By Pauline Parker,2014-06-26 22:08
6 views 0


    APRIL 2006


    APRIL 26-27, 2006



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.


Pre Meeting New attendee Orientation accomplished by Mark Covert


1.1. Call to Order/Quorum Check

    The meeting was called to order by Chairperson (Mark Covert). A quorum was

    established with representatives present.


    User Members Present:

    Name Company

    Mark Covert Honeywell Aerospace

    Mike Coleman Boeing

    Steve Meyer Eaton Aerospace

    Brion Nantista Northrup Grumman

    Chatt Rhodes Cessna Textron

    Zdenek Sitar Honeywell Aerospace

     Other Participants/Members:

    Name Company

    Chris Diepenbrock Boeing

    Yong Ging Gao BAOTI Group Ltd.

    Raing He Guizhou Honglin

    Xia Hong Rolls Royce, China

    Yang Jungin GE Aviation

    Zon Zhong Ling Honeywell China

    Xlaadong Luo BAOTI Group Ltd.

    Shen Peng XAE

    Cheng Ping Gui Zhou Hong Lin Machinery Co. Ltd.

    S.A.Razack Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

    Wong Rong Hong Yuan Aviation Forging & Casting Industry Co.


    APRIL 2006

    LI Dong Sheng Honeywell

    Stephen Wong Chi Chong SDL

    Ma Ying BAOTI Group Ltd.

    PRI Staff:

John Barrett PRI

    Scott Nelson PRI

    Mark Covert called the meeting to order and went over the agenda. The following changes were made; Wednesday afternoon will be the closed session instead of Thursday afternoon for audit review. Thursday’s meeting will now be open to suppliers all day.

    1.2 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

    Chatt Rhodes made a motion to accept the minutes from the January 25-26, 2006 meeting, Mike Coleman seconded the motion. Motion was carried unanimously; the meeting minutes were approved.


    Metrics were reviewed for information available from eAuditNet. Although the metric shows red for Initial audit cycle time, the Task Group did not feel that action should be taken, but will continue to monitor and re-examine this issue at the July meeting.

    John Barrett presented statistics concerning the Nadcap Supplier Support Initiative (NCSI) and provided various metrics to indicate the benefits of undergoing the 2 hour training session. Training is available for both suppliers seeking initial accreditation and suppliers in need of re-accreditation.


    John Barrett provided Staff Engineer Correlation Analysis for all Delegated AQS/Dist Staff Engineers.

    Review of the data indicated that one Staff Engineer during this quarter was rated below the 90% rate of correlation, but after Task Group discussion a decision was made that there was not enough data to take action at this time. Delegation will remain in place for all delegated Staff Engineers and the Task Group will continue monitoring performance.

     The Task Group did not review the required 10% of audits reviewed by John Barrett and

    Scott Nelson for the last quarter. The Task Group needs to determine if specifics concerning the review requirements should be documented in our procedures.

    Task Group discussed possible enhancements to eAuditNet might be a good idea to clarify the actual Task Group disposition for audits. With the exception of Disapproval, four other basic categories for Task Group disposition of audit review were discussed;

    Page 2 of 8


    APRIL 2006

    Acceptable, Acceptable with Comments, Withheld Pending Task Group Verification and

    Withheld Pending Staff Engineer Verification.

    ACTION ITEM John Barrett will create a list of possible Task Group statements/decisions to be made during balloting. Discussion to be added to the agenda

    for the July meeting.


    John provided data to show how many audits go full term even though there is only a

    requirement for Task Group to review 10% of all audits. Based on the data collected by

    John Barrett showing lost days due to Task Group review, it was decided there was not

    enough benefit to continue to monitor and asked that we consider the action complete

    with no further action required. Motion made by Mike Coleman to accept John’s

    proposal to discontinue the study. Mark Covert seconded the motion and the Task

    Group unanimously voted to carry the motion. Action item will be closed.


    Chatt Rhodes provided an overview of the proposed QMS Integration process and

    benefits to the Task Group, including related issues, and proposed the next steps. All

    Task Group chairpersons were given the presentation during the Planning & Ops meeting

    by Mark Covert earlier in the week. The idea behind this process is to assure circular

    coordination between AQS and all special process Task Groups.

    ACTION ITEM AQS members to contact commodity Task Group Chairpersons prior to May 12, 2006 to provide AQS Points of Contact.

    ACTION ITEM John Barrett and Mark Covert will contact absent members to review their requirements.

    ACTION ITEM John Barrett is to e-mail the latest update to the POC List to affected Task Group members to include footnotes for what is minimal next step expectations.

    ACTION ITEM AQS Point of Contacts are to provide input to John Barrett by May 16, 2006.

    ACTION ITEM John Barrett will set up a teleconference with AQS Point of Contacts for May 17, 2006.

3:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. CLOSED MEETING

    Page 3 of 8


    APRIL 2006


    The AQS Task Groups reviewed and balloted audits currently in task group review.

ACTION ITEM Mike Coleman to e-mail audit specific comments to Scott Nelson.



    Task Group reviewed comments submitted by NMC and made the necessary changes or

    provided comments back to the committee. Release date for Rev D was discussed. John

    Barrett indicated that once the checklist revision is released following a required 90-day

    notification period. PRI’s procedures require re-scheduling of all affected audits. The

    process does not necessarily entail moving the audit date but the Nadcap scheduling

    system does require re-scheduling to assure the supplier receives revised information.

AC7004 Ballot AC7004 Finalized CommentsDraft

8.0 Nadcap AUDIT ISSUE

    A co-joined Nadcap NDT/AQS audit conducted late last year identified very few non-

    conformances. Early 2006 Chemical Processing audit was conducted at the same site

    resulted in 30 total non-conformances, 20 major and 10 minor. A review of the non-

    conformances showed that several of these non-conformances were systemic in nature. An

    incident report was written by PRI and following an investigation of the facts, it was

    determined that the auditor of the AQS audit would no longer be conducting AQS audits.

    The question was raised, “Is this issue related to an individual or is it a systemic issue

    with all Nadcap auditors?” Nadcap believes that this issue was specific to an individual

    and is going to re-audit the AQS at the facility in the near term.

    John Barrett suggested that the Task Group consider re-structuring the AQS audit to be

    more inclusive of all commodities subject to Nadcap accreditation and possibly increase

    the audit duration. Document which commodities the processor holds Nadcap

    accreditation. Document specific information concerning what the system audit entailed.

    It is important to understand that the AQS accreditation is not related only to the

    commodity being audited at the time but is related to the overall system.

    Page 4 of 8


    APRIL 2006

    Possible options are to: 1) Provide tools to assure full scope of AQS audit is evaluated, 2)

    need for revision of AC7004 Rev D, 3) John and Scott to continue to work with Nadcap

    auditors to assure competence, 4) special emphasis be paid during annual training, and 5)

    integrate with other Task Groups to assure the quality system evaluation is adequate.


    John Barrett requested AQS Task Group approval and recognition of him as an auditor

    for AQS. Motion made by Steve Meyer and seconded by Brion Nantista. Motion carried

    unanimously by all UVM’s in meeting.

    Current audit days for AQS and Distributor audits were reviewed which are documented

    in the Audit Grading Criteria (s-frm-16). Current audit days were accepted by the task

    group as valid.

     Analysis of all collected data from all AQS audits performed under AC7004 Rev C was

    provided by John Barrett. A volunteer from the Task Group is being solicited to analyze

    the spreadsheet data to determine specific information into: Variation by Auditor,

    Variation by Commodity, Frequency of findings by paragraph, Audits of one process

    house by different auditors, How do they compare/Look for significant differences, and

    How do the findings relate to the co-joined audit? Are there specific commodities that

    drive more or less findings?

    Need recommendation from the Task Group for what to do with the collected data. What

    reports related to the data does the Task Group want from Nadcap on a continuing basis?

    ACTION ITEM John Barrett is to provide the spreadsheet to the Task Group by May 15, 2006.

    ACTION ITEM John Barrett to provide information for audit where no AQS findings were written by May 15, 2006.

    ACTION ITEM Mark Covert and Zdenek Sitar are to analyze the spreadsheet data, provide analysis and present at the July Nadcap Meeting.

    ACTION ITEM Zdenek Sitar to conduct a presentation on the Honeywell Perspective of the European Quality System during the next AQS meeting.


    Standardization subcommittee was formed by NMC to standardize Task Groups to

    eliminate unnecessary variation. Task Group discussion was centered on the definitions

    for Major and Minor findings as shown in the presentation. The Task Group talked

    about the possibility of not using Major and Minor and substituting these categories with

    “Systemic”, “Non - Systemic”, and “with Product Impact”, with no suspected Product

    Impact”, or with Product Impact Investigation Needed”.

    Page 5 of 8


    APRIL 2006

    The Task Group was asked to vote on the current definition of Major and Minor as

    written in the NMC Presentation. The Task Group agreed by verbal ballot to approve

    language as written except to add

    1. Merit No discussion was required as Merit does not apply to AQS

    2. Proposed Quorum and Voting -

    a. Task Group felt that the Quorum and voting criteria when discussing

    Checklists, Policy, Command media needs to be further defined to indicate if

    it is related to meetings or procedural balloting etc. page 17

    b. Should be Checklist “drafts” on page 17

    c. Balloting Issue is that a 2/3rds majority will allow an audit to pass, it

    appears that this could deviate from current process. The Task Group

    decision was made to add the following “Audit package disapprovals require

    resolution prior to Acceptance”. Standardization Sub Committee

    11.0 s-frm-20 SUPPLIER AGREEMENT

    Scott Nelson presented a proposed revision to the supplier agreement Supplier Covenants

    and Agreements document, specifically paragraph 4.02 “Undertakings”. The idea is to

    assure that suppliers maintain the conditions that were in affect at the time of

    accreditation and to assure that the supplier does maintain their quality system for the

    duration of Nadcap accreditation. It was determined that the current language is

    acceptable as is.

    Supplier Agreement (s-frm-20)


    Review of NTGOP Appendix for all of the other Task Groups to compare what they all

    do and what we may want to include in our process. There are a number of items which

    are currently not included in our appendix such as, minimum requirements for Supplier

    Membership in AQS, handling con-joined audits, extensions of certs etc.

    The Task Group reviewed NTGOP appendix VI and developed a rough draft revision to

    the AQS appendix and made recommendations for revision.

NTGOP (2006-04-27)

ACTION ITEM Mike Coleman is to update Appendix VI for the July Meeting.

    Page 6 of 8


    APRIL 2006


    Current Nadcap procedure states only those auditors who are approved to audit to

    AC7004 are acceptable to be utilized as Distributor AQS auditors. Additionally criteria

    states that the Nadcap auditors must have been AS9100 auditors. There are only 4

    auditors today who meet the criteria. Recommendation of Nadcap Staff Engineer is to

    write a Sunset letter to all Nadcap approved distributors letting them know that Nadcap

    will no longer be auditing Distributors and they need to contact their customers for


ACTION ITEM Scott Nelson and John Barrett are to assess the impact to the Task

    Group if the decision is made to Sunset the Nadcap Distributor Accreditation Program

    for the July Meeting.

ACTION ITEM All Primes need to assess impact to Prime Contractors if Nadcap does

    decide to Sunset the Nadcap Distributors Accreditation Program for the July Meeting.


    Auditor training for AQS will be accomplished with two concurrent classes to be held on

    Saturday October 14 between 1:00 and 3:00 PM. John Barrett will put a strawman

    training program together that will be discussed during the July meeting. Primes need to

    identify at least 4 individuals who can be in Pittsburgh to support and provide the training.


    Move to adjourn made by Mike Coleman and seconded by Steve Meyer. Motion carried

    unanimously by all members present.

Minutes prepared by:

    Name: Mike Coleman

    Email address:

    ***** 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:

    Page 7 of 8


    APRIL 2006 Documents requiring Who is responsible: Due date: revision:

    Page 8 of 8

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email