unconfirmed minutescdn.p-r-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nmcsteeringfeb200… · web view* *...
TRANSCRIPT
UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
Nadcap MANAGEMENT COUNCIL STEERING COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 2008
UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
HOLIDAY INN ROME
ROME, ITALY
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, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
Call meeting to order & record attendance
The following representatives were in attendance:
NMC Voting Member in Attendance:
Rossella
Andreozzi
Alenia
Paul
Bardwell
Pratt & Whitney
Jon
Biddulph
Rolls-Royce
Sergio
Bilbao
ITP
Pascal
Blondet
Airbus
Bob
Bodemuller
Ball Aerospace
Christian
Buck
SAFRAN
Mark
Cathey
Spirit AeroSystems
Alan
Fertig
United Space Alliance
John
Haddock
BAE Systems - MAS
Debra
Harrison
DCMA
Tim
Hayes
Hawker Beechcraft Co.
Arne
Logan
The Boeing Company
Sue
Margheim
Rockwell Collins
Heather
Meyer
Cessna/Textron
Dave
Michaud
Fountain Plating
Jay
Park
Northrop Grumman
Michel
Pierantoni
Eurocopter
Manfred
Podlech
MTU Aero Engines
Alberto
Portal
EADS-CASA
Mark
Rechtsteiner
GE Aviation
John
Reid
Bombardier
Mike
Schleckman
Voss Industries Inc.
John
Shurtleff
Vought Aircraft
David
Soong
Hamilton Sundstrand
Jerry
Wahlin
AAA Plating
Kevin
Ward
Goodrich
Larry
Wilson
Lockheed Martin
Other Attendees:
Michael
Coleman
The Boeing Company
Edward
Diendorfer
MTU Aero Engines
Paul
Grenier
Bombardier
Wolfgang
Kerfin
EADS-MAS
Kevin
Schilling
Boeing IDS
Norman
Thompson
Bombardier
Hassan
Tjio
The Boeing Company
PRI Staff in Attendance:
John
Barrett
Jean-Claude
Bouche
Jennifer
Gallagher
Lisa
Glavan
Arshad
Hafeez
EJ
Kegerreis
Joanna
Leigh
Julie
Rubright
Glenn
Shultz
Louise
Stefanakis
1.0 Intro, Review Agenda
Mark Rechtsteiner reviewed the meeting agenda. A motion was made to approve the October 2007 Steering Committee minutes. This motion was seconded and the minutes from the October 2007 Steering Committee meeting were approved.
2.0Open Action Items from Previous Meeting
· Arne Logan, John Barrett, and Arshad Hafeez to re-look at ballot process and come to Feb. 2008 meeting with new ballot process proposal.
It was noted that this action will be worked before the next Nadcap meeting.
· Sub-team created to investigate and identify areas in checklists where questions exceed engineering requirements and result in high cost or labor to suppliers and report back to NMC. Team is Jerry Wahlin, Arne Logan, Bob Bodemuller, Dave Michaud, Larry Wilson, Dianna Berube, and Jerry Aston
It was proposed that the Raise the Bar team meet again and define non-value added raise the bar items, the rules and what needs to be changed.
ACTION ITEM: Raise the Bar team (Jerry Wahlin, Arne Logan, Bob Bodemuller, Dave Michaud, Larry Wilson, Dianna Berube and Jerry Aston) to review procedures and define requirements and propose modifications to the audit feed back form to capture examples where questions exceeded requirements.
3.0Sub Team Status
A. Metrics - How did we do in Q3, 2007: MOS Review
Glenn Shultz advised that Supplier Merit is currently at 79%. Cycle time for initial audits is at 43 days and reaccreditations are at 47 days. There are no audits open over 120 days. On time accreditations are 96% on time. For more details please see the attached presentation.
Metrics
B.Globalization
Michel Pierantoni gave an update regarding the translation of documents. It was also noted that the sub-team is expanding its mission to a larger scope than just document translation. For more details please see the attached presentation.
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
ACTION ITEM: Michel Pierantoni to forward presentation to NMC and task group chairs and move forward with analysis to develop globalization sub-team process.
C.Ethics and Appeals
Kevin Ward advised that the Ethics and Appeals team is working on a form for appeals to be submitted in a new format. New prime members were also added to the sub-team. For more details please see the attached presentation.
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
D. Standardization
Kevin Ward reported that an agreement was made in regards to NOPs 003, 008 and 011 with a compromise that wording and a process to track and incorporate open items that the ballots were approved. It was noted that the comments received would be incorporated into the RAIL document for next revision and separate discussions.
A concern was raised that at the sub-sub-sub-team level it was discussed that there is not agreement and the ballot was not to be sent. Arshad Hafeez explained that this request was not communicated and referenced a January 29, 2008 email outlining the next steps. Therefore, it is possible that the two communications crossed each other and the request was not forwarded to the NMC Chair or Arshad Hafeez. It was also noted that after the January 29, 2008 email there were no objections communicated to the Leadership. Additionally there is no veto in sending out a ballot and if there are issues it will be defeated.
Mark Rechtsteiner emphasized that there was total transparency, a lot of discussion took place with the same NMC members over and over again on the same points and the decision was to send the ballot as the same points discussed for four months were being regurgitated over and over again, and that specific points will be recorded (in the RAIL) and worked. This was accomplished and the process can move forward. Another point raised was that communications to the task groups were not effective and it is expected that at the Planning and Operations meeting, the task groups will discuss several concerns and disapprove several changes. For more details please see the attached presentation.
Standardization
ACTION ITEM: Arne Logan to work with Kevin Ward to ensure all details and comments are captured regarding the informational document to be sent regarding NOPs 003, 008 and 011 and ensure these items are incorporated into the RAIL to capture all concerns.
F. Oversight Audit
Mark Cathey advised the oversight audit period will remain October 2007 through October 2008 and will follow the model established in 2007. A one day Head Quarters audit of PRI will be conducted in July in conjunction with the Nadcap meeting. The 2007 oversight audit had 2 minor findings and was closed in 34 days. For more details please see the attached presentations.
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
4.0 Reporting Tool for Nadcap Audits
Louise Stefanakis gave a demonstration on the reporting functionality of eAuditNet. Four subscriber reports are currently available and two are under construction. For more details please see the attached presentation.
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
5.0 Baseline Supplements
Manfred Podlech advised that there is currently no increase in audit time that is visible. It was also noted that other task group members are unable to vote on other prime’s supplements. A proposal was made for a team to be created to develop a questionnaire for auditors and suppliers to collect data to determine a go forward plan regarding supplements.
ACTION ITEM: Manfred Podlech to work with the Raise the Bar team and Supplement issue to be incorporated into the Raise the Bar team issue.
ACTION ITEM: Next planning and operations meeting to be dedicated entirely to baseline at the July 2008 meeting and raise the bar sub-team to develop criteria to bring to discussions.
For more details please see the attached presentation.
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
6.0
Conduct of Task Group Meetings & Potential Training for Chairs
Michel Pierantoni noted that the Nadcap Meeting Feedback forms are not being completed and the task group chairs must stress that these documents be completed and returned to promote the meetings. It was proposed that this is an oversight issue as to how chairs conduct their meetings and that the form be incorporated as part as the oversight of the task group.
ACTION ITEM: Mark Cathey to look at Feedback Form in an effort to incorporate the document into task group oversight.
7.0
Supplier Support Committee
David Michaud reported that the 2009 survey team was to be formed and input from the NMC was being requested regarding team members. The SSC also requested NMC to encourage use of the flowdown templates.
ACTION ITEM: Survey team to look at reducing the number of questions for the 2009 survey in an attempt to increase response.
ACTION ITEM: John Reid and David Michaud to meet to discuss flow down.
David Michaud also reported on the Escapes Pilot results as of January 23, 2008. 161 audits were performed at 64 supplier facilities with 154 responses received from those audits. 128 of those suppliers responded that they had a procedure in place for the collection and reporting of escapes. 127 suppliers reported they have personnel trained on the collection and reporting of escapes. It was noted that some of the “No” responses may be flowdown or training issues rather than lack of procedure.
ACTION ITEM: AQS Task Group to work with Escapes Team to evaluate escapes questions being implemented into task group checklists and advise NMC to move forward or not to determine legal implications.
For more details please see the attached presentations.
SSC
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
8.0Future Meetings
Arshad Hafeez reviewed future Nadcap meeting locations. The 2009 and 2010 meeting schedules are as follows:
· February 16-20, 2009 – Dallas, Texas
· June 15-19, 2009 – Meeting to be held in Europe. Locations being looked at are Rome, Paris and Istanbul.
· October 19-23, 2009 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
· February 15-19, 2010 – Meeting to be held in Europe. Locations are being determined.
· June 21-15, 2010 – Meeting to be held in Asia. Locations being looks at are Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Beijing, China.
· October 18-22, 2010 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
The NMC were asked several times if there were any issues with any of the above locations being looked at for European and Asian meetings. It was noted that no NMC member had any issues with the locations being looked at for future Nadcap meetings. For more details please see the attached presentation.
Future Meetings
9.0Other Issues / New Business
ACTION ITEM: Equitable participation and task group chair succession plan and supplier representation on NMC to be put on next agenda for Planning and Operations meeting in July 2008. What’s in procedure and where are we at now to be looked at. Chairs are to respond with input on these items prior to the July 2008 meeting.
10.0Adjournment
Minutes prepared by:
Lisa Glavan
Page 1 of 5
Page *
Nadcap Sub-Team Report: Oversight Audit Report
February 2008 – Christian Buck
The plan phase :
Team 1 – Task Groups Reviews
Michel Pierantoni - Eurocopter - Assigned “Heat Treatment”
Michael Coleman - The Boeing Company - Assigned “Electronics”
Mitch Nelson – Cessna - Assigned “NMSE”
Team 2 – Desktop Review
Eddy Pham – Northrop Grumman - Assigned “Audit report processing and review (NIP7-03) and, Delegation to audit report reviewer (NOP-003) “
Laurie Strom – Honeywell Aerospace - Assigned “Audit failure process (NOP-011)”
John Haddock – BAE Systems - MAS - Assigned “Supplier merit program (NOP-008)”
Page *
Nadcap Sub-Team Report: Oversight Audit Report
February 2008 – Christian Buck
The plan :
PRI Headquarters Oversight Audit
Angelina Mendoza – Goodrich – Assigned “ITAR/EAR (NIP 7-07)”
Michael Irvin – The Boeing Company – Assigned “auditor selection (NIP 6-01), Task Group operations (NOP-002/NTGOP-001)”
Andy Statham – Rolls-Royce Group – Assigned “balloting (NIP4-03), Nadcap operations (NOP-001)”
Dave Burger – Rockwell Collins – Assigned “continual improvement (NIP8-01), 2006 audit corrective action status”,
Holger Krueger – Airbus – Assigned “delegation to staff engineer (NOP-003)”,
John Gourley – Honeywell Aerospace – Assigned “supplier advisory (NOP-006)”,
Christian Buck - SAFRAN Group - Assigned “Team lead”
Page *
Nadcap Sub-Team Report: Oversight Audit Report
February 2008 – Christian Buck
The « doing phase »:
Globally : 2 minor findings, 17 observations and 2 comments were noted
Reporting in detail of the 2 minor findings :
Minor Finding #1
The documentation on eAuditNet does not provide sufficient information to understand why an audit which met the failure criteria and was voted to fail with an acceptable ballot and quorum continued to be reviewed and was not failed.
Minor Finding #2
Staff engineer did not create an incident report in the situation described in example hereunder.
Page *
Nadcap Sub-Team Report: Oversight Audit Report
February 2008 – Christian Buck
The « check and act phases » being :
PRI treated all findings and observations through “corrective actions” process within eauditnet within planned dates, NCRs closed on 20 Dec 07, Cycle time was 34 days from receipt to close.
The major output is a revision of NOP-011 to clarify “failure process”,
Thank you to all audit team for helping to improve the program and the author would like to thank especially J. Barrett who supported strongly the “new NMC member”.
Prime Background Key Contacts
BAE Systems Ongoing discussions John Addey, QA Manager
Bombardier In April 2004, committed verbally to subscribe Mario Langlois, Director QA
Embraer SA Numerous discussions during IAQG meetings, but no commitment Vladia Perez, Mgr., Supplier Quality
Gulfstream No meaningful discussions David Trucksis, Mgr. Procurement Quality
Lockheed Martin Previously subscribed, but did not mandate when Lee Tait was
Quality Director. Key staff does not support consensus activities (e.g. ,
AAQG, IAQG, Nadcap)
Jim Sturges, VP Quality (Corp).
Gary Bailey, VP Materiel Mgmt.
Elton Koonsman, Deputy Mat’l Mgmt.
(Bailey & Koonsman @ Ft. Worth)
SNECMA Invited to serve on the Board 2001 -2002. Attended 3 meetings but no
interest
Jean Michel Clin, VP Quality & Risk Group
IHI PRI conducted meetings to explain Nadcap process Norikazu Kobayashi, Quality Mgr.
KHI PRI conducted meetings to explain Nadcap process Yoshiomi Sukesada, Sr. Mgr. QA
MHI Graciously agreed to serve on the Board Kinsuke Hara, Director of Quality
EADS Corp. PRI conducted meetings to explain Nadcap process Jean Michel Bardot, VP Quality
Eurocopter France No meaningful discussions Christian Bourcereau, Head of Quality
Eurocopter Deutschland No meaningful discussions Erik Buehler, Quality Management
NMC globalization sub team
2008 Rome meeting , February 25-29
Presentation Summary
1- Reminder from October 2007 meeting
1.1 team members
1.2 status of translated documents
1.3 discussion
2- 2008 orientations
2.1 Globalization : sub-team mission
2.2 Globalization : impact on the Nadcap process
2.3 Existing surveys
2.4 Outputs from existing surveys
2.5 Proposal for a methodology
2.6 Process proposal
1.1- Team members
2008 Rome meeting , February 25-29
NMC globalization sub team
2008
Primes
Hamilton SundstrandDavid Soong / [email protected]
Boeing company Arne Logan
Airbus Pascal Blondet
Eurocopter Michel Pierantoni- chair
Safran C.Buck
Sonaca E.Lefort
ITPSergio, Bilbao Fernandez De Leceta
AleniaR . Andreozzi
ASD proP.Gastebois
Thermal structures Inc MA. Gerdel
Vought AircraftJohn Shurtleff
DCMA Debra Harrison
PRIA.Hafeez, S .Martin, J.Barett
1.2 Status of translated documents
- Status as of October 2007
- Status as of February 2008
NMC globalization sub team
2008 Rome meeting , February 25-29
French
SP FamilyDocuments translatedRevlanguagenTranslation & postednTranslation validated & not postednTranslated & not validatedTranslation SourceReviewer 1Reviewer 2Posted on
NameCompanyNameCompanyDate of approvalNameCompanyDate of approval
AQSAC7004CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
NDTTo be clarifiedGerman DraftM.KerfinEADS Augsburg?
AC7114AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/1AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/2JapaneseRemoved
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/ 3AJapaneseRemoved
BFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/4JapaneseRemoved
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
HTAC7102BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/1BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/2CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/3FrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/4FrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AMS 2750FrenchM.TaillandierEurocopterLaurent GeertsSonaca100%Eric BarreauSnecam Services (SAFRAN)100%Distribution ?
Draft translationsGermanM.KerfinEADS Augsburg
CPAC7108BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
BFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
CFrenchTo be NominatedTo be NominatedTo be Nominated
AC7108/1AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
AC7108/2AFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
AC7108/3JapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
AC7108/4AFrench (Translated but not validated)M.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Not mandated by European Primes
CoatAC7109AJapaneseRemoved
BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/1AJapaneseRemoved
BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/2BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/3BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/4BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/5AJapaneseRemoved
BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/6BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/7BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
CompAC7118AFrench??O.GoupillonEurocopterEric LefortSonaca
AGerman??Udo GoesslerEurocopter
ASpanish Draft??Alberto Portal-MaciasEADS CASAMiguel GenderThermal Aerostructure
JapaneseRemoved
WeldAC7110CJapaneseRemoved
AC7110/5CJapaneseRemoved
MTLAC7101/1BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7101/5BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7006
AC7101/1CFrench (on going)M.AuzanneAirbusO.GoupillonEurocopter?Snecma
AC7101/2B
AC7101/3B
AC7101/4CFrench (on going)M.AuzanneAirbusO.GoupillonEurocopter?Snecma
AC7101/5B
AC7101/6B
AC7101/7B
AC7101/8A
AC7101/9A
AC7101/11A
AC7109/5B
AC7110/13
NMAC7116/4JapaneseRemoved
PRI TrainingPyrometryFrench
RCCAFrench , Japanese
NCSIFrench , Japanese
Sheet3
global
SP FamilyDocuments translatedRevlanguagenTranslation & postednTranslation validated & not postednTranslated & not validatedTranslation SourceReviewer 1Reviewer 2Posted on
NameCompanyNameCompanyDate of approvalNameCompanyDate of approval
AQSAC7004DJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
NDTTo be clarifiedGerman DraftM.KerfinEADS Augsburg?
AC7114AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/1AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/2AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/ 3BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
BFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114/4AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet
AC7114SNCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7114/1SNCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7114/2SNCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7114/3SNCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
HTAC7102CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/1BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/2CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/3NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
FrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AC7102/4NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
FrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet
AMS 2750FrenchM.TaillandierEurocopterLaurent GeertsSonaca100%Eric BarreauSnecam Services (SAFRAN)100%Distribution ?
Draft translationsGermanM.KerfinEADS Augsburg
CPAC7108BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
BFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
CFrenchTo be NominatedTo be NominatedTo be Nominated
AC7108/1AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
AC7108/2AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
AC7108/3NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AFrenchM.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)N.LepottierEurocopterJan-07M.AuzanneAirbusJan-07eAudinet
AC7108/4AFrench (Translated but not validated)M.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Not mandated by European Primes
CoatAC7109BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/1BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/2BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/3BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/4BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/5BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/6BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
AC7109/7BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet
CompAC7118AFrench??O.GoupillonEurocopterEric LefortSonaca
AGerman??Udo GoesslerEurocopter
ASpanish Draft??Alberto Portal-MaciasEADS CASAMiguel GenderThermal Aerostructure
AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
WeldAC7110DJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7110/3EJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7110/5EJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7110/12AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7112/13NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
MTLAC7101/1CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
CFrench (on going)M.AuzanneAirbusO.GoupillonEurocopter?Snecma
AC7101/2B
AC7101/3B
AC7101/4CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
CFrench (on going)M.AuzanneAirbusO.GoupillonEurocopter?Snecma
AC7101/5BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7101/6B
AC7101/7B
AC7101/8A
AC7101/9A
AC7101/11A
AC7109/5B
AC7110/13
AC7116AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7116/3AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC 7116/4AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7117AJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7117/3NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
AC7117/4NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website
PRI TrainingPyrometryFrench
RCCAFrench , Japanese
NCSIFrench , Japanese
synthesis 2
AC translation : February 2008 status
commodity
comment
AQSJapanese
NDTBaseline:In line for French version for the baseline.Japanese translation are at old version
Supplements1S, 2S, 3S translated in Japanese . Revision not known
HTAC7102 and AC7102 / 1, /3 , /4 translated in Japanese and FrenchAC 7102 / 2 translated in French onlyAll translations are at previous revisions
CPAC7108 translated in Japanese and French at previous revisionAC 7108 / 1 and /2 in line for Japanese and French
CTFor coating all AC translated and in line with current versions in Eauditnet.Japanese in line for AC 7109 and /1, /5.
CompJapanese version and drafts for French and German
WeldOnly japanese version for AC 7110 , /3 , /5 and / 12. All in line
MTLAC 7101 / 1 and / 4 in Japanese and French versions , French in Draft format . All in line with current revision
NMJapanese version for AC 7116, / 3 and / 4 . In line
SEJapanese version for AC 7117 , in line.
PRI TrainingFrench version
Japanese and French versions
Japanese and French versions
synthesis 1
AC translation : February 2008 status
commodityAC reference numberLanguage
Eauditnet referenceJapaneseFrenchgermanSpanishcomment
AQSAC7004DDJapanese
NDTAC7114BABBaseline:In line for French version for the baseline.Japanese translation are at old version
Supplements1S, 2S, 3S translated in Japanese . Revision not known
AC7114/1BAB
AC7114/2BAB
AC7114/ 3CBC
AC7114/4BAB
AC7114SB
AC7114/1SB
AC7114/2SB
AC7114/3SB
AC7114/4SB
HTAC 7101/3BAC7102 and AC7102 / 1, /3 , /4 translated in Japanese and FrenchAC 7102 / 2 translated in French onlyAll translations are at previous revisions
AC 7101/4C
AC 7101/5D
AC7102DCC
AC7102/S
AC7102/1DBC
AC7102/2A
AC7102/3A
AC7102/4A
AC 7110/1D
AMS 2750D
Draft translations
CPAC7108CBBAC7108 translated in Japanese and French at previous revisionAC 7108 / 1 and /2 in line for Japanese and French
AC7108/1AAA
AC7108/2AAA
AC7108/3
AC7108/4
CTAC7109BBBFor coating all AC translated and in line with current versions in Eauditnet.Japanese in line for AC 7109 and /1, /5.
AC7109/1BBB
AC7109/2BB
AC7109/3BB
AC7109/4BB
AC7109/5BBB
AC7109/6BB
AC7109/7BB
CompAC7118AdraftdraftJapanese version and drafts for French and German
WeldAC7110DDOnly japanese version for AC 7110 , /3 , /5 and / 12. All in line
AC 7110/1D
AC 7110/2D
AC7110/3EE
AC7110/4E
AC7110/5EE
AC7110/6E
AC7110/7D
AC7110/8D
AC7110/9D
AC7110/12AA
AC7112/13
MTLAC 7006FAC 7101 / 1 and / 4 in Japanese and French versions , French in Draft format . All in line with current revision
AC7101/1CCC:draft
AC7101/2B
AC7101/3B
AC7101/4CCC:draft
AC7101/5B
AC7101/6B
AC7101/7B
AC7101/8A
AC7101/9A
AC7101/11A
AC7109/5B
AC7110/13
NMAC7116AAJapanese version for AC 7116, / 3 and / 4 . In line
AC 7116/1A
AC7116/2A
AC7116/3AA
AC 7116/4AA
SEAC7117AAJapanese version for AC 7117 , in line.
AC7117/1
AC7117/2
AC7117/3
AC7117/4
AC7117/5
PRI TrainingPyrometryFrench version
RCCAJapanese and French versions
NCSIJapanese and French versions
1.2 Status of translated documents : status as of February 2008
NMC globalization sub team
2008 Rome meeting , February 25-29
AC translation : February 2008 status
commodity comment
AQSJapanese
NDTBaseline: In line for French version . Japanese translation are at old versionSupplements 1S, 2S, 3S translated in Japanese . Revision not known
HTAC7102 and AC7102 / 1, /3 , /4 translated in Japanese and FrenchAC 7102 / 2 translated in French onlyAll translations are at previous revisions
CPAC7108 translated in Japanese and French at previous revisionAC 7108 / 1 and /2 in line for Japanese and French
CTFor coating all AC translated and in line with current versions in Eauditnet for FrenchtranslationsJapanese in line for AC 7109 and /1, /5.
CompJapanese version and drafts for French and German
WeldOnly Japanese version for AC 7110 , /3 , /5 and / 12. All in line
MTL AC 7101 / 1 and / 4 in Japanese and French versions , French in Draft format . All in line with current revision
NMJapanese version for AC 7116, / 3 and / 4 . In line
SEJapanese version for AC 7117 , in line.
PRI Training Pyrometry French version . RCCA and NSCI Japanese and French versions
1.2 Status of translated documents : status as of February 2008
Main conclusions
- Current situation : AC are mainly translated in Japanese and French together with some training courses
- A proposal will be made mid of March for Spanish ( commodities to be worked)
- German drafts exist already for some commodities ( to be consolidated)
Questions ?
- Do we think that the current situation is acceptable as regards the support of Nadcap deployment in Europe and Asia ?
- which commodities ? which languages ? Which timeframe ? ……… Do deal with ?
- Do we need to make the rules more flexible in order to promote quicker translations
- Do we need to review the validation process?
NMC globalization sub team
2008 Rome meeting , February 25-29
commodities concerned : AQS, NDT, CP, CT, COMP, WELD, NM, SE, MTL,HT
Total number Japanese translatedFrench translated
Audit Checklists 7250 % translated
25 % in line with Eauditnet40 % translated
25 % in line with eAuditnet
training course ( Pyrometry, RCCA, NSCI)323
2008 ORIENTATIONS
2.1- Globalization : sub-team mission
Reminder from NOP 001 :
“ Globalization Committee: The Globalization Committee shall facilitate and overcome barriers to growth of Nadcap worldwide. This committee shall analyze the impacts on the Nadcap program (homogenization of the program, documentation and audit process) and make recommendations and proposals to NMC for the implementation of tactical actions and strategic actions”.
Untill now the sub-team focused mainly on an important aspect which was the translation of documents related to pre-audit package and audit checklists.
This has resulted in change of NOP 002 and audit check lists translation validated by TG’s and posted in Eauditnet.
This will be maintained.
Aim of next slides is to investigate in a more general way which other aspects of globalization could impact the Nadcap process
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
culture
language
technical standards
Industrial readiness level of partners
personnel skill ( education , training, ..)
equipment
organization
- ( documentation/procedure not designed for
international programs ..)
- knowledge level in qualification procedure, transverse management, aerospace rules, …
- Environment control (regulations, ..)
Regional support infrastructure (National bodies,
National labs )
number of stakeholders in the process ( more primes,
more suppliers …..etc
Globalization means different
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
2.2 Globalization : what does it mean ?
Impact ?
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
2.2- Impact of globalization on the Nadcap process
Nadcap process
Globalization criteriaChecklistAuditorAudit Etc …
Criteria 1( culture)
Criteria 2( Language)
Criteria 3( technical standards)
Criteria 4 ….
A number of already performed surveys or running initiatives can provide some inputs for identifying impacts of Globalization on the Nadcap process
2003/2005/2007 supplier’s surveys
Note: from supplier’s surveys US still represent in 2007 , 64 % of respondents but EU + Asia grown from 22 to 36 %. The next one probably will show more issue related to globalization
2007 GIFAS ( French aerospace companies Association) Survey
October 2007 “Language barrier” auditor survey ( Arshad )
EURAB Language analysis (provided and updated by S.Martin each Nadcap meeting)
Global Professional Development initiative
Others
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
2.3- Available data from Globalization point of view
1- Main regions concerned by future development
Asia : China / India / Japan
Europe : France / Germany / Spain / UK / Central Europe
America : US / Canada / Mexico
2- Main commodities under consideration : HT , NDT, WLD, CP and NMSE
3- Main issues to be considered
1- There is a need to organize reliable and added value supplier feedback ( a lot of data are available but scattered) specially when Nadcap is developing in a specific country
2- Implementation phase of the Nadcap process is a critical step involving definitively issues like
- language, including
- translated check sheet
- translated Nadcap program documents
- auditor in native language
- Nadcap process understanding
- communication ( before and after the audit)
note : probably more important for suppliers with limited resources
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
2.4- Outputs from available data
Data
NADCAP Mentoring - Jacky Gualandri Follow-up
CompanyCountryContactTopicQuestionQuestion DateAnswer DateMeansNote 1Note 2Note 3Time spent
Union Des Forgerons (Forger Co.)FranceC. Faure (Quality Manager)StandardWhat are standards applicable for NDT and Hardness?5/10/075/12/07e-mailX1H30
StandardIs AMS 2750 the only standard applicable for Heat treat?5/10/076/12/07e-mailX
Nadcap documentsWhich documents are available after registration on eauditnet web site?5/10/077/12/07e-mailX
RegistrationHow to register on web site?5/10/078/12/07e-mailX
Michel Goyhenetche Consultants (Consultant for Air Liquide Company - Gaz supplier)FranceM. Bacquin (Engineer)GeneralWhat are special processes involved with NADCAP?5/15/075/15/07Meeting at SNFAX2H00
GeneralIs there priorities? (Difficulties, requirements) is it difficult to be accredited?X
HT processWhat is the special processes which use gas?X
HT processWhich gas?X
HT processWhat requirements do have about gas: delivery on site, Conformance certificate…X
StandardWhich standards applicable?X
HT ProcessDoes NADCAP change something on gas requirements? And in the future?X
GeneralExcept NADCAP, do you think that some changes will improve gas quality?X
GeneralWho perform audits? Who help you? (specialist or not, language…)X
GeneralProcess NADCAP: time to answer NCR'sX
GeneralWho are the customers that require NADCAP / more stringent that Nadcap requirements?X
GeneralHave you advantages with a Nadcap approval? (audits reduction, Quality improvement, benefit…)X
GeneralDifferences with previous practicesX
Hanier Plaisance (CP & coatings Co.)FranceP. Dumais (Quality Manager)GeneralSelection of one Prime only and Nadcap regognition by other Primes5/26/075/26/07During an audit performed by SNFAX0H20
CPDifficulties to meet specific requirements for each Prime (bath concentration, Bath content, analysis frequencies…)X
Michel Goyhenetche Consultants (Consultant for Air Liquide Company - Gaz supplier)FranceM. Bacquin (Engineer)PyrometryGeneral questions on TUS (Temperature Uniformity Survey)7/3/075/3&4/07Phone callX0H45
PyrometryThermocouples calibrationXX
Attending to a meeting in Paris organized by GIFAS (French Committee for Aerospace and Space industries).FranceAbout 150 attendeesMentoringExplanations on mentoring program.9/13/07
Hanier Plaisance (CP & coatings Co.)FranceS. Muller (QA)CPAC 7108 § 3.3.1 Fixed process and customer approval10/1/0710/2/07e-mail & Phone callX0H50
CPDeviation between PRI Table 1 & Primes10/1/0710/2/07XX
Hanier Plaisance (CP & coatings Co.)FranceS. Muller (QA)CPDeviation between PRI Table 1 & Primes10/26/0710/31/07e-mail & Phone callX30mn
CPP&WC requirements for silver plating, Passivation, OASX
DEC SAFranceDuchene (QA)NCRNCR answer not accepted by Pri. Redefine root cause…5 why method…11/16/0711/16/07Phone callX1H30
Industrial Chamber of Commerce (Seine et Marne)FranceL. FroTrainingTraining in Heat treat01/25/0801/25/08Phone callX30mn
Industrial Chamber of Commerce (Seine et Marne)FranceL. FroGeneralSupporting of companies group for Nadcap accreditation on Heat treat and Coatings2/11/082/11/08Phone callX30mn
Union Des Forgerons (Forger Co.)FranceC. Faure (Quality Manager)NDT PersonnelNDT personnel qualification EN473/EN417902/14/0802/14/08Phone callX15mn
NDT PersonnelNDT methods qualificationX
NDT PersonnelOutside NDT Level 3X
Union Des Forgerons (Forger Co.)FranceC. Faure (Quality Manager)NDT PersonnelNDT personnel qualification EN473/EN417902/14/0802/18/08Phone callX15mn
Industrial Chamber of Commerce (Seine et Marne)FranceL. FroTrainingTraining information2/11/0802/18/08e-mailX20mn
CETIM SenlisFranceL. MartinStandardApplicable standards ASTM, AMS or EN, ISO02/19/0802/19/08Phone callX30mn
GeneralDocuments to be sent to auditor before auditX
AccreditationEN9100 accreditation necessary if ISO17025 accreditation applicableX
TrainingTraining supports for MTLX
Note 1 : unsatisfactory answer from the mentor
Note 2 : satisfactory answer from the mentor without third part confirmation (staff engineer, task group, auditor…)
Note 3 : Confirmation needed from third part (staff engineer, task group, auditor…)
graphs
Topics# questions
General11
CP5
HT Process4
Standard4
NDT Personnel4
Training3
Pyrometry2
Nadcap Documents1
Registration1
Mentoring1
NCR1
Accreditation1
graphs
Feuil3
3- Main issues to be considered ( cont’d)
3- Correct understanding of checklist is a matter of concern ( wording , interpretation: US English / UK English/ others..)
4- There is a demand to take into consideration in Nadcap checklits, confidentiality, cost analysis ( e.g a lot of suppliers do not understand higher calibration frequency imposed ) regulation requirements ( e.g :REACH European directive)
5- Efficiency of Nadcap audits conducted in languages others than English :
is it possible for the same scope and the same timeframe to reach the same efficiency if auditor
and workshop staff do not have the same native language?
6- To develop metrics in relation with globalization
7- Specific attention to be given at the next supplier survey in relation with globalization
- are current PRI supplier survey really representative of globalization impact ? Probably not
8 – to take into account running initiatives with impact on globalization ?
4- additional issues
eAuditnet training : to develop practical training ( not only class training)
Auditor training : is there a need for auditors to be trained for ? :
- language issue
- Cultural issue
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
2.4- Outputs from available data
185.pdf
Martin Bridge
44 Abbeydale Road South Sheffield S7 2QN
United Kingdom
7/17/2007
Lettre Martin Bridge.doc Page 1 of 2
Staff Engineers Performance Review Institute 161 Thornhill Road Warrendale, PA 15086 Subject: Heat Treat Audit # 1182401 Dear Staff: A Heat Treat re-accreditation audit was performed at Aubert & Duval , Pamiers, France on 18-20 June 2007, using checklist AC7102. The audit scope was verified with the supplier and confirmed on eauditnet. Aubert & Duval is part of the A & D group, itself part of Eratech. The Pamiers site specializes in large Titanium, Nickel base and high alloy steel alloy forgings, mostly for Snecma (to GE) , Airbus, Turbomeca & Rolls Royce. The heat treatment shop is a captive unit, consisting of 18 large gas air furnaces with forced air, water and oil quench systems. The furnaces are horizontal, while the quench tanks are sunk into the ground. The factory (including heat treatment) works 3 shifts during the week with a dedicated 2x12hr shift at weekends. There is also a new ring rolling facility with one solution furnace and two aging furnaces (referred to as Airforge). All three weekday shifts were observed. My point of contact was Thierry Salmon, Quality Process Manager, assisted throughout by Laurent Raffy, Quality Engineer. All persons questioned during the audit were knowledgeable, cooperative and helpful. The audit was assisted considerably by the good quality and ease of access of processing records. M Salmon speaks very good English, but many of the people working in heat treatment were much less competent with the spoken word, although they were able to read English reasonably well. Working documents and procedures exist in French only, although English versions of manufacturing plans exist where required by customers (e.g RR, Boeing, Pratt & Whitney). The entire audit was conducted in French, allowing easy interrogation of operators etc., although all the reporting is in English. Auditing in French also allowed clarification of some issues in pyrometry where interrogation revealed that some of the reports being presented did not match the requirements of AMS2750D – see the NCR list below. A total of seventeen (17) NCRs were issued, of which nine (9) have been classed as major. There was no confirmed product impact and there were no instances of errors or deviations at the heat treatment operator level. One of the NCR’s was non-sustaining and there were a number of fundamental failings in pyrometry – including unrecognized test failures and failure to address some aspects of the revision to AMS2750. The major NCR’s were: NCR# problem 2 SAT adjustment exceeding customer specifications (Unrecognised failure) 3 Incorrect oil quench temperatures in use.) 6 Test Thermocouple calibrations do not meet AMS2750D 7 TUS test instrument calibrations do not meet AMS2750D. 10 SAT does not meet requirements for instrument coverage and frequency. 12 Disposition of TUS thermocouples does meet AMS2750D (parts treated outside
surveyed volume) 13 Unrecognised failure during TUS. 14 No record of daily and weekly checks required by RPS953 (non-sustaining) 16 Furnace Thermocouple calibrations do not meet requirements.
Audit Cover Letter - continuation
Lettre Martin Bridge.doc.doc Page 2 of 2
All NCR’s raised on the previous audits (106953) were reviewed and the actions confirmed. The NCR’s relating to testing were not explicitly reviewed since testing is no longer in the scope of this audit. The site has a separate MTL accreditation. Some of the NCR’s may appear to be related, but I think that they fall into three main groups: 1. Failures to meet the principles of AMS2750 because internal practices have always been fundamentally different (i.e. the use of the ‘system of measurement’ normal in France vs calibration of system components required by AMS) 2. Failure to address fundamentals in AMS2750 and other specs (such as calibration across range of use) 3. Failure to address the new detailed requirements of AMS2750 and customer specs, required since the previous audit (such as reporting details) In some cases, I have written separate NCR’s addressing these different groupings. This was a disappointing performance for the site. As soon as it became apparent, on the second day, that the criteria of NOP011 for failure might be exceeded, I identified this to M Salmon. I explained how the failure process works and recommended that he contact the customers likely to be affected as soon as possible after the end of the audit. We continued with the audit and identified further failings. On 20 June I contacted the UK staff engineer and notified him of the likely failure. The closing meeting was attended by representatives of all areas audited and by the site Quality Manager. The NCR’s were presented by handing over copies of the staff report and by verbal translation into French by the auditor. Given the nature of the pyrometry issues, I cannot recommend accreditation until all of the NCR’s have been addressed and verified by a further audit. Also, given the possibilities of mis-interpretation of the pyrometry issues, I recommend that the next audit be conducted by an auditor who is fluent in French. Regards,
____________________________________ Martin R Bridge, Auditor Tel +44 (0) 7971 436 833
2.5 Impact of globalization on the
Nadcap process
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
coverage through PRIimpact on the Nadcap process ( prime , supplier, PRI)comments
yespartiallynohighmediumlow
Organization of reliable and added value supplier feedback when developing in a new country
AC Translation
Nadcap program document translation
Auditor in Native language
Nadcap process training
Prior and post audit communication between PRI and supplier
Audit Checklist Training
Involvement in AC of regulation requirements
Involvement in AC of confidentiality aspect
Involvement in AC of cost analysis
Efficiency of Nadcap audit conducted in non native language as regards workshop staff
Audit consistency
2.5 Impact of globalization on the
Nadcap process
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
NMC globalization sub team
coverage through PRIimpact on the Nadcap process ( prime , supplier, PRI)comments
yespartiallynohighmediumlow
Metrics relative to globalization
coverage of globalization aspect in supplier survey
Practical Eaudinet training
Auditor training ( language , Culture)
Impact of Global Professional Development project
Other initiative TBD
2.5- Impact of globalization on the Nadcap process: second option
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
Nadcap process steps
checklist managementauditor management
designballoting and publication processselectionapprovaltrainingmonitoring
globalization effect
Culture
Language
International technical standards
industrial readiness levelpersonnel skill
equipments
organization
Regional support infrastructure
environment control ( local regulation)
Number of stakeholders
2.6 - Proposal
1- Basically to develop the same approach as for standardization
2- NMC agreement to develop the process
3 - If yes,
- Specific team to be created
- Define methodology and make a proposal on Globalization items to be worked first
- First review at Pittsburgh meeting with conf call in between .
NMC globalization sub team
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
NMC globalization sub team
2003 PRI Supplier Survey : nothing significant linked to Globalization
2005 PRI Supplier survey
- Significant concern expressed in relation to consistency of auditors
- Some concern exists as to how well the process takes interest of suppliers into account
- Supplier participation at meetings is low
- Preferred method for obtaining information is via electronic media
- Awareness of SSC has grown significantly
- Top 3 concerns : Auditor inconsistency / Overall cost / Auditor role post audit
2007 PRI Supplier survey : Language Question – Additional Data:
- Still a strong desire among some to see checklists and audits carried out in their local language
- Continue with efforts to translate check sheets into key languages
- Continue to endeavor to recruit auditors within key countries with appropriate language skills
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
2.3- Available data ( cont’d)
Countries of respondents who indicated they had a problem with language during a Nadcap audit.
Most of respondents are in US and UK
NMC globalization sub team
2007 PRI Supplier survey :
Main items from 130 comments / suggestions about language issue
- Strong demand for auditors speaking Japanese, German, Spanish ,Chinese, French
- Proposal for discussing language issue before scheduling Nadcap audit
- Develop clear understanding of AC questions
- Take into account communication with “on the floor" staff regards audit efficiency
- demand for PRI staff speaking native language ( staff engineer)
- demand for Eauditnet in different language
- demand for Closure of corrective actions in native language
- demand for Checklist translation
- demand for Training in native language
- Communication with auditor after the audit
2007 GIFAS (French Aerospace Companies association ) survey
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
3- Available data ( cont’d)
Requirements are mostly US based and more stringent than European standards (EN) and are different from those of the Primes
Need of English language knowledge is a handicap
Requirements knowledgeGood or Very Good
Auditor competenceGood or Very Good
Used languagePoor and Medium
Audit depthGood or Very Good
Audit relevanceGood
Audit lead timeMean value : 5 months
Time for accreditationMean value : 2,75 months
Sheet1
Adopting English as common working language is the best choice at present, even if many supplier ever thought that their mother tongue should be used. After practising for years, adopting many language is not a good way, not only in efficiency, but also in accuracy. Because most translator is not good enough in technical detail, in fact, most technical engineer is good in w reading and writing of English, with the help of good interpreter, the langusge barrier can be overcome successfully. Any how, as a common working langusge, English have the advantage of the other language.
Translate the check-list.Could answer to non conformance in our language
* Slowly, please speak tenderly.* Does please explain the question related to which paragraph of the checklist?* It survives to understand that the outline of impression and the explanation is shown with the memo or the document.
1/Auditors that speak more than one language2/Do not count cycles because of misunderstandings
A good working knowledge of the English Language prior to auditing in the United States.
A Prime User Member doesn't have to use a Nadcap audit to impose the supplier its specific requirements.
After the several audits received to date, all the Nadcap auditors were satisfied with the translation provided by the guides during the facilities visit.
All Auditors we've had spoke English ONLY. Eurocast is located in Tunisia, auditors should speak french or Arabic in order to communicate with the workers on the floor during the audit.
All check list must be transrated to Japanese (Because the check list is a god, we need same understanding perfectly)
All materials / Checklists in USA English which can differ in interpretation from UK English.
All the effort made by the globalization team has been cancelled out by the necessity of having a English-speaking (US citizen) auditor because of US ITAR regulations ( and in breach of any other country's ITAR requirements)
American terms do not always translate into English terms
As we are a French speaking company not everybody is fluent in English. But making NADCAP in several languages is also not a good solution
Ask the auditor to make sure that supplier understand why there is a finding, instead of giving to them at end of day to make them accepted it.
ask the supplier what is the language spoken and if a foreign accent would merit issues.
Auditor from Japan was hard to understand.
Auditors in national language
Auditors or PRI Staff with knowlegdge of other different languages (Spanish in our case). Sometimes there are problems with the interpretations of the concepts, the Non Conformance scope, what exactly wants the auditors or PRI staff to evidence something.
Auditors shoul be of the same country of the supplier
Auditors should be required to be fluent in the language of the auditee and understand the customs.
Auditors should be required to speak English fluently.
Auditors should be trained to allow for slightly differing interpretations of checksheet requirements. I have expereienced auditors which want to see the requirement met is a certain specific way and are not willing to accept other methods of compliance. There is more than one specific way to comply with many of the checksheet requirements.
Auditors should speak German.
Auditors/staff must be able to communicate clearly in the primary language spoken by the supplier.
Audits execution by mother tongue (Japanese)
Because the Auditors speaks English, some operator needs a translation/explenation
BETTER EXPLAIN THE MEANING OF THE QUESTION THAT COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD
check lists to be in several languages. French, German, Spanish
Closse attenetion to language barrieres prior to scheduling audit
Data submission for corrective action was a problem. We submitted evidently to much data and the web site could not handle the amount even though we met the criteria for submission. Communication between PRI and Davis Tool after submission became a problem. PRI would not admit they had a problem even though I was told that this problem had occurred in the past. I was surprised when no corrective action on the part of PRI was taken.
Do a translation of the e-audinet in each language.To have possibility to response in our language
Don't send a person from a foreign country that does not speak good english or understand our culture to a US facility and vice versa.
Eaudit.net: When responding to NCR's it would be nice if we could receive an email acknowledgement of receipt of responses.
Especially for the HT accreditation, maintenance personnel is involved, who do not speak english; a german speaking auditor would be very helpful for that
Follow up questions with person or re-direct question with someone else present.
Formally I want to use the japanese.
Get Auditors that have English as their primary language
Give more translated specifications
Have french checklists
Have the auditors stick to the script and not impose personal interpretations into the process which is being audited.
HAVING SPANISH AUDITORS OR THECNICAL TRANSLATERS. TRANSLATING THE WEB PAGE eAUDITNET
I believe that Nadcap is working towards resolving this issue.
I do not have a suggestion. The issues stem from the ability of the auditor to interpret my meaning without much additional explanation.
I guess the problem is in our side.
I have not experienced any difficulty due to language barriers, but I consider a good improvement if you can send bilingual auditors
I have not experienced any problems
I have seen in the past that the staff engineers don't read the answers properly and reply vaguely and keep asking the same questions over and over again. I have seen that a simple phone call can solve a problem faster than increasing the cycle. I also found that the staff engineer don't reply to phone calls sometimes repeated phone calls.
I have some problems after audir to explain our reasons of non conformances. PRI staff understands differents things that i want to explain.If customers have problems, it could be better speak with somebody who speaks your own language.In our case, i do not speak fluently english.
I would like to add japanese auditor.Example: We usually make training records by japanese language. However, auditor can not understand japanese.Therefore, we have to revise or add English version.
If we had had communication with the auditor prior to the audit it may have helped. It took one full day to be able to understand each other.
In addition to language issues, we have experienced problems bridging cultural differences as well.
In our case, the staff engineer was very difficult to deal with and would not respond to my questions when seeking assistance.
It is better to use local language.
It is not so much the spoken language, but rather the body language that may or may not accommondate the words. For example, if I am asked an audit question and before I am done with my answer the auditor is shaking his head (as if to imply wrong answer), well I tend to just stop! This posed a problem becuase he is wondering why I am not answering his question and I am wondering why he's shaking his head at my explaination of how we do things. Just food for thought!
It was not a major issue but it did take a great deal of concentration on listening to what the auditor was saying in order to understand everything he said.
It would be easy for us is THere are spanish auditors
It would be greatly appreciated if auditors could speak the language of the firm they are audditing. This would prevent from spending time for details that are not understood between auditors and and firm and that can generate tension for nothing.
ITAR mandates that foreign nationals do not access our customer's materials. Impossible to keep NADCAP foreign auditor away from materials 100% all the time.
It's more suppliers who should remember that if you write a response in eAudit it's not the same when you say it to the person - the wording should be more concret.
Japanease auditors are better
Japanese auditor is necessary.
Just one time with one auditor.
Lack of knowledge is a language barrier, but brutal responses such as that from Louise Stefanakis in abomnable.
Language issues with Heat Treat Auditor in 2004. No problems since.
Make sure that all auditors have a very good command of the english language and nuances.
Maybe the checklist could have both English & Chinese version?
Meeting/training performed in Japanese is helpful to us.
My suggestions is that the NADCAP auditor speak our language.
Nadcap audit in german language would be helpful because operators are not experienced in speaking english.
NADCAP trainings should be in different languages, e.g. in german. Responsible operators often do not speak englisch.
Need to have an agreement for intrepreter when language is a barrier.
None recently; however, was a problem in the past
Not sure I have a suggestion for improvement. Our only issue was that trainee auditors a few time have been non-native English speakers. One was okay with very minor issues on some adjectives. Not a problem. Another was not (but we believe he was marked as 'failed' by our lead auditor.) Since that trainee auditor was marked as 'failing' and the lead auditor was able to bridge the language barrier, we consider that a valid way of handling the situation.
not well versed on special process
One auditor spoke English with a strong Chinese accent that made it hard for company personnel to understand.
Onlu use auditors whose main language is that of the main language of the country where the audit is taking place.
Operators will typically use their local accent and auditor selection should ensure that the auditor can understand a wide selection of accents as well as speak a language.
Our native is Hungarian. We speak English as a second language. We had auditors native in French and speaking English as a second language. In such case communication is not so easy since there are 2 parties not fluent in English and they try to communicate in English. Sometimes the auditors does not knows the technical terms in the applicable ASTM or AMS standards they try to apply or translate the terms from their native language. I can follow this since I also speak Italian which is a latin base language like French. When at least 1 of the 2 parties is native in English then the communication is far-far better. I asked PRI to send auditor native in English however my request was denied saying that all Nadcap auditor speak good English so it cannot be a issue. From experiences I can tell that this is not correct.
Participant shoud can communicate with the speaker or speaker have a translator.
Please hire auditors who speak the language which he/she will audit.
Please send the auditor who can understand and speak Chinese.Thank you.
Preparing and during a audit, we must translate many documents only for Nadcap audit. Decresing the documents, which must be submitted 30 days before audit, i.e. Quality Manual, will relax a Nadcap barrier to the Japanes suppliers. And Japanese auditor must be increased.
Attending a Nadcap meeting, if the draft documents which will be discussed could be downloaded by supplier attendees prior to the Nadcap meeting, we can understand more about the discussion.
PRI has not to improve.We have to improve our english knowledge!!
PRI is kindly requested to establish the Meeting Rule that the native speaker of English shall speak Slowly and Loudly so that the non-native speaker of English can understand him well.
PRI should have member that speaks spanish and all other applicable lengueges.
PRI Staff: It is not easy to express yourself as easily in English as in your own langage. Misunderstandings could occurs. It should be good to be able to communicate more easily and in all directions for NCR solving
problem solved by declaring itar restrictions
Propose a french version of most important tools on the net
Provide a feedback loop that could be used if there are problems. You would need to require specifics, and the name of the individual making the claim (to minimize erroneous claims).
Providing native auditors
Realizing the scope of NADCAP and its ability to cover the globe per se it is difficult to identify a corect solution. One thought would be for the Auditor and Supplier to identify the inconsistency in a potential problem and have an impartial mediation. At the present time the mediation is done by the staff engineer and the auditor with the supplier being on the outside. Without the staff engineer being fully versed on each and every facility and its methods becomes more difficult for the staff engineer to asses potential non-conformances on face value.
Select Auditors that have English as a primary language.
Several questions were formulated in way that Europeans understand the contrary.Some Staff engineers have an accent we have somme difficulties to understand.We appreciate auditors with multi-language skill, but never had communication problems with them.
Should value and allow the use of multiple forms of communicating by the personnel in the work shop.
simple as is, we have to improve our knowlege of english
Some documents are still in german, because that's our mother language. The most important documents we translated.
some participants have a very special accent (Texas, Ireland,...)sometimes difficult to understand. I cannot make any suggestions to change this !
Some processes only have spanish-speaking personnel. Neithef of the NADCAP auditor we've had speaks or understands spanish
Spanish language auditors
Speek English clearly
task groups should provide a list of used technical terms translated in different languages (German, French, AE/BE...)
The auditors should be very good communicators almost in equal balance with the knowledge.
The Auditors speech was not very clear.
The initial audits tend to go very well. However, when the PRI Staff engineers get involved, they tend to go into areas not documented during the audit.
The local auditor will be preferable.
The only problem related to language is, that we are required to translate all special process documents into English for the audit, even the documents are for a german customer!!! This causes a lot of extra work.
The problem I had was 2 years ago, The auditor sent was from Japan and his English was not clear, it was frustrating for both of us.
The problem was with one particular auditor who only came the once in 2004
The speakers need to speak slowly and loudly.
The term is special, and the problem of communications occurs when auditing. A Japanese auditor is more necessary.
The terminology between English UK and English US differs and I have experienced mis-understanding that has lead to corrective actions being rejected.
The use of more simplier words and sentences
There is no language barriers during communication with Nadcap staff during audits, meeting, training, etc
translate referential in frenchhave french auditor
Translation of all documentAuditor speaking the language of the supplier
Translation of HB and AC toSpanish language auditors may improve much more the speed, quality of the audit, and make it easy
Try to get Auditors with german language knowledge so that it is possible to reach whole staff during audit, otherwise there are information defiencies by translation which may lead to NCRs where you can't find any root cause because it was an NCR by missinterpretation
Use a Nadcap auditor from a local office
Use of UK based staff engineers, for UK companies, and english language as first language for assessors
Used of french auditors
Was only due to site own language issues.
We feel an unfair feeling in there not being Japanese Staff Engineer.
We had a process in Spanish that when corrected for the CAR it was required that we translate the entire document when this was not required for the audit.
We have no suggestion because the language barrier which we felt during Nadcap audit was due to only incompleteness of our English conversation skill.
We have not attend a Nadcap meeting yet but a translator may accompany with meetings according to the country or place where it is held in case a complicated question arises from discussions.
We hope for audit in Japanese.
We need to translate everything into English language. It is not a problem but an extra burden to our quality people. Operator instructions must be in Finnish language.
We would like to increasae japanese auditor.
We would like to make effort to comunicate more properly with the auditor herafter.
Working in and with Mexico
Sheet2
Sheet3
NMC globalization sub team
2007 PRI Supplier survey“ : Language barrier” survey / Data given by A.Hafeez at Pittsburgh October 2007 meeting
A survey of 163 auditors about language barrier showed that
- 30 % experienced problem
- 70 % had no problem
February 2008 / EURAB Language analysis
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
3- Available data ( cont’d)
Above information are not enough to explain how language issues are really covered
CPCTCOMPHTMTLNDTNM SEWLDOther
# audits184403620836367583611028
# auditors122111225423NA
CPCTCOMPHTMTLNDTNMSEWLD
English122111225423
French400508111
Italian010002000
German000003000
Spanish000102000
Nadcap Language Analysis
February 2008
*
Purpose of Analysis
Establish percentage of Nadcap audits carried out at non-native English speaking European suppliers
Ensure that regional auditor capacity is maintained
Provision for non-native English speaking suppliers to have an auditor who speaks their language
Monitor other linguistic activities
*
Top 5 European Languages 2008
Correct as of 1-Feb-08
EnglishSpeaking countryFrench speaking countryItalian speaking countrySpanishSpeakingcountryGermanSpeakingcountryOther
% European audits per language42%16%8%7%6%21%
% European auditors per language100%29%5%5%5%NA
*
European Audits & Auditors per Process and Language 2008
Correct as of 1-Feb-08
CPCTCOMPHTMTLNDTNM SEWLDOther
# audits18837321973930656419325
# auditors112111225423NA
Auditors who speak English112111225423NA
Auditors who speak French400508111NA
Auditors who speak Italian010002000NA
Auditors who speak German000003000NA
Auditors who speak Spanish000102000NA
*
French Audits & French-Speaking Auditors per Process 2008 - 2009
Correct as of 19-Feb-08
CPCTCOMPHTMTLNDTNM SEWLDOther
# audits2008281224114802124
# audits20091005160040
Auditors who speak French400508111NA
*
Supplier-Auditor Language Requests 2008
7 requests have been received so far in 2008
Correct as of 1-Feb-08
From discussion with J . Leigh
“It is possible to request an ASD-PRO auditor through eAuditNet, and most of them speak French, although not all. In addition there are Nadcap auditors who speak French. Perhaps you were under that impression that European speaking auditor through eauditnet could be requested. It was only the case for ASD-PRO. The reason for this feature not to be in eAuditNet is that is this is an option then we would be asked to provide auditors in over 20 languages and it would not be value added or practical. I personally have scheduled audits and Pri discusses the opportunity to provide an auditor when we are requested. Therefore, the language provision is on a request basis “
LanguageRequests / Audits (%)Suitable auditor allocated / Requests (%)
French7 requests out of 131 audits (5%)6 suitable auditors allocated (86% of requests)
*
SSC 2007 Survey Results
Language Question – Additional Data:
Countries of respondents who indicated they had a problem with language during a Nadcap audit:
*
Other activities
Maintain linguistic capabilities of PRI Europe offfice: Staff speak English, French, German, Italian, Russian & Spanish
Audit checklists being translated into other languages including French
NCSI session in French hosted by Airbus on 19-Feb-08
Supplier Support Committee 2007 Survey included a question: Have you experienced any problems with Nadcap related to language barriers? 72% had not had any language problems. Of the 28%, the top three were USA, Japan & UK.
*
Summary
The majority of European suppliers do not experience a language problem with Nadcap (Supplier Survey 2007 results)
The majority of requests for native language auditors are met: French is the only requested language so far this year (7 requests)
*
Next Steps
No corrective action is needed as supplier feedback has shown that the current situation is satisfactory
Analysis to be reported at each Nadcap meeting to ensure ongoing monitoring. Actions to be determined as necessary.
67
25
13
9
8
7
4
4
4
22
1
11
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
USJapanUKGermanyFranceSpainChinaItalySwitzerlandAustriaMexicoIsraelKoreaTaiwanTunisia
2.3- Available data ( cont’d)
Global professional Development survey 2007 : from 13 Nadcap participants ( from K.Ward presentation)
United States (5), China (6), Canada (3), France (5), Central Europe (4), Mexico (2), India (2), United Kingdom
(2), Germany (4),
Israel, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, Belgium, Korea, Czech Republic, Turkey, Far East, Middle East, Russia, Brazil(2),
Australia, Spain, TBD
China (4), United States (3), Canada (2), Mexico (2), India (2), Central Europe(3),
Israel, Czech Republic, Turkey, Far East, Middle East, Asia (3), Poland, France, Spain, Globally
Heat Treating (6), NDT (2), Chemical Processing (3), Non-Conventional Machining, Welding (2),
Electronics, Material Testing (2), Coatings, Composites
All special processes
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
NMC globalization sub team
Sheet1
11Desired countries for training deployment
Sheet2
Sheet3
Sheet1
12Locations where you are actively seeking new suppliers
Sheet2
Sheet3
Sheet1
12.1Targeted special process capabilities
Sheet2
Sheet3
2.3- Available data ( cont’d)
Global professional Development
Three distinct and new services for Aerospace Industry are being developed
General Training
Cooperative Supplier development
Personnel Certification for special process expertise
What will be the impact of Global Professional Development project on Nadcap process ?
Boeing initiative for Special processors capability database
Rome meeting 2008 , February 25-29
NMC globalization sub team
Proposal for Special Processor Capability Database
November 6, 2007
L. Arne Logan
The Boeing Company
Situation
Aerospace industry’s need for additional special processors is growing globally
The Supply Chain must seek additional processing capability to meet this growing need
Nadcap has grown globally and now accredits most of the global aerospace industry process providers
No single source of data which identifies processor capability
Note: Capability encompasses attributes such as facility sizes (tank, autoclave & oven dimensions) for type of processes performed, material specialties and other unique capabilities.
Target
A single source of global processor capability information available to users to assist in identifying processors which meets the users needs
Proposal
Develop a processor capability database with the following features:
Built on Nadcap accredited processors that are service providers
Need to identify which Nadcap accredited companies are service providers and which are captive processors
Input using a standard template developed by supply chain experts
Used to capture standard data tailored to the characteristics of the process commodity
Processors input their capabilities into the database
Provides ability for processors to link their websites
Data would be accessible to companies within a prime’s supply chain at no charge.
If Nadcap Prime & Supplier members are interested:
Form a team to define system requirements and develop proposal
Make proposal to PRI Board of Directors for go-ahead approval
PRI Roundtable
Global Professional Development
Executive Overview
http://www.eQuaLearn.com
Hosted by Alcoa on August 29 and 30, 2007
New York, N.Y.
October 24, 2007
*
Agenda
Situational Analysis – Current Condition and Future
Business case
Mission
Opportunities for Industry Teaming with PRI
*
Current Condition
Special Process skill & knowledge globally is limited and
inconsistent at all levels from operator to process engineer.
Nadcap accreditation cycle times need to improve
Continual attrition erodes resource pool of proficient people
Product quality escapes understanding and reporting
Each prime has a different approach to providing special
process training and knowledge transfer to suppliers
Scarcity of prime resources to develop suppliers
-Globalization further stretching scarce technical
experts thin
Lack of infrastructure for global training increases costs to primes
*
Target Condition
A self sustaining industry managed system that collaborates and voluntarily shares resources to provide globally recognized technical/quality systems skills training to the Aerospace community and supporting suppliers.
Aerospace Primes Need:
Global pool of proficient personnel and confidence in its technical
capabilities
Evidence of experienced and qualified personnel
Reliable, cost effective and standardized means to develop new special
process personnel
Capable suppliers that are Nadcap and Quality Systems accredited
Global Suppliers Need:
Disciplined personnel qualifications process
Proficient resources to execute Special Processes
Sustained Nadcap accreditation for special processes
Standardized process to learn Global Aerospace System requirements
*
Develop an economical, efficient and effective standardized Global system of training that is targeted at:
Closing the people knowledge gap that reduces cost and risk.
-Ensuring continued proficiency and consistency of industry personnel,
-Supporting the readiness of new suppliers in emerging regions
Improving Nadcap accreditation cycle time.
Business Case
Sharing of resources in developing centralized Global course content will reduce costs of Corporations by an estimate of one-third.
*
Mission of the new program:
Develop an industry recognized, self sustaining and standardized global system of personnel development targeted at reducing cost, risk and cycle time for the aerospace industry.
Focus is on Human Capital
*
Opportunities for Industry Teaming
PRI Service Offering
Global Vision
Three distinct and new services for Aerospace Industry
General Training
Cooperative Supplier development
Personnel Certification for special process expertise (aka special process Level III Program)
Supporting administrative support
*
Supporting Details
Global Customer Service centers
Corporate Membership
Centralized development of course content and training of instructors in multiple languages
Technical resources with a fountain of knowledge in special processes
Global listing (example: eAuditNet for Nadcap reports and QML for certified suppliers) of certified personnel and maintenance of certifications
OVERVIEW: The Global Learning Infrastructure
eQuaLearn Americas
eQuaLearn London
eQuaLearn China
eQuaLearn Japan
eQuaLearn Mexico
eQuaLearn Brazil
eQuaLearn India
eQuaLearn Israel
*
Global Customer Service
Customer service
Respond to requests for information within 1 working day.
Provide help with LMS (Learning Management System) to customers.
Resource to onsite and corporate customers.
Communicate effectively with other PRI eQuaLearn Administrators.
Regional and time zone convenience for communications with customers
Support multiple languages
PRI Roundtable
Global Professional Development
The Next Charts Provide Information to support the Executive Summary
August 29 and 30, 2007
*
Opportunities for Industry Teaming
Survey Of Customers
Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, Bombardier, Goodrich,
Alcoa, GE, and UTC.
- General Training
- Personnel Certification
- Cooperative Supplier development
*
August 2007 Survey to Interested Companies
Response from seven customers with all seven attending an invited roundtable
All responded had internal/External training, small degree of contracted services were used.
Majority wanted to partner with PRI, provide input to content development, provide training facilities, and instructors
Technical Areas of interest:
Coatings, Ultra Sonic Testing, FPI, X-Ray, Mechanical Testing, Thermal Processing, Shot Peening, Characteristic Accountability, Brazing, Composites, Pyrometry, Production Chemistry Lab, Nital Etch, Elastomer Process Control, Visual Weld Inspection, Electronics, Fasteners, Coatings Metallurgy
Quality System Related:
Shop Planning & Project/ Process Management, Lean Manufacturing, Auditing, Gov’t. & Regulatory (FAA), Six Sigma, DFSS/TRIZ, & Export Control, Supplier Orientation, RCCA, AS9100 Lead Auditor, SPC, FMEA, Nonconforming Material Control, Source Substantiation, Software QA, Contract Review/ Interpretation, Process Documentation, FAIR Preparation, Machining Dos and Don’ts, Control Charts, Data Collection, Design of Experiments, Measurement Systems Analysis, Mistake Proofing, Problem Solving, Process Capability, Executive Overviews of Offered Courses
*
Survey Summary - Regions of Interest
Countries and Regions Desired
United States (4), China (4), Canada (3), France (3), Central Europe (3), Mexico (2), India (2), United Kingdom (2), Germany(2), Israel, Italy, Japan, Taiwan, Belgium, Korea, Czech Republic, Turkey, Far East, Middle East, Russia, Brazil, Australia, TBD
Developing Suppliers and Business:
China (3), United States (2), Canada (2), Mexico (2), India (2), Central Europe(2), Israel, Czech Republic, Turkey, Far East, Middle East, Globally
Invited Industry Representative - Roundtable Meeting
Progress
Established Mission statement - Reviewed
Identified needs - Reviewed
Reviewed Survey data – Reviewed
Pilot Opportunities
World Supply Base Challenges Developing
Non-Aero suppliers
Corporate participation and Membership Options
Global Listings and Database
Next Actions
*
Special Processes- Pilot Selection
Pilot Selection – criteria based on:
Industry requirements – what do the Nadcap baseline and prime specific checklists already require?
Where do we have the biggest gaps, or which are hardest to demonstrate compliance?
Where do we have the lowest barriers (least controversy, least competing interests)?
Other drivers (e.g. NDT situation)
Heat Treat, Welding and NDT meet requirements
*
Definitions of Levels
Level ILevel IILevel III
Expectation/ DescriptionOperation ExpertProcess ExpertLeading Technical Specialist
Requirement SummaryUnderstands/ Performs basic operations of the processCapable of designing manufacturing processes and writing process procedures to conform to customer specifications and requirements. Capable of problem solving/ resolving day to day issues.Capable of reviewing and approving processes, procedures and qualifications of lower levels. Capable of designing new processes and resolving issues among all the other levels.
Invited Industry Representative - Roundtable Meeting
Progress
Established Mission statement - Reviewed
Identified needs - Reviewed
Reviewed Survey data – Reviewed
Pilot Opportunities - Reviewed
World Supply Base Challenges Developing
Non-Aero suppliers
Corporate participation and Membership Options
Global Listings and Database
Next Actions
*
World Supply Base Challenges
Globalization has many primes in countries not currently fabricating Aerospace c