Performance Review Institute - OPENING COMMENTS...

SEALANT

OCTOBER 2015

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTES

OCTOBER 20-21, 2015

PITTSBURGH, PA, 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.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20 to WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2015

OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN AND CLOSEDCall to Order / Quorum Check – OPEN AND CLOSED

The Sealants Task Group (SLT TG) was called to order at 1:05 P.m., 20-Oct-2015.

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

*

Jerry

Brown

Lockheed Martin

Chris

Davison

Spirit Aero Systems

*

Kent

DeFranco

Lockheed Martin

Chairperson; Proxy for B. Bove

*

Brent

Clothier

Cessna Aircraft

Proxy for D. Kleinschmidt, M. Koucouthakis

*

Al

Fletcher

USAF/AFRL

*

Raj

Nagarajan

General Dynamics

Bob

Purnell

Spirit Aero Systems

*

Norberto

Roiz-Lafuente

Airbus Defense & Space

Drew

Smith

Spirit Aero Systems

Mario

Simard

Bombardier Aerospace

Shawn

Vierthaler

Spirit Aero Systems

*

Estrella

Watson

UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)

Secretary

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME

COMPANY NAME

*

Jim

Carney

NSL Aerospace

Proxy for R. Wilt

*

Suzanna

DeMoss

3M Co. Aerospace and Aircraft

Maintenance Department

Joanne

Havala

3M Co. Aerospace Division

Scott

Jones

Integral Products

*

John

Lane

Integral Products

Clarlene

Lenderman

Graco Supply Co

*

David

Nickerson

Packaging Systems Inc.

*

Phillip

Shackley

PPG Aerospace / PRC DeSoto Intl.

*

Jeff

Steele

D Aircraft Products Inc.

PRI Staff Present

Keith

Purnell

Safety Information – OPEN AND CLOSED

Fire Exits and how to vacate the building using the stairs was reviewed. Attendees were requested to notify PRI Staff of any emergencies.

Review Code of Ethics (Ref: Attendees’ Guide) and Meeting Conduct - OPEN AND CLOSED

The Nadcap Personal Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest video was reviewed with the Task Group in the OPEN and CLOSED meetings.

Present the Antitrust Video – OPEN AND CLOSED

The Antitrust Video was reviewed with the Task Group in the OPEN and CLOSED meetings.

Review Agenda – OPEN

The agenda for the meeting was reviewed. Attendees were given the opportunity to identify expectations to be addressed during the week of meetings.

Acceptance of Previous Meeting Minutes – OPEN

The minutes from the June 2015 Nadcap meeting were reviewed.

Motion made by B. Clothier and seconded by J. Steele to approve the minutes as written. Motion passed unanimously.

Review Membership status – OPEN

The voting membership was reviewed and proxy votes were recorded.

The voting records and meeting attendance for SLT TG Voting Members, Subscriber and Supplier, were reviewed for compliance to the requirements for maintaining membership. PD1100 paragraph 5.10.6 states “To maintain Voting Member privileges, the following criteria shall be met unless the Task Group Chair determines that other circumstances warrant retention:

· Voting Member shall not be absent without approved alternate representation (including a full proxy) from three consecutive regular Nadcap Task Group meetings.

· Voting Member, or approved alternate representation, shall not miss a vote on 2 consecutive letter ballots. A waive shall count as a vote.

All Voting Members met the requirements for meeting attendance.

All SLT TG Voting Members except one, M. Facas, met the requirements for voting on letter ballots; Pratt & Whitney missed the last two ballots. The Voting Members and Chairperson agreed to waive the voting requirement for this occurrence. M. Facas will maintain Voting Member status.

ACTION ITEM: K. DeFranco to email M. Facas a reminder of attendance and voting requirements to maintain voting member status. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2015)

M. Simard of Bombardier requested to become a SLT TG Subscriber Voting Member. M. Simard has attended two SLT TG Meetings.

Motion made by J. Carney and seconded by E. Watson to approve M. Simard as a SLT TG Subscriber Voting Member pending subscription verification. Motion Passed Unanimously.

C. Lenderman of Greco Supply requested to become a SLT TG Alternate Supplier Voting Member. C. Lenderman has attended two SLT TG Meetings.

Motion made by J. Steele and seconded by J. Carney to approve C. Lenderman as a SLT TG Alternate Supplier Voting Member. Motion Passed Unanimously.

K. DeFranco, Chair, confirmed all new voting members.

SLT TASK GROUP RAIL – OPEN

The Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) was reviewed.

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

STAFF REPORT – OPEN

Staff Engineer, K. Purnell, presented the PRI Staff Report that included Auditor Status, SLT TG Metrics, Most Common NCRs, Non-Sustaining NCR’s, Latest Changes, Future Nadcap Meeting Dates and Locations, Staff Delegation Metrics, Average Number of Major and Minor NCR’s, and Audit Cycle Time. Supplier cycle time had been a concern because from Sept 2014 to Feb 2015 the goal of 28 days was exceeded. One of the reasons for the long cycle times was equipment was required to be purchased to rectify the SLT TG most common NCR. Supplier cycle times have improved and only one of the last six months cycle times exceeded 28 days.

Supplier Support Committee (ssc) REPORT – OPEN

The Supplier Support Committee (SSC) update was reviewed that included an overview of the SSC Leadership Team, how the SSC helps suppliers, current SSC activities, and their new Supplier Initiatives. For additional information please review the SSC minutes posted on the PRI website at www.p-r-i.org.

K. DeFranco asked for a volunteer to become the SSC representative for the SLT TG. No Supplier volunteered to act as a representative at this time.

ACTION ITEM: Suppliers interested in being the SLT TG SSC representative should contact [email protected]. (Due Date: 1-Feb-2016)

2015 AUDITOR CONFERENCE – OPEN

The SLT TG Auditor Conference was conducted on Sunday, 18-Oct-2015 from 10:15 am – 5:00 pm. The auditor conference agenda was reviewed including a summary of the presentations. The most common NCRs were reviewed with the auditors.

Technical discussions included a review of the spreadsheet used for tracking batches of sealant signed off during SLT Surveillance; a new tab will be added to track QPL qualification and acceptance tests witnessed. Auditors reviewed a checklist created to aid them in remembering required pre-audit, entrance, interim, and exit meeting information.

The AC7200/1, AC7202, and AC7129 checklists were reviewed. Auditors requested AC7200/1 and AC7202 section 9 be changed from “repackage into drums” to “package into drums”. They also requested the addition of five (5) gallon pails to section 9.0 of AC7200/1. They would also like to see three additional rows on the calibration charts in AC7200/1 and AC7202.

The Auditors commented they are receiving self-audits that do not reference procedures and paragraphs which causes wasted time during the audit. They are not receiving requested information from Suppliers in a timely manner. They also discussed adding audit preparation checklists to the Sealant Audit Handbook.

The proposed Auditor Conference topics for 2016 are:

· Most Common NCRs and NCR Data Analysis for Auditor Consistency (K. Purnell)

· Auditor Feedback AC7200/1 and AC7202 (K. DeFranco and K. Purnell)

· Sealant Surveillance (K. DeFranco)

· PRI Sealant QPG & G9 Update (K. DeFranco)

· Review of Sealant Application Audit Checklist AC7129 (E. Watson and K. Purnell)

· Question / Answer / Open Discussion Session (Subscribers and Auditors)

Feedback from g8 and g9 meetings – OPEN

K. DeFranco provided an update on what was discussed during the October G8 and G9 meetings. A new type of Sealant Mix on Demand Packaging was introduced. The Sealant Surveillance Auditors will be asked to go and witness this type of packaging to determine if additional questions need to be added to the existing checklists. Auditors are to also propose the wording for any additional questions that are needed and forward the information to the Sealant Staff Engineer.

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to have Sealant Surveillance Auditors contact 3M and make arrangements to witness packaging of Mix on Demand. (Due Date: 29-Oct-2015)

ACTION ITEM: SLT Surveillance Auditors are to propose the wording for any additional audit questions needed to audit Mix on Demand packaging and forward that information to [email protected]. (Due Date: 29-Nov-2015)

UPDATE OF ASSEMBLY TASK GROUP PROPOSAL – open

A presentation was given at the Globalization and Strategy Committee meeting conducted on Monday 19-Oct.-2015. Several changes were suggested to improve the survey. The revised survey will be emailed to NMC the second week of November and the NMC Sub-Team will report the results of the survey at the February 2016 Nadcap Meeting.

AC7129 STATUS – open

The AC7129 checklist is approved and posted in eAuditNet; audits can be conducted on or after 1-Nov-2015. Three auditor candidates have been identified and will be interviewed. Required training beyond the standard Nadcap new auditor training will be determined on an individual basis by the Interviewers. Review of AC7129 and AIR4069 will be included as part of the initial training.

E. Watson completed the NMC Compliance spreadsheet for AC7129.

No subscriber mandates have been issued to date; one is coming in the near future.

The move forward plan is to interview auditor candidates, develop sealant application auditor training materials, and develop a presentation that SLT Task Group Subscriber members can present to their management to justify mandating AC7129 accreditation.

ACTION ITEM: E. Watson to email the presentation she presented to her management to justify a mandate for AC7129 Sealant Application to [email protected]. (Due Date: 15-Nov-2015)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to email the mandate presentation to the SLT TG Subscriber Voting Members. (Due Date: 20-Nov-2015)

nADCAP Sealant Surveillance checklist – open

A Sealant Surveillance checklist was developed to state auditor expectations and clarify areas to be verified. It will also aid in program consistency as new Surveillance Auditors join the program.

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to send SLT Surveillance checklist to the Task Group for comment. (Due Date: 16-Nov-2015)

ACTION ITEM: SLT Task Group to send SLT Surveillance Checklist feedback and comments to [email protected] and [email protected]. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2015)

There was discussion of the value of the Sealant Surveillance program which has been ongoing for 25 years. Suppliers claim it is non-value added and should go away. A. Fletcher suggested considering a merit program for Sealant Surveillance. One Subscriber said they sometimes have cure issues with sealant. Staff Engineer (SE) K. Purnell stated that only one sealant problem has been reported to him by a user in the last ten years and that was a cure issue that was determined to be caused by environmental conditions and not the sealant. SE requested that any subscriber that is having problems caused by bad sealant should notify him.

It is assumed that the surveillance program is working as intended because no reports of problems from end users are being submitted. However, Surveillance Auditors have identified over 150 issues so far this year during surveillance. These are divided into eighteen (18) different categories. A generic bar chart of the issues identified during Sealant Surveillance will be presented at the next meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers are to report any quality issues they are having with sealant to [email protected]. (Due Date: ongoing)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to present a generic bar chart of issues identified during Sealant Surveillance at the next meeting. (Due Date: 16-Nov-2015)

PRI has been maintaining electronic sealant batch test report copies stamped off during sealant for seven years. SE asked if there is a need to continue this practice since the suppliers are required to maintain these stamped reports for seven years. PRI will continue to maintain the spreadsheet that identifies sealant batches stamped off during sealant surveillance.

Motion made by A. Fletcher and seconded by B. Clothier to eliminate the need for PRI to maintain electronic copies of the test reports stamped off during sealant surveillance. Motion Passed Unanimously.

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to review the SLT Audit Handbook and remove wording that requires maintaining paper or electronic copies of sealant test reports stamped off during Sealant Surveillance. (Due Date: 16-Dec-2015)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to notify auditors that the requirements in the SLT Audit Handbook to archive the copies of sealant test reports stamped off during Sealant Surveillance are being changed. (Due Date: 16-Dec-2015)

auditor handbook review – open

The latest proposed changes to the SLT Audit Handbook were reviewed. K. DeFranco asked if the SLT Audit Handbook could be called something else; SE will investigate. Several changes are required to incorporate the newly developed auditor aids. A sub-team was formed to draft the next revision of the SLT Audit handbook. A draft will be reviewed at the next Nadcap meeting.

ACTION ITEM: S. DeMoss, K. DeFranco and K. Purnell to draft the next revision of the SLT Audit Handbook for review at the next Nadcap meeting. (Due Date: 1-Feb-2016)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to find out if the SLT Audit Handbook can be called something else. (Due Date: 15-Jan-2016)

Slt task group initiatives – OPEN

SLT TG created the following list of activities and rated them as High (H), Medium (M) or Low (L) priority and if they are (A) Active, (N) Not Active or (C) Closed. The list was created so the SLT TG maintains focus on its high priority tasks.

(H-A) Tracking Future Changes to AC7200/1 and AC7202

(H-A) Job Tracker

(H-A) Subscriber Specification Sealant Testing Requirements

(H-A) Sealant Audit Handbook Revision

(H-A) Contract Sealant Application Auditors

(H-A) Develop Auditor training Requirements for Sealant Application Auditors, Added AIR4069

(H-A) October 2016 Auditor Conference

(M-A) Auditor Consistency Oversight (Subscriber / Supplier Feedback) OP-1117, minimum once a year

(L-N) Sealant Applicator / Technician Qualification Program (eQualLearn)

(H-C) Compliance with NMC Checklist Vision – SLT Application Checklist AC7129

(M-C) Update s-frm-28 SLT Preliminary questionnaire, a-frm-04 Auditor Questionnaire, OP 1116 Appendix SLT

(M-C) Compliance with NMC Checklist Vision – AC7200/1Rev. B and AC7202 Rev. B.

(L-C) Sealant Test Laboratory Independent Audit Question Development AC7200/1 & AC7202

new business – open

The auditors identified several changes for the AC7200/1 and AC7202 audit checklists. There may be additional changes required to address Mix on Demand sealant packaging. SLT TG members were requested to provide any additional changes to Sealant checklists to [email protected].

There was discussion concerning audit effectiveness at the auditor conference. Some of the other Task Groups use Job Trackers to assure different jobs are reviewed on subsequent audits. The SLT Task Group was not familiar with Job Trackers so the SE was requested to gather the other Task Groups’ Job Trackers so they can be reviewed at the next Nadcap meeting.

SLT TG Sub-Teams were discussed. K DeFranco proposed having a Nadcap SLT Sub-Team meeting at the SAE G9 meetings as a way of providing a report out on Nadcap SLT Task Group activities for those Suppliers and Subscribers that cannot attend Nadcap Meetings. SLT TG asked SE to provide a list of parameters of what actions can and cannot be performed by a Sub-Team.

S. Vierthaler of Spirit AeroSystems spoke to the SLT TG on Aero Smoothing and its importance. If Aero Smoothing Sealant shrinks a small amount it can increase the noise level within the aircraft and cause increased fuel consumption. Shrinkage can also allow moisture to enter which can causes corrosion issues. Task Group members that are on the G9 Standards Committee should be careful when establishing shrinkage requirements in Aero Smoothing Sealant Standards. Shrinkage can also be verified during AC7129 Sealant Application audits.

The meeting room at this meeting was full; the TG requested the SE arrange for a U shaped table for 25 at next year’s October Nadcap Meeting.

ACTION ITEM: SLT TG members to e-mail any proposed checklist changes to [email protected]. (Due Date: 1-Feb-2016)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to gather the other Task Groups Job Trackers so they can be reviewed at the next Nadcap meeting. (Due Date: 1-Feb-2016)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to provide a list of activities a sub-team can and cannot perform. (Due Date: 1-Feb-2016)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to request a meeting room with a U shaped table for 25 at the October 2016 Nadcap meeting. (Due Date: 1-Aug-2016)

MEETING CLOSE OUT – OPEN

All action items were reviewed and due dates established. For specific details, please see the current SLT Rolling Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.

Agenda Topics for the October 2015 Nadcap Meeting in Pittsburgh were determined.

Open agenda topics will include:

· Membership Review

· SLT RAIL Review

· Staff Report

· SSC Report

· Auditor Conference 2016

· Future Changes to AC7200/1 and AC7202, Job Trackers

· AC7129 Auditor Contracting and Training

· Status of Assembly Task Group

· Auditor Handbook Review

· Sealant Surveillance

· Sealant Initiatives

· New Business

Closed agenda topics will include:

· Auditors

· Audits

· Review Delegation Status

· Sealant Surveillance

· New Business

· Closed Meeting Issues

AUDITORS – CLOSED

Auditor performance was reviewed and included the most common checklist paragraph referenced in NCRs traceable to the Auditors that wrote the NCRs, Audit Oversight Feedback, and Average and Total NCRs per Day written by the Auditors. This information is used for evaluating Auditor Consistency. There was a limited amount of data to review because of the small number of audits conducted. At this time no auditors require observation.

The SLT TG reviewed OP 1117 to assure the SLT TG is compliant with all the requirements. The audit observation schedule was updated and no observation audits are required by the SLT TG for 2016. The audit schedule will be reviewed during the next Nadcap meeting to identify possible audits for oversight.

AUDITS – CLOSED

Scheduled and conducted audits were reviewed. There were zero audits in Staff Engineer Review, two in Supplier Review, and one in Task Group Review.

The current Sealant audits scheduled and initiated for the next seven months were reviewed; Subscribers were encouraged to observe audits. No observations audits were scheduled at this time.

There were no problem audits to discuss

review DELEGATION status – CLOSED

Staff Engineer K. Purnell met the minimum criteria of having at least 10% of findings reviewed by the Task Group Subscriber Voting Members with at least a 90% concurrence rate. There were no ballot comments in this review period. K. Purnell maintains delegated status.

SEALANT SURVEILLANCE – CLOSED

The Sealant Surveillance Program was reviewed and the inspectors are recording discrepancies identified during surveillance and tests witnessed on their expense reports. K. Purnell was asked to transfer this information to the Sealant Surveillance spreadsheet and to have the auditors record this information on the spreadsheet moving forward.

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to transfer tests witnessed and discrepancies during sealant surveillance to the sealant surveillance spreadsheet and to have the auditors record this information on the spreadsheet moving forward. (Due Date: 16-Dec-2015)

CLOSED MEETING ISSUES – CLOSED

Three auditor candidates with Sealant Application experience have been received. K. Purnell will conduct SE Interviews prior to any TG phone interviews.

The Nadcap Auditors are not aware of every Subscriber’s sealant specifications and their unique requirements. Subscribers were requested to provide a list of their unique sealant specifications and any unique requirements so the Auditors will be more prepared when auditing and performing surveillance.

Subscriber Audit Reviewers receive emails when audits are submitted for Task Group review but not when audits are submitted for Staff Engineer Review. SE was asked how other Task Groups handle this situation. Other Task Group Staff Engineers send weekly emails to their reviewers that list audits in Staff Engineer Review.

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to conduct SE phone interviews of the three SLT Application Auditor candidates. (Due Date: 16-Dec-2015)

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to provide a list of their unique Sealant Specifications and any unique requirements to [email protected]. (Due Date: 16-Dec-2015)

ACTION ITEM: K. Purnell to send weekly emails to reviewers when SLT audits are in SE Review. (Due Date: 16-Dec-2015)

MEETING CLOSE-OUT – CLOSED

All action items were reviewed and due dates established. For specific details, please see the current SLT Rolling Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com, under Resources > Documents > Public Documents > Sealant.

ADJOURNMENT – 21-Oct-2015 – Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Keith Purnell, [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:

SLT Audit Handbook

Keith Purnell

1-Feb-2016

PRI Staff Report

SLT Oct 2015.ppt

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

PRI OFFICE REPORT

Keith Purnell
Product Staff Engineer
Sealant Task Group

20 October 2015

Note: ITAR/Export Controlled material is prohibited from presentations.
It’s the responsibility of the presenter to ensure compliance.

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

PRI OFFICE REPORT

Carl Kay – Lead Auditor & Sealant Surveillance

Koichi Shimabara – Sealant Distributor Lead Auditor Japan

Mihi Scalat – Lead Auditor & Surveillance France

Keith Purnell – Auditor & Surveillance

Dick Cronshey – Lead Auditor & Surveillance

Tom Blackwell – Surveillance

Sealant Auditor Status

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Nadcap Audits

- 5528 Audits Scheduled for 2015

- 2946 America

- 1594 Europe

- 988 Asia

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Sealant Task Group Audits For 2015

21 Audits Scheduled 14 Reaccreditations (Americas) 1 Initial (Americas) 2 Reaccreditation (Europe) 2 Reaccreditation (Asia) 2 Initial (Asia) 16 Audit Conducted to Date

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Nadcap Meeting Dates and Locations

22-26 February 2016 Madrid Spain 20-24 June 2016 London, UK 25-28 October 2016 Pittsburgh PA 20-24 February 2017 New Orleans LA

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Task Group Metrics

Average Audit Cycle time Most Common NCR’s Average Number of Major and Minor NCR’s Delegation Metrics Nonsustaining Corrective Actions

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Sealant Audit Cycle Time by Month:
September 2014 – August 2015

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Average Sealant Audit Cycle Time

*

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Nadcap Management Council Sealant Metrics

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Nadcap Management Council Sealant Metrics

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Most Common NCR’s AC7200/1 & AC7202

#1 NCR – Calibration Issues: Expired calibration, missing calibration labels, equipment not in system, out of tolerance condition not evaluated, errors in calibration documentation.

#2 NCR – Internal Procedures and Work Instructions: does not address, procedures not being followed, lack of a written procedure. Not working to latest standard or procedure revision.

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Most Common NCR’s AC7200/1 & AC7202

#3 NCR – Standard Test Conditions Temperature and Humidity Compliance.

#4NCR – Have Personnel performing the testing been trained for the functions being performed and is this training documented.

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

AC7200/1 Rev NA Top NCR Paragraphs Referenced to be used on or before 24 Nov 13

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

AC7200/1 Rev. A Top NCR Paragraphs Referenced to be used between 24-Nov-13 to 31-May-15 (5 Audits)

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

AC7200/1 Rev. B Top NCR Paragraphs Referenced to be used after 31-May-15 (3 Audits)

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

AC7202 Top NCR Paragraph Reference to be used on or before 24 Nov 13

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

AC7202 Rev A Top NCR Paragraph Reference to be used between 24-Nov-13 to 31-May-15 (14 Audits)

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

AC7202 Rev B Top NCR Paragraph Reference to be used after 31-May-15 (10 Audits)

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

NCR Average

Initial Audits Major – 4 Audit 0 NCR’s Reaccred Audits Major – 17 Audits 0.41 NCR’s Initial Audits Minor – 4 Audit 2 NCR’s Reaccred Audits Minor – 17 Audits 1.47 NCR’s Data from all Sept. 2014-2015 Sealant Audits 1 Non-Sustaining NCR (Repeat Finding) in last 12 months)

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Staff Delegation June 1 2015 – September 30 2015

Staff Engineer met the minimum criteria of having at least 10% of findings reviewed by the Task Group Primes with at least a 90% concurrence rate.

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Latest Changes eAuditNet

PRI OFFICE REPORT

*

Questions

?

SLT SSC TG Rep

Presentation - Oct 2015.ppt

SSC TASK GROUP REPRESENTATIVEFLU/SEALS/SLT

Supplier Support Committee Task Group Representative – SLT

October 2015


An avenue for Suppliers to have input and give feedback to the Nadcap system.

Provides non-technical answers and support for Suppliers with questions or problems. Contact the SSC with your feedback and/or questions - [email protected]

Presents information to Suppliers about the Nadcap process.

Offers the Supplier perspective on Nadcap projects.

Sponsors activities/projects based on Supplier feedback.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE (SSC)?


Mentoring ProgramDesigned to have experienced Nadcap Suppliers aid those Suppliers needing assistance

Metrics Monitors Supplier participation in the Nadcap program

Supplier Survey Periodic Supplier feedback survey – The 2015 Supplier Survey has launched here in Pittsburgh, stop by the kiosk to take the survey!

Nadcap Meeting Supplier Helpdesk, Supplier Tutorial & First-Time Supplier Attendee Question & Answer Session

Sponsored Events SSC sponsored presentations (i.e. Subscriber Updates for Suppliers, Understanding Nadcap Metrics, Nadcap from a Staff Engineer Perspective, etc.)

Communication/Examples of Communication/Education:

EducationSupplier Interviews, PRI Dictionary &
‘What you need to know about

Nadcap’ Brochure

CURRENT SSC ACTIVITIES

*


Lisa Jensen-Donahoe leads the Mentoring Sub-Team. Lisa can be reached at [email protected]

This sub-committee is designed to assist those Suppliers who are new to the process and/or those needing assistance with navigating through the Nadcap system.

Just contact PRI and they’ll provide you with the name of an experienced Supplier who will help you through the Nadcap process.

While every attempt is made to assign a mentor from the same geographical area and same task group, this isn’t always possible.

To download the Mentor Request Form, please go to http://p-r-i.org/nadcap/supplier-support-committee/ or you can access the form on eAuditNet under Resources/Documents/Public Documents/Supplier Support Committee/SSC Documents

If you are interested in obtaining a mentor, becoming a mentor or would just like more information about the program, send an email to
[email protected].

MENTORING PROGRAM

*


Supplier Helpdesk

Have questions about Nadcap or about the Nadcap meeting? Look for the “Supplier Support Committee Helpdesk” sign. Contact Dale Harmon at [email protected] for more information.

SSC Leadership Team Opening Reception

Meet the SSC LT and have a cup of coffee

Monday October 19th 7:00-7:45 AM

Subscriber Updates

Hear from Airbus & Rockwell Collins

Monday October 19th 11:00 AM-12:00 PM

Understanding Nadcap Metrics

Learn how to understand and effectively utilize Nadcap Metrics to benefit your business

Monday October 19th 2:00-3:00 PM

SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE EVENTS ON MONDAY

*


SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE EVENTS ON TUESDAY

Supplier Orientation and Tutorial

Provides an overview of the Nadcap program

Tuesday October 20th 7:00-8:00 AM

Keys to a Successful Audit

Speak with seasoned Suppliers to gain valuable insight to assist with submitting a successful Nadcap audit package


eAuditNet Supplier Tutorial

Be able to successfully navigate in the eAuditNet system from a Supplier’s perspective


Nadcap from a Staff Engineer Perspective

Learn about the Nadcap process through a Staff Engineer’s eyes

Tuesday October 20th 11:00 AM-12:00 PM


When:

Tuesday, October 20th from 5:00-6:30 PM

Topics include:

Special announcement about SSC Chair position

Supplier News

Sub-Team Roundtables

Come and hear what each sub-team is currently working on along with opportunities to get involved

Sub-teams presenting:

SSC TG Reps

Supplier Helpdesk

Communications

Flow Down

SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE GENERAL MEETING

The SSC invites all Subscribers to attend the

SSC General Meeting. All are welcome!

*


2015 Supplier Survey Launch

The SSC has released the 2015 Supplier Survey here in Pittsburgh. If you have not already done so, please stop down at the kiosk to take the survey! The survey assists the SSC LT with identifying expectations relative to direction and future areas of concentration for SSC activities and meeting Supplier needs.

SSC Request Form

The SSC has released a form for Suppliers to submit requests, suggestions, and complaints. The SSC Request Form can be found at http://p-r-i.org/nadcap/supplier-support-committee/ or you can access it on eAuditNet under Resources/Documents/Public Documents/Supplier Support Committee/SSC Documents

Mentoring Request Form

The SSC has streamlined the mentoring process to provide better information to both Suppliers looking for mentors and those who provide mentoring support.

SSC CURRENT ACTIVITIES

*


SSC TG’s needed for:

MTL

NMSE

SEALS

SLT

Contract Flow Down Team, is soliciting help from the TGs below:

CMSP

COMP

ETG

FLU

M&I

MMM

NMMM/NMMT

NMSE

SEALS

SLT

HELP WANTED by the SSC

*


QUESTIONS

?

Aerospace

Assembly Sub Team Update Oct 2015.ppt

*

PRI / Nadcap
NMC Aerospace Assembly Exploratory Team Update

Keith Purnell - Staff Engineer

Note: ITAR/Export Controlled material is prohibited from presentations.

It’s the responsibility of the presenter to ensure compliance.

*

Background Information

At the June 2015 NMC Globalization and Strategy Committee Meeting an Aerospace Assembly Exploratory Team was formed to:

Propose the Scope of an Aerospace Assembly Task Group Estimate the number of potential Supplier AuditsProvide a recommendation to NMC and Subscribers on the programs viability.

Team Members: Nicolas Barthelemy, Pascal Blondet, Craig Bowden and Russ Cole

*

Developed an NMC Survey to Evaluate:

Subscriber Aerospace Assembly Scope Interest

Subscriber Level of Participation

Number of Potential Supplier Audits

Exploratory Team Progress Report

*

*

*

*

*

Next Steps

Survey emailed to NMC Members Survey data analyzed by the Working GroupWorking Group provides recommendation to NMCNMC ApprovalBusiness Case developed and presented to PRI Activity reported to PRI Board of DirectorsTask Group Created

*

Questions / Actions Required

*

Survey

Add Copy of Final Survey Here

*

Recommend-ation presented to NMC Steering Committee

Ideas are collected , reviewed and summarized by PRI staff and provided to NMC Glbzn & Strategy Committee for review

Working Group completes template and provides recommend-ation

NMC members

BOD members

TG members

Industry

Staff

NMC Steering Committee forms Working Group

NMC Approval

Business case developed

IDEAS from:

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

NMC Glbzn & Strategy Committee support

Task Group created

Activity reported to the PRI Board of Directors

PRI Mgmt support obtained

Y

N

NMC Process for Reviewing and Approving New Aerospace Areas/Commodities

Sheet1

NMC Standardization Criteria Scoring Template for Task Request Acceptance

POINTS VALUE00.250.50.751Category WeightCategory Total

1) (Who) Percentage of Stakeholders impacted. Place an X in the box under the value for each group.<10%10-24%25-50%51-75%76-100%200

Primes

Task Groups

Suppliers

Auditors

PRI

2) (How) Impact on program*. Place an X in the box under the value for each group.Insignificant impactLow-MediumModerate impactMedium-high impactSignificant impact100

Primes

Task Groups

Suppliers

Auditors

PRI

3) Measurability of successLowLow-MediumMediumMedium-HighHigh100

Place an X in the box under the value.

4) Probability of successLowLow-MediumMediumMedium-HighHigh100


5) (When) Estimated time to complete task>36 months (significant improvement to program)24-36 months18-24 months12-18 months6-12 months200


6) Cost to Implement :HighMedium-HighMediumLow-MediumLow200

Primes

Suppliers

PRI

7) Future Cost Saving’s-ImprovementLowLow-MediumMediumMedium-HighHigh100

PrimesX

SuppliersX

PRI (Auditors)X

Total0

NMC Standardization Criteria Scoring Template for Task Request Acceptance

Request Acceptance Rating:0

Not at this time

Table for Task Acceptance:

NMC OptionThreshold value(May be changed)Value range

Not at this time00&C&c

&C&c

Sheet2

Sheet3

High-Level Process

Task Tracker

Meetings

Feb '121st of June20th June25th June 201222nd October 2012

#Milestone TitleTaskOutputWhoStatusSan-Diego NMCConference Call#1Conference Call#2Berlin, NMCWebexPittsburghWebexDallasWebexParisWebexPittsburgh

1Launch the sub-team

Make proposal to the NMCNMC Outline ProposalLead PrimeProposal given at NMCX

Agree the need for an NMC Sub-TeamFormal approval to launch groupNMCNMC voted to establish the sub-teamX

Identify NMC Sub-Team MembersList of membersPrimesList of primes agreed to support, still need to identify sub-team technical members if NMC member is not supporting.XX

Agree the planDetailed development planSub-TeamPlan for task-group implementation in placeXXX

2Develop & Agree the Proposal

Define & Agree ScopeScope DefenitionSub-TeamInitial scope defined & developedXX

Agree business caseBusiness Case DocumentSub-TeamPRI business case createdX

Outline Plans for 12 MonthsPlanSub-TeamPlan included in proposalX

Obtain requirements / specs from PrimesChecklistsSub-TeamBoeing, RR, supplied, others in progressX

Consolidate to Prime References ListPrime References ListPRIOngoingX

Define Checklist StructureStructure DocumentSub-TeamProvisional structure defined.X

Obtain List of Suppliers and est audit demandLoad EstimateSub-TeamSurvey results indicated potential of 800 suppliersX

Produce detailed proposal documentProposalSub-TeamProposal given at NMCX

Formally endorse proposal and create new task-groupMajority vote at NMC to launch groupNMCEndorsed at Oct 2012 NMCX

3Launch the Task-Group and Develop The Checklists

Confirm task-group members, chair and PRI supportTask-GroupAllX

Review lessons learnt from previous task-groupsUpdated plans mitigating risksTask-Group

Train task-group members who are new to Nadcap.Increased awareness of NADCAPPRIX

Create ChecklistsDraft ChecklistsTask-GroupXX

Prime & Supplier checklist reviewsPrimes and suppliers review checklists and provide feedbackTask-GroupXX

Develop flowdown and mandate criteria and confirm viability.Task-GroupXX

Informally test at Prime's own facility and/or supplierRevised scope, checkists etc.Primes / SuppliersX

Ballot checklistsAgreed ChecklistTask-Groupxx

Define Auditor QualificationsAuditor qualification specificationTask-Groupx

Verify prime support & mandate statusStatement on scale of mandate from each interested prime.Primesxxxxx

Feedback status to NMCContinued support for developmentTask-GroupXXX

4Select & Recruit Auditors

Review ResumesShort-ListTask-Group

Interview & RecruitAuditorsTask-Group

Train auditorsTrained auditorsTBD

Feedback status to NMCContinued support for developmentTask-Group

5Pilot Audits

Select 2-4 Suppliers

On-Site Pilot audits, attend as observers

Improve checklists with each pilot

Review Audit Results

Verify Prime SupportStatement on scale of mandate from each interested prime.Primes

Feedback status to NMCContinued support for developmentTask-Group

5Implement

Ballot Nadcap Council

Assign Staff

Mandate Letters

Publish Checklist

Document Transition

Modify eAuditNet

Input Pilot audits

Task-Group Members

OrganisationNMC MemberTask-Group Technical Specialistse-mailTelephone

AirbusPascal BlondetJacques Kerault - [email protected]

AvioMarco CherubiniSalvatore Giunta - [email protected]+39 011 00 82 947

BoeingJeff LottMark [email protected]

BombardierRobin McGuckinTBC

EurocopterDaniel LecruTBC

GE AviationMark RechtsteinerTBC

General DynamicsDavid ThornhillTBC

GoodrichKevin WardDavid O’[email protected]

HoneywellMark CovertThomas [email protected]

IAIVictor SchonbergerTBC

Rolls-RoyceRichard BlythPhil Bamforth / Reg [email protected] / [email protected]+44 (0)7528 975840

SafranChristian BuckCyril [email protected]

SikorskyPeter KrutoholowLance J [email protected]

[email protected] / [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Potential Checklists

TopicPotential Detailed Subject areasNotesWithin AS9100Source of requirements

CalibrationManagement of calibration processesAll equipment must be in calibration control, likely to be covered by existing audits?

Reaction plans for calibration failuresWhere equipment fails a calibration the equipment may have incorrectly sentenced product. Important to risk assess likely impact of failure and mitigate any significant risk.

Metric / Inch conversionConversion between metric and Inches should be avoided however where it is used the methods should be tightly controlled.

Inspection PlanningInspection planning process, does the supplier define what is inspected, where and how.Supplier must ensure what features inspected are documented and not left to individual inspectors

Sample & Reduced plans, logic, approval & effectiveness of controlsFeatures subject to reduced/sample inspection must still be demonstrated to be in control.

Proof of equipment capability, Gauge R&R processes, Bias assessmentEquipment should be demonstrated to be capable of inspecting the features and tolerances. Usually Gauge R&R or a similar statistical method should be used.

Feature naming & traceabilityInspected features on reports etc must be traceable back to the engineering definition. For example CMM reports can be ambiguous, "5.0mm Radius at 10 positions" may be reported, however if positions are not defined the radii in error will not be clear.

Equipment ValidationApproval processes for managing marginal equipment capabilityWhere equipment fails the standard gauge R&R tests (usually 20% precision to tolerance) there should be evidence of a process for dealing with this. Either selecting better equipment or gaining customer approval and managing any arising risk from continued use.

Operating procedures robust and compliance demonstratedWhere equipment relies on specific actions to maintain capability the procedure should be documented and compliance demonstrated. For example the regular use of setting masters for manual gauges can be crucial for some measurements. Failure to reference a gauge against the master can lead to significant measurement errors.

Program control for automated measurement systems is robustFor example on CMM's programs should be robustly change centred, validated and approved for use.

Maintenance & EnvironmentsRegular artefact checks to ensure equipment still in controlEquipment can degrade over time or suffer damage between full calibration. Therefore regular checks against "gold-standard parts" or artefacts is required to demonstrate equipment is sound. Particularly important on complex systems such as CMM's, laser trackers, white light etc.

Equipment storage, cleanliness & component cleaningCleanliness of equipment and components can have a significant impact on the quality of measurement results obtained. Important to ensure equipment is stored and cleaned appropriately.

Temperature control and/or compensation applied correctlyMany aerospace parts have very tight tolerances where measurement errors due to temperature differences are significant. Furthermore equipment such as CMM's can be sensitive to temperature. Adequate temperature controls or compensation should be in place, demonstrated to be effective and in control.

CompetenciesAll inspectors carrying out measurements should be competent and approved to carry out the task.Supplier should demonstrate that inspectors are competent (knowledge, skill, eyesight etc)

People developing and specifying measurement solutions should be competent.Knowledge of drafting standards (ASME Y14.5 etc), equipment types and limitations and the manufacturing process are all key to developing and deploying effective measurement processes. Staff undertaking this activity should demonstrate suitable competencies.

Coordinate Measurement Machines (CMM)Probe qualification & masterball control process robustFailure to properly control the probe qualification process on the CMM can lead to significant errors, particularly as styli are worn or become damaged.

Software ManagementChanges to the machine controller firmware and programming software do cause differences in the metrology from the CMM. It is essential software is updated in a controlled manner with adequate validation of new software.

Cleaning and MaintenanceCMM's are particularly susceptible to contamination and poor maintenance. Procedures should be in place to verify that the CMM is in good condition.

Program ValidationValidation of CMM programs is particularly complex and time-consuming. Suppliers should have robust processes to validate CMM Programs.

Laser TrackersSMR condition

Optics Cleaning

Weather station control

Optical SystemsOptics cleaning

Reference Frames

Coating Processes

Complex Go/No-Go (Receiver) type gauging, Design FixturesGauge design & manufacture tolerancesValidation of design fixtures used for inspection and assembly processes.

Care & Maintenance

Operating procedures

Manual GaugingUse of setting masters

Procedures for use

Management of temperature variation

Photogrammetry

Articulated ArmsFaro, Roma etc (combine with CMM ?)

Flow Testing

Maching Tool MeasurementUse of machine tool probing for verirication of componentsOverlap with in-process vs final inspection.

Digital DefenitionBest-fit methods.Software algorithms used for data post-processing and analysis. Likley to be relevant to most coordinate measurment systems.

Agree Need for

Sub-Team

Define & Agree

Scope

Identify Available

Requirements

Develop NADCAP

audit proposal

NADCAP Task Group Proposal

Technical Topic

Coverage

Prime Business

Case

Prime & Supplier

Impact

Assessments

PRI Business

Case

Auditor

Recruitment Plan

NMC Endorsement

Formally Issue

proposal for

review by primes

& PRI and supplier

reps

Formally Launch

task group

No

Yes

ISO / ASME / AS

Prime A -

Requirements

Prime B

Requirements

PRI Consolidate

into “Prime

References List”

Make Proposal to

the NMC

Identify Task

Group Members

Agree the Outline

Plan

Checklist

Strucutre

Milestone 0 –Agree the need and Form the Team

Milestone 1 –Develop & Agree the Proposal

Develop Outline

Business Case

Dr Philip Bamforth, C A Manager – M&IRolls-Royce plc

October 2012

Mark AubeleSenior Program ManagerPRI / Nadcap

M & I PROGRAM PROPOSAL – OCT 2012

M & I PROGRAM PROPOSAL

‹#›

Aerospace Industry does not have a unified approach to identifying inspections risk within the supply chain

Existing audit programs do not cover the full scope of M&I

Some like AS9100 Address high level systems issues only and do not delve deep enough

Risks

Release of non-conformance, assembly issues poor product performance & delays

Consider



‹#›

Aerospace industry already has an efficient and unified process to ensure conformance of product delivered by the Supplier chain

Implementation of a measurement management system via Nadcap

Adopt unified standards, skills and competencies for Aerospace Measurement, audited through an organization controlled by the Industry

Vision



‹#›

First roundtable – Feb 2012 (San Diego)

9 Subscribers participated

Second Roundtable – June 2012 (Berlin)

28 participants representing 15 Subscribers and 5 Suppliers

Teleconference calls held approx every two weeks to discuss and develop approach

Survey conducted in August 2012 to determine potential interest to the next step – M&I Accreditation Program

Development



‹#›

If Measurement & Inspection were offered as a Nadcap Program would your company: (Responses by Subscribing Company)

Survey Results

Total of 65 responses received from 22 different Subscribing Prime companies.

Comparison

ETG - launched with 1 Subscriber who required Nadcap. Now 11 Subscribers require or accept

CMSP – launched with 2 Subscribers who require Nadcap. Now, 2 Subscribers require or accept

68.2% of Responding Subscribing Companies Require or Accept

AirbusThe Boeing Company

EmbraerSpirit AeroSystems

Rolls-Royce plcSAFRAN

Premium AeroGulfstream

Honeywell AerospaceEurocopter

SikorskyUTC

Raytheon



‹#›

Affirm a new Task Group – Measurement and Inspection (M&I)

Scope to cover dimensional measurement and inspection

Calibration and Units

Product Definition

Inspections – Planning

Equipment Validation

Maintain & Environments

Competencies

Proposal

Survey Results



‹#›

ProcessesCalibration & UnitsProduct definitionInspections - PlanningEquipment validationMaintain & EnvironmentCompetenciesOther87.259.572.391.459.557.417

Percentage

Next Steps

Hold face to face meetings during Nadcap

Hold monthly webex meetings (2 hours per webex)

Develop Checklists

Ballot by 4th quarter 2013

Pilot audits 4th quarter 2013

Program Accreditation audits 1st quarter 2014

Engage consultant auditors

Develop program documents

NTGOP App, NIP6-01 App, etc

Proposal



‹#›

Subscriber and Supplier Technical Support

Checklist Development and Maintenance

Nadcap meetings

Face to Face - 3 annual Nadcap meetings

Teleconference / Webex – every 4-6 weeks

Sub Team Meetings – as required

Auditor Selection, Maintenance & Oversight

Audit Oversight & Report Reviews

PRI Support

1 Senior Staff Engineer (SSE)

1 Committee Service Representative (CSR)

Resource



‹#›

Reduce scrap & rework

Lead – time reductions

Better products

Overall reduced cost

Manufacturing process improvements

Unified approach to identifying Measurement and Inspection within the supplier chain

Benefits



‹#›



‹#›

What process would you like to see audited?



‹#›

ProcessesCalibration & UnitsProduct definitionInspections - PlanningEquipment validationMaintain & EnvironmentCompetenciesOther87.259.572.391.459.557.417

Percentage

Non conforming product released to customer

In-Service failure of product

Poor product performance and ability to assemble products

Resulting program delays

Widespread

1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th Tier Supplier

Design Manufacturer

Engine Manufacturer

Airframe Manufacturer

Current Risks



‹#›

The survey was sent out to all Subscriber Primes and received 65 responses

Of the 65 responses received, 22 different Subscribing Prime companies were represented

Survey Question

If Measurement & Inspection were offered as a Nadcap Program would your company utilize, accept or require Nadcap accreditation for M&I?

Survey



‹#›

PRI Support

1 Senior Staff Engineer (SSE)

Qualified in M&I and skilled in TG development

1 Committee Service Representative (CSR)

Resource - PRI



‹#›

Initial Involvement

OrganisationSub-Team MemberTechnical Specialist

Airbus Pascal Blondet Jean Philippe Laurent

AvioMarco CherubiniSalvatore Giunta

BAE SystemsJohn Haddock TBC

Boeing Jeff Lott Mark Clark

Bombardier Robin McGuckin TBC

Eurocopter Daniel Lecru TBC

GE AviationMark RechtsteinerTBC

General Dynamics David Thornhill TBC

Goodrich Kevin WardDavid O’Leary

Honeywell Mark Covert Thomas Brennan

IAI Victor Schonberger TBC

PRIScott KlavonMark Auble

Rolls-Royce Richard BlythPhil Bamforth

Safran Christian Buck Cyril Lerebours

SikorskyPeter Krutoholow Lance J Christie



‹#›

Current Audit Comparison to M&I

Audit Projections (based on survey results)



‹#›

M & I (Estimated)AQSCPCTCOMPCMSPSEALSETGFLUHTMTLNMMMNMMTNMNDTSLTSEALSWLD800258100914116058129428904190822243107815155454

Audits Per Year

Nadcap Task Group Proposal - “Measurement & Inspection” DRAFT v54

Nadcap Task Group Proposal

“Measurement & Inspection”

DRAFT v456

Document History

Version

Date

Released by

Description of Changes

Draft v1

31/5/12

P. Bamforth

· Initial outline draft of structure

Draft v2

12/6/12

P. Bamforth

· Added outline scope and business case sections

Draft v3

25/6/12

P. Bamforth

· Included notes on overlap between AS9100

· Segmented scope into “basic” requirements and equipment specific “slash-sheets”

Draft v4

13/8/12

P.Bamforth

· Added clarification of RR approach to identifying suppliers

Draft v5

23/8/12

P.Bamforth

· Removed last paragraph of section 2 re control of measurement

· Added CMM program validation section

Draft v6

4/10/12

P. Bamforth

· Incorporated PRI business case document from Mark Auble.

Contents1.Introduction32.Problem Statement43.Vision54.Scope6AS9100 QMS audit and Nadcap Measurement and Inspection audit:6Technical Subject Coverage6Supplier Deployment Scope10Participating Primes105.Business Case12Primes & Suppliers12PRI126.Impact Assessment13Prime13Supplier13PRI137.Development Plan14Checklist Creation14Auditor Recruitment14

Introduction

Dimensional measurement of components is routinely used to verify the conformance to specification of the manufactured product. Many different feature types are measured such as diameter, flatness, and position. Measurement equipment can be very simple such as a micrometer, to complex computerised systems such as coordinate measurement machines (CMM) or laser trackers. Parts can be relatively simple, comprising a few tens of features, to many thousand on complex parts.

To ensure measurements are reliable it is important to ensure the measurement capability is suitable for the feature being measured. The capability to measure parts is influenced by a range of factors which can be broadly split into the following categories:

Calibration & Units

Processes used to maintain traceability of equipment to international standards and maintain a consistent set of units.

Product Definition

International drafting standards such as ASME Y14.5, company or product specific standards and their interpretation.

Inspection Planning

Processes used to plan the inspection process, usual to define what is inspected, where in the manufacturing process, equipment to be used and how the result will be recorded.


Selection and validation of the measurement equipment. Validation usually carried out with statistical methods such as Gauge R&R.

Maintenance and Environment

Maintaining a suitable measurement environment, effective temperature control is in place if required, ensuring equipment is stored correctly and in good condition.

Competencies

Staff specifying or executing measurements must be suitability competent to perform their role. Competency usually demonstrated through a suitable testing process or observation.

Failure to implement and maintain effective measurement processes can lead to quality problems. It is therefore important for all aerospace manufacturers to operate effective measurement processes.

Problem Statement

Robust measurement and inspection processes are essential to demonstrate the conformance to specification of manufactured products. Failure to demonstrate conformance of product can lead to non-conforming product reaching the end customer.

Currently the aerospace industry does not have a unified approach to identifying measurement & inspection risk within the supply chain. Experience however at Rolls-Royce suggests that there are many differing approaches to measurement & inspection in the supply chain, some of which are not robust and require improvement.

Existing audit programmes such as that for AS9100 do not cover the full scope of measurement and inspection at the appropriate level of detail. Some topics such as calibration are effectively covered. Others such as inspection planning or detailed operation of specific equipment types such as CMM are only covered at a high-level.

Vision

· Aerospace industry has an efficient and unified process to ensure conformance of every product delivered by its supply chain

· This would be delivered by the implementation of a measurement management system and demonstration of the capability of measurement systems, procedures and personnel within the supply chain

· Delivered by adoption of unified standards, skills & competencies for aerospace measurement, audited through an agreed organisation

Scope

Refine AS/EN/JIS ....

AS9100 QMS audit and Nadcap Measurement and Inspection audit:

From 9100 quality management system experts we know that within the whole set of 100 requirements expressed in the 9100, two are dedicated to measurement and inspection:

· “7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Equipment”

· “8.2.4 Monitoring and Measurement of Product”

These requirements are examined within an audit program covering the whole company with sampling, leading to rare effective examination of this process in detail. In addition quality management system auditors capabilities are not always pertinent to review the very specific measurement and inspections means, people and processes.

Within the Nadcap program, the development of “measurement and inspection” commodity aims to provide adequate systemic and detailed auditing capability dedicated to the means, people, methods, and all other conditions required to be fulfilled in order to put under control “geometric inspection process”. Like any other Nadcap commodities audit it has to be considered as a complement to global 9100 quality management system: drilling and focusing on a very specific process at high stake for any supplier and customer within the aerospace supply chain.

Historically “measurement and inspection process” has not been considered as strictly aligned with “special process” definition. Using the Nadcap program approach in order to apply “like special process principles” to this inspection process is weighed as being the most adequate for continual enhancement. Both global and local approaches are necessary and are not overlapping.

The AS9100 is general in nature, not oriented towards specific technology or set of technologies. Therefore, specific inspection techniques are not adequately covered. The Nadcap audit and checklists will focus on specific technological aspects and ensure the adequacy of means and methods in specific areas as CMM, laser tracking etc.

Technical Subject Coverage

The following table describe potential areas of focus for a Nadcap audit programme. These topics are based on current experience at Rolls-Royce and require detailed review with other primes to develop an agreed way forward.

It is proposed that initially that the task-group would contrite on dimensional measurement & inspection and Table 1 reflects this. However other topic areas have been suggested and could be brought in-scope subject to Prime support, including:

· Visual Inspection

· Flow testing

· Balance & moment weigh

The scope of the audit is split into a basic scope which covers topics applicable to all users of measurement & inspection and is described in Table 1. This section of the scope would likely be based on the requirements of ISO10012.

Equipment specific scope such as CMM’s or Gauges is covered in Table 2. This describes the topics which could be applied only if the supplier uses the relevant equipment.

If requirements are not in place which body should be approached ?

Table 1 – Basic Dimensional Measurement & Inspection Scope

Topic

Potential Detailed Subject areas

Notes

Within AS9100

Source of requirements

Calibration

Management of calibration processes

All equipment must be in calibration control, likely to be covered by existing audits?

Reaction plans for calibration failures

Where equipment fails a calibration the equipment may have incorrectly sentenced product. Important to risk assess likely impact of failure and mitigate any significant risk.

Metric / Inch conversion

Conversion between metric and Inches should be avoided however where it is used the methods should be tightly controlled.

Inspection Planning

Inspection planning process, does the supplier define what is inspected, where and how.

Supplier must ensure what features inspected are documented and not left to individual inspectors

Sample & Reduced plans, logic, approval & effectiveness of controls

Features subject to reduced/sample inspection must still be demonstrated to be in control.

Proof of equipment capability, Gauge R&R processes, Bias assessment

Equipment should be demonstrated to be capable of inspecting the features and tolerances. Usually Gauge R&R or a similar statistical method should be used.

Feature naming & traceability

Inspected features on reports etc must be traceable back to the engineering definition. For example CMM reports can be ambiguous, "5.0mm Radius at 10 positions" may be reported, however if positions are not defined the radii in error will not be clear.


Approval processes for managing marginal equipment capability

Where equipment fails the standard gauge R&R tests (usually 20% precision to tolerance) there should be evidence of a process for dealing with this. Either selecting better equipment or gaining customer approval and managing any arising risk from continued use.

Operating procedures robust and compliance demonstrated

Where equipment relies on specific actions to maintain capability the procedure should be documented and compliance demonstrated. For example the regular use of setting masters for manual gauges can be crucial for some measurements. Failure to reference a gauge against the master can lead to significant measurement errors.

Program control for automated measurement systems is robust

For example on CMM's programs should be robustly change centred, validated and approved for use.

Maintenance & Environments

Regular artefact checks to ensure equipment still in control

Equipment can degrade over time or suffer damage between full calibration. Therefore regular checks against "gold-standard parts" or artefacts is required to demonstrate equipment is sound. Particularly important on complex systems such as CMM's, laser trackers, white light etc.

Equipment storage, cleanliness & component cleaning

Cleanliness of equipment and components can have a significant impact on the quality of measurement results obtained. Important to ensure equipment is stored and cleaned appropriately.

Temperature control and/or compensation applied correctly

Many aerospace parts have very tight tolerances where measurement errors due to temperature differences are significant. Furthermore equipment such as CMM's can be sensitive to temperature. Adequate temperature controls or compensation should be in place, demonstrated to be effective and in control.

Competencies

All inspectors carrying out measurements should be competent and approved to carry out the task.

Supplier should demonstrate that inspectors are competent (knowledge, skill, eyesight etc)

People developing and specifying measurement solutions should be competent.

Knowledge of drafting standards (ASME Y14.5 etc), equipment types and limitations and the manufacturing process are all key to developing and deploying effective measurement processes. Staff undertaking this activity should demonstrate suitable competencies.

Table 2 - Equipment Specific "Slash-Sheets"

Coordinate Measurement Machines (CMM)

Probe qualification & masterball control process robust

Failure to properly control the probe qualification process on the CMM can lead to significant errors, particularly as styli are worn or become damaged.

Software Management

Changes to the machine controller firmware and programming software do cause differences in the metrology from the CMM. It is essential software is updated in a controlled manner with adequate validation of new software.

Cleaning and Maintenance

CMM's are particularly susceptible to contamination and poor maintenance. Procedures should be in place to verify that the CMM is in good condition.

Program Validation

Validation of CMM programs is particularly complex and time-consuming. Suppliers should have robust processes to validate CMM Programs.

Laser Trackers

SMR conditionOptics CleaningWeather station control

Optical Systems

Optics cleaningReference FramesCoating Processes

Complex Go/No-Go (Receiver) type gauging

Gauge design & manufacture tolerancesCare & MaintenanceOperating procedures

Manual Gauging

Use of setting mastersProcedures for useManagement of temperature variation

Photogrammetry

Articulated Arms

Supplier Deployment Scope

Rolls-Royce

Rolls-Royce will likely deploy to suppliers who undertake dimensional measurement operations on “classified” parts. Classified parts are generally subject to more stringent controls due to their functional requirements. Rolls-Royce has 500 classified part suppliers 352 of which are already approved for at least one Nadcap process. Assuming an estimate of 75% of these will be undertaking dimensional measurement operations then Rolls-Royce would expect to deploy this to 264 suppliers already Nadcap approved and deploy to a further 111 suppliers not currently within the scope of Nadcap, giving a total deployment of 375 suppliers which will be located globally. Further work however is required within Rolls-Royce to confirm these figures.

Rolls-Royce categorises parts into two categories, classified and unclassified. Classified parts are generally more complex and important to the safety and/or performance of our product. Unclassified parts are generally simpler, lower-complexity products. Classified products are subject to various additional controls to ensure they are robust and fit-for-purpose.

Rolls-Royce categorises parts into two categories, classified and unclassified. Classified parts are generally more complex and important to the operation and performance of our product. Unclassified parts are generally simpler, lower-complexity products. Classified products are subject to various additional controls to ensure they are robust and fit-for-purpose.

Dimensional measurement controls are important to ensure finished features are of the correct size and form. Most suppliers of classified parts deliver parts with finished features and therefore Rolls-Royce is likely to seek to deploy a Nadcap MI audit to these. However some suppliers deliver classified parts which are unfinished or part finished. A typical example would be a forging supplier where the material condition of the forging is crucial for the operation of the component but the finished features are machined in another facility. In this case the supplier would not need an audit of dimensional measurement & inspection.

Nadcap Example:

1. Supplier uses coordinate measurement machines (CMM) to inspect tight tolerances on turbine blades.

1. Inappropriate use of the CMM could lead to incorrect measurement and inspection of the part.

1. Non-conforming blades may not assemble correctly leading to customer delays and also may not perform as designed leading to sub-standard product.

1. In this case Rolls-Royce is likely apply Nadcap MI audit.

Non-Nadcap Example:

1. Supplier makes brackets which are used to hold the electrical harness in place on the engine.

1. The parts are simple products with large dimensional tolerances, easily manufactured.

1. The supplier uses a simple go/no-go fixture to verify conformance.

1. Failure to meet dimensional requirements is unlikely and would not present a significant impact to the Rolls-Royce product.

1. In this case Rolls-Royce is unlikely to apply a Nadcap MI audit.

For Nadcap, Rolls-Royce will seek to deploy the measurement & inspection programme for classified part suppliers delivering finished parts or sub-assemblies. This will ensure all suppliers delivering parts within finished features are covered by an audit programme to ensure their processes are robust for controlling dimensional measurement and therefore the quality of their inspection systems. A final decision on the precise deployment will be made once the programme develops.

Others

Participating Primes

Organisation

NMC Member

Sub-Team Rep

Rolls-Royce

Richard Blyth

Phil Bamforth

Airbus

Pascal Blondet

TBC

Safran

Christian Buck

Cyril Lerebours

Honeywell

Mark Covent

TBC

Eurocopter

Daniel Lecru

TBC

Boeing

Jeff Lott

TBC

Bombardier

Robin McGuckin

TBC

Goodrich

Kevin Ward

David O’Leary

IAI

Victor Schonberger

TBC

General Dynamics

David Thornhill

TBC

PRI

Scott Klavon

TBC

Avio

Marco Cherubini

Salvatore Giunta

Organisation

Sub-Team Member

Technical Specialist

Airbus

Pascal Blondet

TBC

Avio

Marco Cherubini

Salvatore Giunta

BAE Systems

John Haddock

TBC

Boeing

Jeff Lott

Mark Clark

Bombardier

Robin McGuckin

TBC

Eurocopter

Daniel Lecru

TBC

GE Aviation

Mark Rechtsteiner

TBC

General Dynamics

David Thornhill

TBC

Goodrich

Kevin Ward

David O’Leary

Honeywell

Mark Covert

Thomas Brennan

IAI

Victor Schonberger

TBC

PRI

Scott Klavon

Mark Auble

Rolls-Royce

Richard Blyth

Phil Bamforth

Safran

Christian Buck

Cyril Lerebours

Sikorsky

Peter Krutoholow

Lance J Christie

Business Case

Primes & Suppliers

Control of dimensional measurement systems is crucial to demonstrating manufactured products meet design intent. Failure to adequately control measurement systems can lead to significant customer impacts:

· Customer Impacts

· Non-conforming product released to customer

· In-service failure of products

· Poor product performance

· Inability to assemble products, delays & disruption

The benefits of eliminating the above issues are obvious, particularly in the aerospace industry. However the wider business benefits of effective product measurement are also well documented and practiced by many manufacturing businesses. Six-sigma processes in particular rely on effective measurements and data to underpin manufacturing process improvement. This improvement, impossible without good measurements can lead to significant business benefits such as:

· Business Benefits

· Reduced scrap & rework

· Lead-time reductions

· Better products

· Reduced cost

· Ontime delivery

Principally the case for Nadcap audit of measurement & Inspection is to reduce the risk associated with the above customer impacts. However the opportunity for also using this to underpin manufacturing process improvement opportunities should not be overlooked. The benefits of this can be shared by the prime and suppliers.

PRI

PRI NADCAP BUSINESS CASE FOR MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION

Background: The first meeting of interested parties was held on 20 February 2012, at the Nadcap meeting in SanDiego, CA, USA. Dr. Phil Bamforth, CEng MIMechE; CA Manager for Measurement & Inspection (M&I) for Rolls Royce plc presented his company’s case for pursuing a unified approach to controlling Measurement & Inspection. He noted; “robust measurement and inspection processes are essential to demonstrate the conformance to specification of manufactured products. Failure to demonstrate conformance of product can lead to non-conforming product reaching the end customer. Currently the aerospace industry does not have a unified approach to identifying Measurement & Inspection risk within the supply chain. Experience however at Rolls-Royce suggests that there are many differing approaches to Measurement & Inspection in the supply chain, some of which are not robust and require improvement.” This presentation was focused on Rolls Royce plc concerns for Measurement & Inspection with the discussion designed to gain consensus on the recognition of the problem, scope, key issues and direction forward. A sub-team was established with no fewer than 9 Subscriber Members volunteering to participate and/or allocate resources from their companies.

Expected Benefits: Currently the aerospace industry does not have a unified approach to identifying Measurement & Inspection risk within the supply chain. Experience suggests that there are many differing approaches to Measurement & Inspection in the supply chain, some of which are not robust and require improvement. Potential customer Impacts include; Non-conforming product released to customer; In-service failure of products; Poor product performance and the inability to assemble products causing delays & disruption. The benefits of eliminating the above issues are many; reduced scrap & rework; lead-time reductions; improved product quality; reduced cost and on-time delivery to name a few.

Principally the case for Nadcap audits of Measurement & Inspection is to reduce the risk associated with the above customer impacts. However the opportunity for also using this to underpin manufacturing process improvement opportunities should not be overlooked. The benefits of this can be shared by the Primes and Suppliers.

Options: The aerospace industry does not have a unified approach to identifying Measurement & Inspection risk within the supply chain. There are many differing approaches and some are simply not robust. In addition, existing audit programs such as that for AS9100 do not cover the full scope of Measurement and Inspection at the appropriate level of detail. As an example inspection planning or detailed operation of specific equipment types such as CMM are only covered at a high-level. Therefore full control and capability of measurement systems cannot always be demonstrated in the aerospace supply chain.

Within Nadcap, the development of a “Measurement and Inspection” commodity aims to provide adequate systemic and detailed auditing capability dedicated to the means, people, methods, and all other conditions required to be fulfilled in order to put under control “Geometric Inspection Process”. Like any other Nadcap commodity audit it has to be considered as a complement to global 9100 quality management systems: drilling and focusing on a very specific process at high stake for any supplier and customer within the aerospace supply chain. Historically “Measurement and Inspection” has not been considered as strictly aligned with a “special process” definition. Utilizing the Nadcap program approach in order to apply “like special process principles” will provide the most adequate process for continual enhancement. To be pointed out also is that there are other processes currently controlled under Nadcap that do not strictly align with a “special process” definition. Two that come to mind are CMSP (Conventional Machining as a Special Process) and ETG (Electronics Task Group), there are others.

Activity: The following is a very brief synopsis of the activity from February 2012 to present, October 2012.

· The first M&I sub-team meeting is held on 2/20/2012 at the SanDiego, CA Nadcap meeting. The NMC confirmed the sub-team at the Steering meeting on 2/22/2012.

· Conference calls were held on 6/1 and 6/20. These were the initial conference calls to set the process in place and prepare for the June Nadcap meeting.

· The second regular face to face meeting is held on 6/25/2012 at the Berlin, Germany Nadcap meeting. Presentations were given and the business case from the Rolls Royce perspective was reviewed. A regular conference call schedule is set up. The attendance for this meeting included some 28 subscribers representing 15 primes with an additional 5 suppliers.

· Conference calls are held approximately every two weeks. Work continues on a business case and discussions on checklist creation. Requests are made for technical representation from the Subscribers, several are provided over this time period.

Subscriber Interest - Participation: In February 2012 when the sub-team was launched there were 9 Subscribers who participated. The attendance for the June meeting included some 28 Subscribers representing 15 Primes with an additional 5 Suppliers. Conference calls from that time were typically strong with approximately 10-15 attendees.

Subscriber Interest – M&I as a Task Group: A survey was conducted in August 2012 of all Subscribers to determine the potential interest in utilizing a Measurement and Inspection (M&I) audit/accreditation. There were 65 responses representing 22 Subscriber Primes. Of the 22, 15 or 68.2% said that they would require or accept a Nadcap Measurement and Inspection program. This is only a survey result but is strong none the less. In comparison when ETG was launched as a Task Group they had 1 Subscriber who required and now have 10 Subscribers who either require or accept. In comparison CMSP when launched as a Task Group had 2 Subscribers who required the process and currently have the same 2. Therefore as far as interest, the interest shown even if very preliminary is extremely strong.

Subscriber Interest – Supplier Audits: As part of the same survey the Subscribers were asked to give an estimate of how many audits they anticipate and the numbers received varied dramatically even among responders of the same Subscriber. Therefore these numbers can’t be considered reliable but for the purpose of simply showing interest, if you take the lowest estimates it comes out to some 700 Suppliers and if you go with the highest numbers over 3000. In comparison other Nadcap commodities range from approximately 75 to over 1300 Suppliers. Therefore in regards to sheer numbers, even if keeping on the extreme side of conservative, there is a huge pool of possible Suppliers.

Costs and Scope: The cost for PRI Nadcap comes down to the cost of providing support to the program. PRI would provide a Staff Engineer and part of a Committee Service Representatives time to support this program. In addition a percentage of a Program Managers time would also be dedicated to M&I. A room will be provided beginning the February 2013 Nadcap meeting and it is likely also that teleconference calls will continue for the foreseeable future.

Risk: The risk to PRI, Subscribers and Suppliers who participate in this new Task Group start-up is that the program will not fully develop. This risk is rated quite small based on the Subscriber interest and the number of potential Suppliers affected.

Gap Analysis: The aerospace industry does not have a unified approach to identifying Measurement & Inspection risk within the Supply chain. There are many differing approaches to Measurement & Inspection in the Supply chain and many are simply not robust. Nadcap will provide a unified, robust approach to Measurement and Inspection Supply chain management and reduce the risk including; Non-conforming product released to the customer; In-service failure of products; Poor product performance and the inability to assemble products causing delays & disruption. The benefits of eliminating the above issues are many; reduced scrap & rework; lead-time reductions; improved product quality; reduced cost and on-time delivery to name a few.

Summary: We have shown:

· There is no unified approach to monitoring the Supplier chain when it comes to Measurement & Inspection. Nadcap would provide the robust, deep dive process needed to manage this Supply chain not available through any other system.

· The interest to the Subscribers is very high, clearly identified by the high rate of participation in the sub-team to this date.

· The interest to the Subscribers to accept or require a Nadcap audit for this process, as gaged by the August survey is very high, easily exceeding several of the newer Task Groups at the time of their formation.

· The number of possible Suppliers affected, as communicated by the Subscribers, in conservative terms, is far and above that being realized in 2 example Task Groups; ETG or CMSP and if taken in optimistic terms exceeds that of even the largest of Task Groups, i.e., NDT, CP and HT.

· The cost to begin is minimal and the risk is minimal.

Next Steps: Key milestones for the coming year (very rough draft):

· The Measurement and Inspection Sub-team requests NMC approval to become the M&I Task Group today, 23 October 2012.

· The M&I Task Group will have a 3 hour kick-off meeting on the afternoon of 24 October 2012 to begin the process.

· The first full M&I Task Group meeting to be held in February 2013. Officers to be chosen and sub-teams to be formed to develop checklists.

· Final checklists development and balloting by 4th quarter 2013.

· Pilot audits will be conducted prior to finalization of the checklists in 4th quarter 2013.

· The first actual program audits for accreditation to be conducted in 1st quarter 2014.

Mark D AubeleSenior Program Manager - NDT, AQS and ETGIndustry Managed ProgramsPerformance Review Institute

Impact Assessment

Prime

Supplier

PRI

Development Plan

Figure ??? below shows the outline timing plan for the initial phases of the task-group launch. A detailed plan will be developed and agreed at the first task-group meeting which will fully describe the tasks and timescales to develop and deploy the first audits.

Checklist Creation

Creation of the checklists for M&I will be carried out in a similar process to that adopted for the conventional machining as a special process (CMSP) task group. PRI staff initially gathered requirements documents from participating primes and produced a prime requirements list, identifying common topics and source locations for each requirement. Following this checklist questions were developed which aligned to the prime requirements.

This process has been started for M&I based on requirements from Rolls-Royce and Boeing. Requirements from other participating primes have been requested by PRI to continue this activity. Figure ??? shows an example of the format of the “Prime Requirements Document”

Auditor Recruitment

Performance Review Institute - OPENING COMMENTS...

Documents

Transcript of Performance Review Institute - OPENING COMMENTS...