM: Scott Maitland to verify NMC’s latest position on self-audit requirements and recommend a way forward for the WLD TG. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to ballot AC7110 to the Task Group. (Due Date: 30-APR-2016; pending the required information being received from NMC)

Gary Coleman proposed that changes to checklists be made to make questions that are currently structured such as ‘per customer requirements’ more generic and verify the actual customer requirement in the job audit. The Task Group commented that there are actually very few questions in the main sections of checklists with this structure; most questions with this type of verbiage are actually requiring procedural provision for the defined item in case it becomes a future customer requirement. Coupled with the previous agreement that checklists would not be


CONFIRMED

revised for a number of years in order for the modified cycle checklist to take effect, the Task Group sees little benefit in making this type of revision, at this time.

The Task Group maintains a rolling list of items for requests on checklist revision. Since the last Task Group meeting in October 2015, 4 items have been requested to be added to the list. The Task Group dispositioned these as follows:

Proposal to add checklist question on housekeeping practices. Rejected due to subjectivity

Use of term ‘Lab’ in AC7110/12 paragraphs 3.13 and 3.16. Agreed that at next revision of the checklists that this term should be changed, however as this term is adequately defined in the handbook, there is no significant urgency for revision

AC7110/5 paragraph 6.5 use of term ‘Nadcap accredited’. Agreed that the question could be re-structured at future revision to make the requirement clearer

Suggest new questions be added to AC7110/4 to control coupon preparation and etching. Agreed that additional question be added at the next checklist revision

22.3 Smart Checklist

At this time, the majority of checklists have now been reviewed and revised to utilize smart checklist technology where this is appropriate. The remaining weld process that still requires revision is AC7110/8. The revision of this checklist has been delayed due to the proposal from Marco Poletto to make significant changes to this checklist in addition to the revision to allow modified cycle (see item 16.1).

As agreed previously, AC7110/13 does not require any revision for modified cycles as all questions are required when this checklist is used.

23.0 NEW BUSINESS ITEMS – OPEN

23.1 Revision to OP 1116 App WLD

The Staff Engineer reported that the main document for hiring and training of auditor, OP 1116 had been revised, and that this revision requires that the appendix used by WLD to be revised to align with the higher level procedure. The Staff Engineer had drafted changes that are required and had also added a paragraph that describes the process the WLD Task Group use when removing process restrictions for auditors. This was reviewed by the Task Group and minor revisions made. The Staff Engineer was actioned to ballot OP 1116 App WLD.

ACTION ITEM: Staff Engineer to ballot OP 1116 App WLD to the Task Group. (Due Date: 31-MAR-2016)

24.0 JUNE 2016 AGENDA – OPEN

No new items were requested for discussion; hence the agenda will include the majority of items as per this meeting. The Staff Engineer will incorporate any items that the Task Group reviews on an annual basis at the June 2016 meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Ian Simpson to develop an agenda based on the items of this agenda and to include any items that the Task Group includes on an annual basis at the 2016 June meeting. (Due Date: 18-MAR-2016)

25.0 REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS – OPEN

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

26.0 REVIEW OF MEETING EFFECTIVENESS – OPEN

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


CONFIRMED

27.0 NEXT MEETING – OPEN

26.1 As the format of the June 2016 Nadcap Meeting includes the NMC meeting on Thursday morning, the Task Group requests to meet Tuesday to Thursday. Hence the meeting will be 21-23-JUN-2016 in London, UK.

ADJOURNMENT – Thursday 25-FEB 2016 – Meeting was adjourned at 5.10 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Les Hellemann [email protected]

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

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

YES* ☒ NO ☐

*If yes, the following information is required:Documents requiring revision: Who is responsible: Due date:OP 1116 App WLD Ian Simpson 31-Mar-16 (Ballot to Task Group)

OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN - Performance Review...

Documents

Transcript of OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN - Performance Review...