OPENING COMMENTS - CLOSED - Performance...

NonDestructive Testing (NDT)OCTOBER 2016

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTESOCTOBER 24TH- 26TH, 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

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS - CLOSED

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Task Group was called to order at 8:00 a.m., 24-Oct-2016 by Dave Royce.

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)

Pongpaiboon Akapaiboon Triumph Structures (Thailand) Ltd Mark Antonellis BAE Systems* Peter Bartsch Premium Aerotec GmbH* Philippe Beck Airbus Helicopters John Biddulph Rolls-Royce * Mitch Birzer General Dynamics / Gulfstream

Aerospace* Alain Bouchet SAFRAN Group* Michael Clark Sikorsky Aircraft David Cohn Boeing Matt Estep Cessna Aircraft Company* Jianfei Feng COMAC* Jim Fowler Pratt & Whitney* Peter Fridolf GKN Aerospace Sweden AB* Steven Garner Eaton Aerospace Group* Frederic Girard Pratt & Whitney Canada* Jim Graves Rolls-Royce Corporation* Luis Grijalva Lockheed Martin Corporation* Harry Hahn GE Aviation* Edward Hohman Bell Helicopter Textron * Yoshiharu Kuze Mitsubishi Heavy Industries * Serge Labbé Heroux-Devtek, Inc. Jill Lewis Parker Aerospace Hendrich Lim Rolls-Royce Singapore* Steve McCool Honeywell Aerospace Secretary* Neil Metcalfe GKN Aerospace (Filton)* Michael Mitchell UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand) Joel Mohnacky UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand)* Fabrizio Montagnoli Leonardo – Helicopters Yuji Noguchi Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.* Dale Norwood Parker Aerospace Group


CONFIRMED

* Scott O'Connor Honeywell Aerospace* Gary O'Neill Parker Aerospace Group* Justin Payne Textron Aviation* Robert Rainone UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Carl Roche UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)* David Royce Pratt & Whitney Chairperson* Kurt Ruoff General Dynamics /Gulfstream

Aerospace* Victor Schonberger Israel Aerospace Industries* Chris Stevenson Rolls-Royce * Scott Sullivan Honeywell Aerospace

Mike Terry The Boeing Company Mottito Togo Honeywell Aerospace* Tony Warren Airbus Vice Chairperson* Scott Wegener Rockwell Collins Ronit Weisblit Israel Aerospace Industries Trish Wesemann The Boeing Company* Sean Wood Triumph Group Grzegorz Wryk Rolls-Royce* Jinqiu Zhou COMAC

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

* Mark Airey Robert Stuart Ltd.* Andy Bakewell E. M. Inspection Co. Ltd.* Doug Barra X-Ray Industries David Beard PCC Airfoils LLC/Minerva, OH

Linda Beene Independent Contractor Nancy Bennett Cetified Inspection Service Co. Inc* Graham Buswell SPS Aerostructures Ltd* N. David Campbell West Penn Testing Group Inho Cho Koreanair Charles Clinton Meggitt, San Diego Derek Coleman Scot Forge Company Cherise Cooper Cooper NDT Mark Crevier Morton Manufacturing Joshua Crockett Ellison Surface Technologies Kevin Curry Magellan Aerospace Haley Bill Dhillon Senior Aerospace Thermal Engineering Peter Doyle Cassavant Assembly and Processing Sheldon Emmanuel DCI Aerotech Donald Fie Consolidated Precision Products -

Syracuse* Nathan Gangloff RBC Aircraft Products Inc* Richard Gasset LISI Aerospace Susan Generalovich Solar Atmospheres of Western PA* David Gray Mitchell Laboratories Inc. Michael J. Guthmiller Applied Aerospace Structures Corp Justin Guzmon Aircraft X-Ray Laboratories Debbie Hagar NORDAM Interiors and Structures Hyun Bae Han Korean Air


CONFIRMED

Fabienne Héron Babb Co* Helmuth Hoeller FACC Operations GmbH Ira Hughes General Dynamics OTS Garland Steve Hutchinson Braddock Metallurgical Christopher Joy Orbit Industries Inc. Richard Kline X-Ray Industries Dean Klix Weatherford Aerospace , Novara Group Kris Krishnamoorshy Applus RTD Canada LP Yanick Lavallee Alcoa Titanium & Engineered Products Shelly Lawless Meyer Tool, Inc. Tom Lewis Lord Corporation* Grant Lilley Meyer Tool, Inc.* Zachary Medeiros Timken Aerospace Juan Moreno Omni Metal Finishing* Blair O'Connell Element Materials Technology* Stefano Pasquino Bytest SRL Juan M. Perez Aircraft Xray Laboratories, Inc. John Peterson Wolkerstorfer Co Inc* Curt Powell PCC Structurals Inc. LPC* Steve Radelich Jorgensen Forge Corp. Chris Reed Ducommun AeroStructures Jim Reinhardt Aero-Safe Processing Catherine Renfer Consolidated Precision Products -

Syracuse Stan Revers Senior Aerospace - Thermal Engineering Robert Rich SPS Technologies Doug Riley Magellan Aerospace - Haley * Frank Saenz Hi-Tech Metal Finishing Agostino Sardo Bytest s.r.l. Sean Seese Delta Air Lines George Siha Southwest United Canada Harold Slaterpryce PCC Airfoils, LLC* Michael D. Steele Northstar Aerospace Chicago Inc Jackie Sternot PAKO, Inc. Angie Swedlund Wellman Dynamics Matt Tarbay Solar Atmospheres Thomas Tiffany X-R-I Testing* Gary White Orbit Industries Inc. David Wilk Semiray Special Process Division Jason Williams Aurora Flight Sciences Chris Wolkerstorfer Wolkerstorfer Company, Inc. Brian Yetman Hi-Tech Metal Finishing Rob Yocom Imagineering Finishing Tech.

PRI Staff Present

Mark AubelePhilip FordP. Michael GutridgeDave MarcyjanikAndy StathamElizabeth Strano


CONFIRMED

1.2 Introductions

1.3 Safety Information

1.4 Reviewed Code of Ethics (Ref: Attendees’ Guide) and Meeting Conduct

1.5 The Antitrust Video was presented (only at the first open and first closed meeting of the week for each Task Group)

1.6 The Agenda was reviewed.

1.7 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes – OPEN

The minutes from June 2016 NDT Task Group meeting in London were approved as written.

Motion made by Mike Mitchell and seconded by Scott Wegener to approve the previous minutes as written. Motion Passed.

1.8 RAIL Review – OPEN

The Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) was reviewed by Liz Strano in section 8.0.

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

2.0 REVIEW DELEGATION STATUS - CLOSED

Delegation status was reviewed by Phil Ford.

Liz Strano is still non delegated, discussed the actual numbers of audits that have been reviewed by Liz Strano. She has had no additional NCRs written against the audits that she has reviewed. It was suggested that we discuss the opportunity of allowing Liz delegation in accordance with OP 1114.

Dave Royce highlighted that Liz Strano has reviewed 96 audits and has 8 months experience with the Task Group. In order to allow full delegation, in accordance with the OP 1114 Appendix NDT, the Task Group has to vote to waive all the requirements for delegation.

Motion made by Sean Wood and seconded by Bob Rainone to approve Liz Strano for full delegation. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Steve Garner and seconded by Scott Wegener to continue delegation for all other current staff engineers.

Liz Strano requested that the Task Group allow Mike Gutridge to be a fully delegated consultant reviewer and auditor in all methods when he retires and becomes a consultant reviewer / auditor.

Motion made by Ed Holman and seconded by Sean Wood to approve Mike Gutridge to continue as a delegated reviewer and auditor for all checklists for NDT when he retires and becomes a consultant reviewer / auditor. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: t-frm-99k needs to be signed by Dave Royce to approve Liz Strano as a delegated reviewer. Assigned to Liz Strano (Due Date: 25-Oct-2016)

3.0 TASK GROUP REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS – CLOSED

Task Group Resolutions discussed by Phil Ford.

Appeal #2016-036 was brought before the Task Group, at the request of the Supplier, for review by the entire Task Group. An NCR had been raised to address specific examination questions,

http://www.eAuditNet.com/


CONFIRMED

which were deemed by the auditor as “look up type” questions. The new specific examination was reviewed by Task Group for suitability.

Motion made by Ed Hohman and seconded by Mike Mitchel to approve the 2 specific exams, that were presented by the Supplier, as objective evidence of acceptable specific examination questions.

Discussion by Jim Graves “where do we draw the line as to how do we determine what is acceptable or not”. Scott Sullivan brought forth the question of “is this more of a consistency issue between auditors”? Jim Graves spoke to the PT question #4 provided as being more general and look up and unacceptable. Linda Beane provided guidance as to how she would look at examinations as an auditor. Scott Sullivan suggested submitting examinations to Task Group to determine its acceptability; however Kurt Rouff suggested that he has added questions to his exams just in case some get thrown out.

Results of Motion: 16 Accepted, 7 opposed, 2 abstentions. Motion Passed.

Motion made by Scott Sullivan and seconded by Steve Garner to require that any future specific exam questions that have been written up by the auditor as not meeting the requirements of NAS410/EN4179 and contested by the supplier, be sent for resolution to the AC 7114 Method Group. NDT staff stated this will impact the cycle times for every audit that has specific exam issues where the supplier disagrees with the finding. 1 opposed, no abstentions. Motion Passed.

NDT Regular Business items were presented by Phil Ford.

Phil Ford identified that there is one closed Auditor Advisory for this review period.

Failed Audits & Lapsed Accreditation Metrics:

No Type C advisories issued for this review period.

One Type P advisory, #2850 has been reviewed this period.

One Type F advisory # 2832 has been reviewed this period.

No audits set to lapse this period.

4.0 NEW BUSINESS – CLOSED

Scott Sullivan and Jon Biddulph presented concerns on National Aerospace NDT Board (NANDTB) management and oversight of the certification process, Jon Biddulph has presented this request at the last two meetings pursuing an industry managed program to provide independent audit / oversight of NANDTB practices. Dave Royce questioned who is expected to pay for this oversight? Jon Biddulph suggested that it needs to be scoped out in order to establish guidelines and expenses. What is new is that the intent would be to apply this oversight to all independent contractors that provide training and examinations no matter what their geographic location.

This was previously reviewed by PRI management for consideration but they required additional information, in the form of a business plan, which this team needs to put together and formally submit.

Motion made by Steve Garner and seconded by Chris Stevenson to assemble a sub group to review the business case for this effort. Motion Passed.

Team members include Jon Biddulph (Rolls-Royce), Scott Sullivan (Honeywell), Tony Warren (Airbus), Steve Garner (Eaton Aerospace), Mitch Birzer (General Dynamics), Chris Stevenson (Rolls-Royce), Mottito Togo (Honeywell), Fabrizio Montagnoli (Leonardo Helicopters), Luigi Merletti (Leonardo Helicopters), Alain Bouchet (Safran), Philippe Beck (Airbus Helicopters), Harry


CONFIRMED

Hahn (GE), Gary O’Neill (Parker), Lou Truckley (Boeing) and Jim Graves (Rolls-Royce). Staff support from Phil Ford and Liz Strano.

ACTION ITEM: Assign new Ad-Hoc team to address the oversight of NANDTB’s and Outside Agencies. Assigned to Phil Ford. (Due Date: 14-Nov-2016)

Jon Biddulph suggested to the Task Group that we may want to consider reverting to the situation where specific examinations are closed book which might also alleviate some of the issues that have been raised recently by open book specific examinations.

Dale Norwood raised a concern on going back to closed book specific examinations. He likes the fact that the current requirement asks the inspectors to look for answers rather than working from memory.

Phil Ford requested that all current auditors approved to audit AC7114/4, AC7114/6 and AC7114/8 check lists be allowed to audit the AC7114/9 check list.

Motion made by Chris Stevenson and seconded by Steve Garner to approve auditors that are currently approved for radiography to also be approved for the /9 check list. Motion Passed.

ACTION ITEM: Up date auditor profiles. Assigned to Jennifer Eckels. (Due Date: 14-Nov- 2016)

Phil Ford gave a presentation on the status of Risk Mitigation; though the process will be changing, currently none have been implemented. In accordance with OP 1110, as of January 1, 2017, staff engineers will be solely responsible for working the Risk Mitigation process. Fees will be applicable for suppliers who elect to pursue the Risk Mitigation process. Task Group Subscribers will be required to vote on Risk Mitigation resolution.

Dale Norwood requested clarification about what a major is and what a minor is. Specific to Black Light measurement the reading was recorded as 14 7/8 inches from sensor to light. The response was that the requirement is 15 inches and it wasn’t recorded as 15 inches therefore the finding would stand. No further comments were made.

Dave Royce asked Jim Fowler to share a situation on grit blast requirements. Jim Fowler advised that the situation involves an Inconel 100 casting, which had multiple grit blasts performed prior to penetrant inspection using 60 grit at 90 pounds per square inch. The Supplier in question is used by many Subscribers. Jim Fowler asked if anyone might want to join a group to discuss. May need to consider adding either new questions to the baseline check list or have Subscribers add supplemental questions.

ACTION ITEM: Assign new Ad-Hoc team to address the grit blasting of castings and forgings prior to penetrant inspection. Assigned to Liz Strano. (Due Date: 14-Nov- 2016)

5.0 REVIEW MEMBERSHIP STATUS – CLOSED

Phil Ford reviewed voting membership status.

A question was raised on Pete Torelli’s voting membership status; he will not lose his voting status because Boeing alternate Dave Cohn has attended in his place.

Don MacLean has missed 4 document ballots; Dave Royce will follow up to see what Don’s status and intentions are.

ACTION ITEM: David Royce to contact Don MacLean regarding the position on document ballots. Assigned to David Royce. (Due Date: 14-Nov- 2016)

Massimo Columbo’s current status was discussed. Harry Hahn advised that he will look into current status and report back to Dave Royce and the Task Group. Dave Royce further acknowledged that he will also reach out to Massimo.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: David Royce to contact Massimo Columbo regarding his position as a Subscriber Voting Member. Assigned to David Royce. (Due Date: 14-Nov- 2016)

COMPLIANCE WITH TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

The following individuals completed Subscriber eAuditNet Training with Phil Ford, Tony Warren and Steve McCool.

First Name

Surname Company Position:

(new / updated role)

Meetings Attended(Month/Year)

Jim Fowler Pratt Whitney New Oct 2016

Lim Tao Kwan

Hendrich Rolls Royce Singapore

New Oct 2016

Mottito Togo Honeywell New Oct 2016

6.0 OP 1117 AUDITOR CONSISTENCY – CLOSED

Auditor effectiveness was discussed by Phil Ford. The information reviewed was for the entire program, not specific to NDT. NMC required each Task Group to address specific questions and define where each item was addressed in their check lists and how this information was flowed down to the Auditors. This had been done by the NDT Task Group and accepted by the NMC team. Additionally items were to be discussed with the Task Group.

Auditor Consistency was discussed by Mike Gutridge. Dave Cohn from Boeing volunteered to move into Pete Torelli’s position on the Auditor Consistency team. Mike Gutridge reviewed the status of the dashboard. All items are green on metrics. Mike Gutridge suggested that Auditor performance ratings be readdressed by NMC.

Tony Warren discussed the Task Group member’s face to face evaluations with specific Auditors.

7.0 TASK GROUP REVIEW OF AUDITS – CLOSED

No actions at this time.

8.0 PRI REPORT / RAIL / NMC METRICS – OPEN

New Member presentation was reviewed by Phil Ford.

Future meetings for 2017, New Orleans, USA in February, Berlin, Germany in June; then again in Pittsburgh, USA in October.

Liz Strano reviewed the PRI Staff Report covering:

Auditor StaffingeAuditNet 2.0 – Updates to eAuditNetData Collection Health of Program – Metrics


CONFIRMED

Audit Review Cycle TimesStaff DelegationTop 5 NCR’sNDT NewsletterAuditor AdvisoriesNDT RAIL

A question was asked about when the next training will be held for new CR/DDA Auditors. Staff replied that training will be held to increase the available Auditors and it is scheduled for February 2017 and will be held in the US office. Staff asked for Subscribers to help with this presentation and Chris Stevenson agreed to attend.

Phil Ford discussed the revised Risk Mitigation procedure OP 1110 which is effective January 1, 2017. He also presented information on the new job tracker and the new requirement for a self-audit. Gary White confirmed that NMC has communicated that the time period allowed to submit the self-audit is 30 days prior to the audit.

A request was issued from Dave Royce asking for articles to be provided for the newsletter, in order to support the effort. Contact Staff with ideas.

Liz Strano reviewed the Rolling Action Item List (RAIL). Dave Gray from Mitchel Laboratories asked a question on Item 140 of the RAIL. Why should he go to the Staff Engineer instead of going directly to the Subscriber? Andy Bakewell suggested that both avenues are correct, let both the Subscriber and Staff be made aware. It was resolved that contacting the Staff Engineer in the first instance is the preferred method for consistency. The Supplier should contact Staff and then Staff contacts the Subscriber. With the understanding that all Suppliers can reach out to Subscriber at any time.

Dave Royce spoke to the Auditor Conference that occurred over the weekend. The conference addressed document balloting, ITAR/EAR issues, NCR writing when dealing with non-sustaining findings, etch inspection, specific examinations, Subscriber supplements, check list updates, completing the matrix, industry standard updates, NMC’s audit effectiveness and sharing best practices.

9.0 CLARIFICATION DATA BASE – OPEN

Andy Bakewell reviewed the Clarification Data Base (CDB).

It was reported that 3 items from AC7114 have been identified as being still open and awaiting a response from Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA). One as far back as 2012.

10.0 SUPPLIER REPORT & DISCUSSION - OPEN

Gary White presented an introduction to the SSC Task Group functions and opportunities.

Andy Bakewell discussed the secondary feedback questionnaire. There is no way for suppliers currently to have this automatically initiated in eAuditNet. Gary White will take this as an action back to SSC to request automation.

ACTION ITEM: Gary White to discuss the automation of Suppliers secondary feedback in eAuditNet with the SSC Leadership. Assigned to Gary White.( Due Date: 14-Jan- 2017)

Self-audit access to the auditor handbook was requested by Andy Bakewell. Gary White will check to see if Suppliers can have access to auditor handbook in an effort to help them.

ACTION ITEM: Gary White to discuss the possibility of Suppliers having access to the Auditor Hand Book with the SSC Leadership. Assigned to Gary White. (Due Date: 14-Jan- 2017)


CONFIRMED

11.0 TECHNICAL ISSUES AND OPEN DISCUSSION ITEMS – OPEN

Justin Payne brought up an issue on the developer contamination check. Is there a requirement to have a black surface as the test coupon? Currently the check list only states that it has to have sufficient contrast. It was agreed that there is no requirement for the test coupon to be black.

Dale Norwood requested a discussion on AC7114 paragraph 5.3.16, which addresses the practical examination for a Level 3 and the written procedure. The definition from NAS 410 was reviewed and a discussion ensued.

Motion was made by Dale Norwood and seconded by Jim Fowler to remove “As guidance, a penetrant technique would generally not meet this requirement.” From AC7114 paragraph 5.3.16. Motion carried. 1 abstention. Andy Bakewell will add this to the CDB and staff will add it to the DCS.

ACTION ITEM: Andy Bakewell to add a clarification to the CDB. Assigned to Andy Bakewell. (Due Date: 14-Nov- 2016)

ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to add this requirement to the DCS. Assigned to Phil Ford. (Due Date: 14-Nov- 2016)

Dave Royce discussed grit blast prior to PT as a method of pre-cleaning? Is an aqueous clean performed after the grit blast? Is there a procedure at your facility that requires approval? Various Suppliers raised their hands in response. See section 4.0 closed business as a new Ad-Hoc team is to be formed to address this issue.

Curt Powell raised a concern on AC7114/4S Rev K, U1 Question 6.7.5 on identifying indications a change verbiage is required (as a YES answer should be an NCR) that removes confusion so that a YES/NO answer can’t be confused. Honeywell have stated this will be reworded.

ACTION ITEM: Honeywell to review the question and change the verbiage so that a YES answer does not mean that the Supplier is not compliant. Assigned to Steve McCool. (Due Date: 14-Jan- 2017)

Andy Bakewell asked if a country does not have NANDTB, can the Level 3 be sent to a country that does have NANDTB to allow them to take an examination. It was agreed that this was an acceptable practice.

Dave Royce spoke to the NANDTB discussions that were held earlier on the plan to set a meeting to prepare a business plan together to test the feasability of this plan. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has to approve all NANDTB boards and Helmuth Hoeller suggests that this is already governed by the EASA and this group needs to do nothing further.

Andy Bakewell gave a presentation on a new method in NDT “Non Pathological NDT”. Basically works like a PT check. He asked where this might be useful and wanted to share it with group.

Dave Gray reported that during a recent audit the audit was interrupted many times due to external interruptions of the auditor. Staff stated PRI cannot restrict contract employees from using their cell phones. Can Suppliers restrict cell phones to eliminate this problem? The feedback was yes it can be restricted. Caution was that some tablets are also phones and Auditor may use tablet to perform audit. If the Auditor is under contract with PRI they should be restricted from performing other consulting while auditing. It was requested that a supplier call a Staff Engineer to have this resolved immediately if this poses a problem.

Nancy Bennett discussed submitting Supplier’s procedures and documents electronically. What happens with those documents? What security measures are being taken to protect the Supplier’s paperwork? Recommendation is that you only provide hard copy documents if this is a concern. If you do not want to provide any documents ahead of time let the Scheduling


CONFIRMED

department know so that a day can be added to the audit to allow time for Auditor to be onsite to review document.

Andy Bakewell raised a question on Self-audit paperwork, what information from compliance section is really required. It was explained that this was addressed at the Auditor conference and the expectation is one job for Self-audit No documentation is expected to be provided.

Dale Norwood asked where Self-audit requirement comes from. It was stated that this was an NMC initiative that eventually was picked up by audit effectiveness and is now flowed down by the operating procedure OP 1105 section 4.1.

Additive Manufacturing (AM) discussion started by Dave Royce around what is expected from NDT on these parts. Nothing currently has been discussed other than basic methods. Computed Tomography is discussed as alternate method to basic methods. Chris Stevenson mentioned that discontinuities currently found in AM samples are not showing up as one would expect to see them in conventional manufacturing methods with conventional materials.

Alain Bouchet asked does someone know of anyone capable of supplying wire type image quality indicators (IQI’s) that are capable of providing an IQI that could move with the part.

A team consisting of Andy Bakewell, Tony Warren, Chris Stevenson and Neil Metcalfe discussed the potential of there actually being a difference of performance between penetrant materials of the same sensitivity level. They are in process of performing tests, on behalf of the United Kingdom Aerospace, Defence, Security and Space, Special Interests Groups (UK ADS SIG) NDT to validate the penetrant materials over different materials, surfaces and configurations. The potential outcome might indicate that the QPL approval may not be the only method of validating material capability. Expect to have further results over the next one or two meetings.

12.0 NADCAP AND NDT PROCEDURE REVIEW – OPEN

Liz Strano presented the Nadcap NDT Procedure review.

13.0 NEW BUSINESS – OPEN

Dave Royce requested that the PT Method Group look at the potential of adding questions to the AC7114/1 check list that control grit blast as a method of penetrant pre-clean. Gary O’Neil requested that forgings also be added in addition to castings. There will be an ad-hoc group generated to discuss this issue in full.

Dave Cohn discussed vision requirements for NDT personnel via machine testers. Vision screening devices provided that they meet the three vision requirements from NAS 410 Table V. Andy Bakewell asked how the Level 3 can do that. ISO 18490 does not allow the Tumbling E be administered by machine. It was agreed that if the machine is qualified to meet the requirements of Table V it was acceptable for use. Mike Gutridge stated that Auditors are not going to ask for this, rather they will only ask to see if the individual has passed an eye test. Tony Warren spoke to an Airbus position that it is recommended that machines are not used.

Dave Gray stated that the interpretation of ASTM was that blowing off of dry powder during the evaluation by mouth is an acceptable practice. The 5 pound per square inch limit applies only to compressed air.

A ballot comment was made during an audit in September regarding oven temperature swing. The balloter requested that we remove the requirement for oven swing from the baseline AC7114/1 check list, paragraph 5.12.1. This request is based on the fact that it was thought to be a Boeing requirement and thus was made part of the baseline. After further review by Boeing it has been identified as this not being a requirement to monitor cycle swing. Alain Bouchet pointed out that this is now a requirement out of ASTM-E-1417 and needs to be maintained. Proposed alternate wording to be added to the DCS by the Method Team.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to update the DCS AC7114/1 with the relevant question number, question and CAG ready for the group to discuss at the next meeting. Assigned to Phil Ford. (Due Date:14-Nov2016)

Dave Gray wants to discuss further ITAR requirements. Requesting that this needs to be addressed, his concern is that ITAR specifications are disseminated into internal instructions and could expose them to violations. What if he refused to provide such documents prior to audit. Mike Gutridge reiterated what was said earlier, if they have a concern that they do not want to share their internal documentation then contact PRI to have an additional day added to audit and the Auditor can review these documents on site. Dave Gray asked if this is within the PRI governing documentation. Another Supplier indicated they have experienced this and submitted documentation to their counsel and from there it was sanitized and ITAR restricted removed, and only to be reviewed on site by the Auditor. Dave Gray feels strongly that this needs to be brought up to NMC and Mike Gutridge has suggested that if he does so, that he state that he has only brought it up today to the Task Group. Dave Gray had agreed that he will wait until the New Orleans meeting to allow the process to work in an effort to resolve. Mike Gutridge also clarified that there is an incident report that could be filed anytime you feel that your information has been disseminated to others without authorization. Please submit the issue to PRI Staff who will initiate an Internal Corrective Action Request.

Alain Bouchet wanted to provide to the group that he has been tracking data on NCR’s per audit. He provided that in February the number was 2.96 NCR’s per audit, in June the number further reduced to 2.46 NCR’s per audit and the current number is 2.17 NCR’s per audit. He wished to only acknowledge that there has been a marked improvement in the supply base.

Phil Ford reviewed the Supplier Voting Membership Status.

Supplier Voting Members at risk of losing status due to lack of meeting attendance:

Dave Mitchel has been in contact with Dave Royce and granted a waiver.

Mike Aston has been in contact with Dave Royce and granted a waiver.

Steve Radelich – Jorgensen Forge was in attendance.

Michael Steele – Northstar was in attendance.

Blair James O’Connell – PCC was in attendance.

Nathan Gangloff – RBC was in attendance.

Zachary Medeiros – Timken was in attendance.

Shawn Ballou – Wyman Gordon – Dave Royce has contacted Mr Ballou – waiting response.

Doug Barra – XRI was in attendance.

No Suppliers that are listed as Supplier Voting Members have missed two consecutive letter ballots.

Supplier Voting Members that have lost their voting privileges:

Paul Johnson – Alcoa Forging and Extrusions.

Jeff Jones – Alloy Processing, PCC Aerostructures.

Andrew Dunbain – Doncasters.


CONFIRMED

Skip McDougall – Avcorp Composite.

Nathalie Crozat-Vigier – Kalistrut.

New Supplier Voting Members:

Rob Yocom – Imagineering South Bend.

Motion made by Gary White and seconded by Rick Gasset to approve Rob Yocom as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion Passed.

Blair O’Connell moved from PCC to Element but is retaining his Supplier Voting status. Blair additionally notified Dave Royce of this change. This was approved by Dave Royce.

Shelly Lawless - Meyer Tool as alternate Supplier Voting Member.

Motion made by Gary White and seconded by Rick Gasset to approve Shelly Lawless as an alternate Supplier Voting Member. Motion Passed.

Agostino Sardo - Bytest as a Supplier Voting Member.

Motion made by Gary White and seconded by Rick Gasset to approve Agostino Sardo as a Supplier Voting Member. Motion Passed.

New Subscriber Voting Members:

David Cohn – Boeing added as a Subscribing Voter Member.

Motion made by Scott Wegener and seconded by Alain Bouchet to approve David Cohn as an Alternate Voting Member for Boeing. Motion Passed.

Mark Antonellis – BA Systems added as a Subscribing Voting Member.

Motion made by Sean Wood and seconded by Dave Cohn to approve Mark Antonellis as a Subscribing Voting Member for BAE Systems. Motion Passed.

Dave Royce wanted to document that Curt Powell PCC to be added to the RT Method Team.

ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to update the AC7114/4 Method Team to add Curt Powell. Assigned to Phil Ford. (Due Date: 14-Nov 2016)

Peter Fridolf – GKN Aerospace Sweden added as a Subscribing Voting Member.

Motion made by Mike Mitchell and seconded by Dave Cohn to approve Peter Fridolf as a Subscriber Voting Member for GKN Aerospace Sweden. Motion Passed.

14.0 AD HOC TEAM BREAK OUT SESSION – OPEN

Phil Ford gave a brief presentation on the operations and expectations of an Ad-Hoc team.

Dave Royce mentioned that the three light manufacturers agreed to provide information to be utilized to create a symposium on UV LED lights. Currently due to other engagements they are not available for comment today. Phil Ford stated that a paper is in process by the light manufacturers and will be ready in for the symposium in February.

Dave Royce asked that others consider to Chair the Supplier Symposium Ad-Hoc Team.


CONFIRMED

New Ad-Hoc Team is being formed to address the oversight of the NANDT Boards and Outside Agencies. Currently only Subscribers are on this team. Charter is to create a business case to be submitted to NMC for approval.

Dave Gray suggested that the ITAR question brought up and discussed in new business be considered to become an Ad-Hoc team and symposium.

15.0 AD HOC TEAM REPORT OUT – OPEN

Ad Hoc team activity was held as a group and recorded above.

16.0 METHOD TEAM BREAK OUT SESSION – OPEN

Phil Ford reviewed the method sub teams with the group by check list.

AC7114 looking for additional Suppliers to participate.

Jim Fowler has asked to be added to the /1 team.

Mike Mitchell is interested in stepping down as Chair of /3 & /7 team.

No Suppliers are part of /5 team Phil Ford asked for involvement.

Dave Cohn has asked to join the Auditor Consistency team.

It was decided to not break out into groups but rather address items as a group.

AC7114

5.3.16 – Was reviewed as discussed earlier. Added to DCS and agreed.

5.3.11 – Clarification has been voted on at AIA but currently waiting on agreement from EN4179 group. Alain commented on “other method” concerns that there is ambiguity surrounding this in NAS 410. Andy Bakewell provided that this was discussed previously and captured in clarification database, that it was agreed that the expectation was that Level 3’s had to have some understanding of “Other Methods”. Jon Biddulph concurred that the verbiage is not explicit to the intent and is causing some confusion. The revisions is still up for vote. Phil reiterated that until we get clarification from AIA and EN this item remains open.

7.2.7 – Requested clarity of statement as change. Dave Gray felt we had discussed this previously and it was resolved. The previous discussion was on the requirement of having the revision on the paperwork rather than traceability to this. Jim Graves suggested that we break it into two questions 1 for traceability to process and acceptance the second to the revision of each. Andy Bakewell spoke to that he felt this was an AS9100 question. Jim Graves has referenced that recently he has found occasions recently that Suppliers are using the wrong revisions. Dave Gray commented that he has never yet to be asked by either Nadcap or Subscriber Auditors about configuration control. Linda Beane provided her expectation of how an Auditor would validate the cut in date and current in use revisions. Was agreed that this has not been a current issue resulting in findings so it will be left alone but set aside for auditor training to address Jim Graves’s concerns.

5.1.5.1 – Agreed to leave as is, was previously addressed and resolved with the decision to leave as is. At some point in time a new employee regardless of previous certification is considered a trainee.

5.3 – Request to allow Section Not Applicable to collapse balance of questions. The decision is to go ahead and collapse the questions but that will result in a numbering change due to programing.


CONFIRMED

5.3.7 – For re-certification by points, is it required to review all documentation? Agreed to be non-persuasive and will remain the same.

5.4 – CAG suggestion is how you can answer yes to all in 5.4.1 if you only review 1 vision test. Should the last sentence of the CAG be made into a question?

Motion made by Andy Bakewell and seconded by Steve Garner to add the question as described in the DCS by adding a question. Vote results 19 affirmative, 12 negative 7 abstentions. Motion Passed.

Should the question be revised to add “to the person performing the examination” in lieu of A’’ personnel and facilities?

Should we trust that the quality system addresses this type of requirement? Comment is Trust but verify, that is the purpose of the audit.

Dave Gray suggests that a CAG be added to the new question. He is concerned that this recent vote will result in additional finding. Propose that the CAG provide examples of flow down such as the use of procedures, the applicable form or other methods of flow down documents. This will be added to the DCS for consideration.

5.3.20 – Suggestion is to add CAG. NA for NANDTB administered examinations.

5-3-21 - Suggestion is to add CAG. NA for NANDTB administered examinations.

Motion made by Scott Wegener and seconded by Alain Bouchet to approve changes as described above relative to AC 7114 checklist. Motion Passed.

AC7114/3

5.2.2.1 – Requested to update the checklist as the question is not applicable to through transmission. Determined to be no persuasive.

Motion made by Dave Cohn and seconded by Justin Payne to approve changes as described above for AC7114/3. Motion Passed.

AC7114/5

New – On hold awaiting clarification.

6.6.3 – Recommend adding the type of Residual Field Indicator used. Non persuasive as no subscriber indicated this is not an engineering requirement.

Motion made by Dave Cohn and seconded by Dave Gray to approve the changes as described above for AC 7114/5. Motion Passed.

AC7114/4

5.4.1 – Storage of chemicals and film. This was sent to /4 method group and method group sent question back to manufacturer of film for their recommendations and comment. Nothing received to date.

All other items that are listed on Method Team DCS for /4 have been agreed upon. Task Group would still like to review each change. Resolved to review what the changes are.

5.6.2 – Revise wording to Is the film viewing are checked initially and when changes are made to ensure a maximum ambient light of (3 ft. candles/30 Lux) is not exceeded at the viewer surface?

6.7.4 – CAG revised to add “Inside the area of interest” to provide clarification to auditor not to look at anything outside the area of interest.


CONFIRMED

5.7.5 – Revise question to “Is viewer brightness verified when procured then on an annual basis or when a bulb is replaced or when maintenance is performed and is this recorded?”

6.7.1 – Requested method team to set a baseline for acceptable density. Still awaiting for a response from Airbus. No action at this time, this stays open.

Request for new question to be added – Add full scale linearity densitometer calibration check at 90 days per E1742/E1079 in AC7114/4.

Motion made by Alain Bouchet and seconded by Chris Stevenson to approve changes that are not awaiting clarification to AC7114/4. Motion Passed.

AC7114/6

5.6.7.2 – Clarification to CAG Currently have approached ASTM E 1742 for clarification.

5.6.3.5 – Clarification to CAG Currently have approached ASTM E 1742 for clarification.

ALL – To add NA to each question that address film viewing with a CAG that states NA when remote viewing in accordance with AC7114/9 is being carried out.

4.3.34.2 – Refers to pixel maps 3.2.1.8 also allows text file. Revise for consistency. Does the operating procedure specify that the detector be retested in accordance with ASTM E2737 in the event that bad pixels remain after the new bad pixel map has been generated or new bad pixel map has been stored as an image in the text file? Agreed to send back to Method Group.

4.3.34.3 – Same as 4.3.34.2 – Agreed to send back to Method Group.

4.3.10 – Revise CAG, Where applicable, the setup should include each view, showing detector location relative to the part and radiation beam and location of IQI’s or phantoms. Agreed by Method Group approved.

5.2.3 – For consistency with 5.5.2 can we add “does not need to be documented” to CAG in paragraph 5.2.3. Agreed by Method Group approved.

5.6.4.1 – Can we add NA – Determined as Non-Persuasive.

Motion made by Steve Garner and seconded by Harry Hahn to approve changes that are not awaiting clarification in AC7114/6. Motion Passed.

AC7114/8

ALL – To add NA to each question that address film viewing with a CAG that states NA when remote viewing in accordance with AC7114/9 is being carried out.

6.11.1 – Remove as it is redundant due to new revision of NAS 410/EN4179, Agreed to remove by Method Group.

6.11.2 - Remove as it is redundant due to new revision of NAS 410/EN4179. Agreed to remove by Method Group.

5.7.3 – Agreed by Method Group.

4.3.25 – EPS Agreed by Method – Sent to ASTM team to be addressed.

5.7.13 – Laser Beam function – Requesting NA – Agreed by Method Group.

5.7.25.12 – Request to add NA to question – Agreed by Method Group.


CONFIRMED

6.13.1 – Request to add NA to question.

Motion made by Alain Bouchet and seconded by Dale Norwood to approve changes that are not awaiting clarification in AC 7114/8. Motion passed.

Chris Stevenson would like to recognize Mike Horky of Boeing for his support and guidance in the creation of the AC7114/6 and AC7114/8 check lists. Additionally Mike Horky was instrumental in arranging the Auditor digital training that was held at GE.

AC7114/1

6.3.1 – No reason or proposed changes provided. Non persuasive.

5.16.1 – No reason or proposed changes provided. Non persuasive.

No question number provided – No reason or proposed changes provided. Non persuasive.

5.5.2 – Requesting add and NA and a CAG to address aerosol material – ready for use- can be marked NA. CAG: If the supplier uses a spray hydrophilic. Agreed by Task Group.

5.14.2 – Non Persuasive.

5.10.2 – Need to add statement regarding actions to take place should degradation fail. This is addressed in AC7114 9.1.1. Non Persuasive.

5.11.1 – Should state contamination required for each penetrant in use. Non Persuasive.

5.17.2 – Clarify the type of air pressure, e.g. blow of excess water, excess dry developer and airline equipped with an air filter. Non Persuasive.

6.9.6 – Should the CAG include 45 degree angle for washing off the penetrant. Non Persuasive.

5.10.2 – Add to clarification database statement to address when the 5th star cannot be monitored during the annual degradation check (you can see it but it is difficult to measure it).

5.8.6 – Revise to: If water soluble (form b) Agreed to change.

5.14.6 - Revise to: Is the ambient white light level in the inspection area controlled to not to exceed 2 ft. candles (20 lux)? CAG: This measurement is taken in the darkened inspection area to include the examination surface with the UV-A lights operating in the fixed position of 15 inches (38cm). Agreed to change.

6.15.1 – Revise Text to read: Did the inspectors allow at least 1 minute to condition their eyes to the darkness before conducting the inspection. Agreed to change.

6.15.3 – Revise text: Change UV-A in lieu of light. Accept changes.

6.15.11 – Revise CAG: Long term delays are not permitted, for example processing XXXX. Also requesting that this question be moved to 6.4.2 as it is felt to be a more appropriate area. Stays open to determine it this will affect data collection.

5.14.11 – How do we address the question when the supplier is recording greater than 2000 lux? The supplier performs a complex measurement procedure to determine that the light level is in excess of 1999 as measured with a calibrated light meter? Agree to create guidance.

Motion made by Dave Cohn and seconded by Chris Stevenson to approve any and all outstanding findings where the light meter reading exceeds the operating range and saturates out be voided and that clarification be provided to ensure no further finding be issued in this case. Motion Passed.


CONFIRMED

5.13.9 - What is expected for light intensity here? Using a "flashlight" type of UV light for hard to reach areas, etc. These type of lights may not meet a 1200µw/cm2 at 15 inches requirement. A ballot comment proposed a requirement be "1200µw/cm2 at the inspection surface" here. Also, I propose that a Compliance Assessment Guidance be added to state " A procedure shall address how this requirement is controlled and verified". Agree to let this be further addressed by the Method Team.

Motion made by Andy Bakewell and seconded by Mike Mitchell to approve changes that are not awaiting clarification in AC 7114/1. Motion passed.

AC7114/2

5.2.1 - Is the reference sample of unused suspension retained for the contamination check and is it stored properly? Should the Magnetic Particle hold-out sample be stored in a centrifuge tube to make a similar comparison? Non Persuasive.

4.3.11 - Magnetic field strength and location of Gauss/Tesla measurements if AS 5371 shims are not used? should include the location of QQIs as well. Non Persuasive.

4.3.14 - Complete pre-examination and post-examination demagnetization, cleaning and preservation requirements or reference to procedures containing such instructions? should include the maximum allowable gauss reading e.g. 3G. Non Persuasive.

7.5.7 - Was suspension properly applied to the parts? should state that the Black Light must be directed on the parts during the application of suspension to assure proper coverage during the continuous method of application. Non Persuasive.

4.3.20 - Type of magnetic particle material (dry or wet, or fluorescent, etc.)? Revised the text to state: Type of magnetic particle material (dry, or wet, water based, wet oil based, etc.)? Accept changes.

5.1.4 - Do we need “Fluorescent” – it would be better to state “Settled Fluorescent solids” if anything.

Revised the text to state: Is the magnetic particle concentration within the following limits?

Settled fluorescent solids 0.1 - to 0.4 mL per 100 mL sample. Accept changes.

5.5.5 - Contradiction between question and CAG Revised the text to state: Is ambient light in the inspection area controlled not to exceed 2 ft candles/20 lux?

Compliance Assessment Guidance: This measurement is taken in the darkened inspection area to include the examination surface with the UV-A lights operating in the fixed position of 15 inches (38 cm). Accept changes.

4.3.11 - Magnetic field strength and location of Gauss/Tesla measurements if AS 5371 shims are not used?

Compliance Assessment Guidance: This includes reference to verifying the field direction and strength. Accept changes.

4.3.12 - The method used to demonstrate correct field balance when using multidirectional magnetization?


CONFIRMED

Compliance Assessment Guidance: This includes reference to verifying the correct field strength and balance using the required test parts/AS 5371 shims. Accept changes.

5.5.10 - How do we address the question when the supplier is recording greater than 2000 Lux, when their meter is limited to 1999 Lux. The supplier performs a complex measurement procedure to determine that the light level is in excess of 1999 lux as measured with a calibrated light meter. Agree to create guidance.

Motion made by Dave Cohn and seconded by Chris Stevenson to approve any and all outstanding findings where the light meter reading exceeds the operating range and saturates out be voided and that clarification be provided to ensure no further finding be issued in this case. Motion Passed.

6.1.6 - What is the expectation for additional circuits on MPI machines for low end stability check? EG for MF or for Coils that are powered by a separate power unit? Agree to let this be further addressed by the Method Team.

5.4.10 - What is expected for light intensity here? Using a "flashlight" type of UV light for hard to reach areas, etc. These type of lights may not meet a 1200uw/cm2 at 15 inches requirement. I propose a requirement be "1200uw/cm2 at the inspection surface" here. Also, I propose that a Compliance Assessment Guidance be added to state " A procedure shall address how this requirement is controlled and verified". The intensity requirement could be added in 5.4.11. Agree to let this be further addressed by the Method Team.

Motion made by Andy Bakewell and seconded by Mike Mitchell to approve changes that are not awaiting clarification in AC7114/2. Motion passed.

17.0 METHOD TEAM REPORT OUT – OPEN

Method Team activity was held as a group and recorded above.

18.0 REPORT OUT OF PLANNING & OPERATIONS MEETING – OPEN

Dave Royce reviewed the items discussed in Planning and Ops.

19.0 SSC REPORT OUT ON THE SSC MEETING – OPEN

Gary White reviewed the SSC meeting held on Tuesday 25th October.

Andy Bakewell asked to have a clarification that for the pre-audit requirements that NDT is only requiring one compliance job per method. This will be added to OP 1114 appendix to further document this. Further that no attachments are expected for your pre-audit submission.

ACTION ITEM: Phil Ford to update the OP 1114 appendix NDT to address the Self-audit requirements for NDT. Assigned to Phil Ford. (Due Date: 14-Jan- 2017)

20.0 DOCUMENT CHANGE SPREAD SHEET – OPEN

DCS was reviewed as part on Method Team review.

21.0 DEVELOP AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 2017 MEETING – OPEN

Dave Royce opened discussion for the Agenda of the February 2017 meeting.

Phil Ford discussed that the DCS will have additional items to be discussed. Additionally we will have a symposium potentially available for the UV-A lights. It is suggested that we expand the


CONFIRMED

February meeting to add a fourth day. It is agreed that we will have a four day meeting running Monday through Thursday.

22.0 RAIL & CLARIFICATION DATA BASE REVIEW – OPEN

Andy Bakewell reviewed the Clarification Database.

Motion made by Dave Cohn and seconded by Dave Gray to approve the new AC7114/1 Clarification Database items added this meeting. Motion Passed.

23.0 MEETING FACILITATION – OPEN

Dave Royce opened this item for discussion.

Curt Powell mentioned that addressing Ad Hoc and Method Group items works better as a collective group rather than breaking into separate Method Groups.

Dave Gray thanked Mike Gutridge for his efforts and support throughout the years.

Dave Royce also added his comments on Mike Gutridge’s involvement over the years. He closed with comments that Mike Gutridge will be missed.

Mike Gutridge added his comments that he will be back!!!!!!

ADJOURNMENT – 26-Oct-2016 – Meeting was adjourned at 2:00 PM

Minutes Prepared by: Steve McCool, [email protected]

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

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting?

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*If yes, the following information is required:Documents requiring revision: Who is responsible: Due date:

OPENING COMMENTS - CLOSED - Performance...

Documents

Transcript of OPENING COMMENTS - CLOSED - Performance...