COATINGS
FEBRUARY 2016
CONFIRMED
CONFIRMED MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22-25, 2016
MADRID, SPAIN
These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22 TO THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016
1.0 OPENING COMMENTS
1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check
The Coatings Task Group (CTTG) was called to order at 9:00 a.m., 22-Feb-2016.
It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portion of the meeting.
A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:
Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)
NAME / COMPANY NAMERichard / Blyth / Rolls-Royce
* / Branislav / Domko / Honeywell Aerospace
* / Patrick / Kiernan / Rolls-Royce
* / Erkan / Kilic / GE Aviation
* / Dan / Loveless / Parker Aerospace
Dennis / Meehan / Pratt & Whitney
* / Joel / Mohnacky / UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand) / Vice Chairperson
* / Francis / Monerie-Moulin / SAFRAN Group
Josefa / Rodriguez Baena / Airbus Defense & Space
* / Udo / Schuelke / Honeywell Aerospace / Chairperson
Ranganathan / Srinivansan / ST Aerospace Ltd.
Stanley / Trull / Honeywell Aerospace
Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)
NAME / COMPANY NAME* / Brent / Bartlett / Oerlikon Metco (Canada), Inc.
* / Phillip / Brockman / Techmetals, Inc.
* / Francisco / Contreras Gastelum / Ellison Surface Technologies
Marta / Davila / Industria de Turbo Propulsores
Sebongile Porti / Ditsele / Denel Aerostructures
Richard / Haberbosch / Aerotech Peissenberg GmbH & Co. KG
* / Dale / Harmon / Cincinnati Thermal Spray / Secretary
Holger / Kukla / Eifeler Werkzeuge GmbH, Schnaittach
Roger / Ng / Oerlikon Metco (Canada), Inc.
* / Steve / Payne / Praxair Surface Technologies
Tony / Poole / Paradigm Precision Burnley
* / Ronald / Stewart / Ellison Surface Technologies
* / Jeffrey / Tomczak / Techmetals, Inc.
Jack / Winteringham / Alcoa Power & Propulsion
PRI Staff Present
Justin / Rausch1.2 Safety Information – OPEN/CLOSED
Safety information for the meeting, including the crisis and evacuation plans for the hotel, was reviewed.
1.3 Review Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct – OPEN/CLOSED
Justin Rausch presented a tutorial explaining the functions of Nadcap and the CTTG, and reviewed the Nadcap Code of Ethics.
1.4 Present the Antitrust Video – OPEN/CLOSED
Justin Rausch showed a video on Antitrust, narrated by Joe Pinto, to participants.
1.5 Review Agenda – OPEN/CLOSED
The agenda for the meeting was reviewed. No changes were proposed or made.
1.6 Expectations – OPEN/CLOSED
Attendees were given the opportunity to identify expectations to be addressed during the week of meetings. A list was started in the closed meeting and reviewed again in the open meeting. Expectations beyond agenda items: avoiding hasty reactions to issues presented, following the developed Checklist Revision Guidelines, checklist consistency, potentially tracking spray booth/blast cabinet identification and time spent per scope during audits, how violations of repair manuals and self-imposed industry standards are treated.
1.7 Acceptance of Meeting Minutes – OPEN
Motion made by Udo Schuelke and seconded by Dan Loveless to approve the minutes for the October 2015 meeting held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania without change. Motion passed.
2.0 REVIEW DELEGATION STATUS – CLOSED
Data was reviewed for CTTG Subscriber concurrence with audit report reviewer decisions. The delegated audit report reviewers (Jim Lewis, Bob Lizewski, and Justin Rausch) met the criteria of over 10% audits reviewed and greater than 90% concurrence. Their delegation is maintained.
3.0 tASK gROUP RESOLUTION ITEMS – CLOSED
Presentation from Rolls Royce – Patrick Kiernan and Richard Blyth presented concerns over issues found within two of Rolls Royce’s Suppliers. One of these two Suppliers has a Nadcap accreditation for Coatings. The issues identified center around inadequate surface preparation in the grit blast area. The discussion highlighted changes being made to Roll Royce specifications and the potential for improvement to the Coatings audit criteria. This investigation is on-going, and progress will be reported during the June Nadcap meeting in London.
ACTION ITEM: Justin Rausch to set up monthly teleconferences between Rolls Royce and the CTTG Subscriber Voting Members to keep updated on the investigation into surface preparation issues. (Due Date: 18-Mar-2016).
ACTION ITEM: Justin Rausch and Patrick Kiernan to further analyze the Coatings audit process with respect to the Supplier identified in the Rolls Royce investigation to determine potential audit process improvements that would have highlighted the issue. (Due Date: 20-Jun-2016).
ACTION ITEM: Patrick Kiernan to develop a technical briefing emphasizing the importance of proper surface preparation based on the findings of the Rolls Royce investigation to be presented at the 2016 Auditor Conference. (Due Date: 23-Oct-2016).
Violation of self-imposed industry standards – The Staff Engineer requested Task Group resolution to determine if a violation of a self-imposed industry standard warranted a Major designation for “The Supplier to Evaluate Impact of Hardware”. The CTTG determined that if the part is being certified to an industry standard and a requirement from that standard was violated, the resulting NCR is to be classified as a Major with need for the Supplier to evaluate impact. Written exceptions are allowed if they are listed on the certification. However, the CTTG will take a closer look at the “Supplier to Evaluate Impact” designation and how it is assigned as a whole during the June Nadcap meeting in London.
ACTION ITEM: Justin Rausch to draft Coatings Audit Handbook guidance defining the classification of NCRs written against customer specification, industry standard, frozen process, or maintenance, repair, and overhaul manual requirements. (Due Date: 20-Jun-2016).
Review of Audit 166908 and 155092 – The Staff Engineer requested Task Group resolution to determine if the accreditation for Audit 155092 was valid. Two separate audits have been conducted for the same facility. After further investigation, the original Supplier listed at the facility has split into two different companies. The division of work has all of the coating application completed by one Supplier, while coating evaluation is performed by the other Supplier. Coating evaluation to AC7109/5 was listed as a stand-alone accreditation at the one Supplier. This does not meet the Nadcap requirements for a Coatings audit. The CTTG resolved to allow the current accreditation to AC7109/5 to be carried out until its expiration. Any future audits at the coating evaluation facility will need to be conducted as a Materials Testing Laboratories audit.
Review of Audit 161484, NCR 4 and Observation 1. The Staff Engineer requested Task Group resolution to determine if AC7109/5 should be removed from the scope of this audit. Currently, the facility does not employ a full-time laboratory technician. NCR responses have indicated that all coating certification are being performed by an outside laboratory. The Supplier does have one contract laboratory technician. The CTTG decided that AC7109/5 would be removed from the scope of the audit unless the Supplier could provide evidence of capability to perform coating evaluations on-site.
4.0 AUDITOR CONSISTENCY – CLOSED
4.1 Review Observation Plan
The 2015 audit observation plan was reviewed. Four of five candidates for observation for 2015 were observed. The one candidate who was not observed chose to leave the CTTG (and PRI) as an auditor before an observation could be completed. Beyond the candidates for observation plan, four additional observations were performed in 2015.
The 2016 audit observation plan was developed. Based on the requirements defined in the CTTG Auditor Consistency Work Instructions, one candidate for observation was identified for 2016.
Observation reports submitted after the October 2015 Nadcap meeting were not reviewed due to technical issues. These observation reports will be reviewed during the June 2016 Nadcap meeting in London.
4.2 Review Auditor Consistency Data
Auditor consistency data was reviewed. The review included: individual Auditor evaluations and Supplier feedback for all audits conducted between 1-Sep-2015 and 31-Jan-2016; peer comparison of average number of NCRs written per audit day; and influence of failure criteria on written NCRs per audit; Supplier feedback comments expressed concerns about inconsistencies with two auditors. After review of both No responses to the Supplier feedback question asking if the auditor was consistent compared to previous auditors, the CTTG determined that no additional actions were required for either auditor.
The Coatings Auditor Consistency Work Instructions were reviewed and updated to include a statement that a Coatings-specific appendix to the t-frm-01 is not required.
Motion made by Motion made by Dan Loveless and seconded by Udo Schuelke to approve the changes made to the Coatings Auditor Consistency Work Instructions. Motion passed.
As a result of reviewing auditor consistency data, no further actions are needed at this time.
4.3 Review Dashboard Metrics
The Coatings dashboard metrics through 31-Jan-2016 were presented by Justin Rausch and reviewed by the Task Group.
Checklist Revisions Resulting from Auditor Feedback, Goal None: Green – 7 changes made due to auditor feedback in AC7109/1 Rev D, 5 changes made due to auditor feedback in AC7109 Rev E.
Frequency of Auditor Consistency Data Review, Goal Annually: Green – On the February 2016 meeting agenda (Reviewed every meeting).
New Auditor Training, Goal 95%: Green – 100% 14 of 14 auditors answered “Yes” that the New Auditor Training was effective since February 2015. One of one CT auditor stated that the CT specific training was effective.
Supplier Feedback Question 15, Goal 100%: Yellow – 98% Suppliers answered “Yes” that the auditor was consistent compared to previous auditors for 40 of 42 audits.
5.0 Membership and succession planning – open
5.1 Current Voting Member Participation [Meetings and Ballots]
The voting records and meeting attendance for CTTG Voting Members (Subscriber and Supplier) were reviewed for compliance to the requirements for maintaining membership. The requirements state that to maintain membership a member must not be absent without approved alternate representation from three consecutive regular Nadcap Task Group meetings and the member, or approved alternate representation, shall not miss a vote on more than 2 consecutive letter ballots. The Task Group Chairperson is allowed to waive these requirements if other circumstances warrant retention. All Voting Members met the membership requirements.
5.2 New Voting Members
Motion made to approve Branislav Domko from Honeywell Aerospace as a new Alternate Subscriber Voting Member (AUVM). Motion passed and member was confirmed by CTTG Chairperson Udo Schuelke.
Motion made to approve Francisco Contreras Gastelum from Ellison Surface Technologies as a new Alternate Supplier Voting Member (ASVM). Motion passed and member was confirmed by CTTG Chairperson Udo Schuelke.
5.3 Succession Plan
The current CTTG succession plan was reviewed with Udo Schuelke as the Chairperson, Joel Mohnacky as the Vice-Chairperson, and Björn Kjellman as the Alternate Vice-Chairperson.
Dan Loveless from Parker Aerospace stepped down from the position of Alternate Vice-Chairperson.
6.0 Metrics – open
6.1 NMC
The NMC metrics through 31-Jan-2016 were presented by Justin Rausch and reviewed by the Task Group.
Auditor Capacity, Goal 130%: Green – 151% capacity projected through July 2016.
On-Time Certifications, Goal 98% on-time: Green – 100% no lapsed cert through January 2016.
Supplier Merit, Goal 80%: Yellow – 75% on merit as of January 2016.
Cycle Time (Initial) Oct 2015-Jan 2016, 4 audit
Total, Goal 53 days: Green Jan (51) days, Yellow Oct (55) days, No initials in Nov, Dec.
Staff, Goal 17 days: Green Oct, Jan (12, 10) days, No initials in Nov, Dec.
Supplier, Goal 28 days: Green Jan (27) days, Red Oct (33) days, No initials in Nov, Dec.
Cycle Time (Reaccreditation) Oct 2015-Jan 2016, 43 audits
Total, Goal 53 days: Green all months (45, 50, 42, 46) days.
Staff, Goal 17 days: Green all months (6, 9, 8, 7) days.
Supplier, Goal 28 days: Green Oct, Dec, Jan (27, 22, 26) days. Yellow Nov (29) days
7.0 first time supplier feedback – open
No first time Suppliers were in attendance.
8.0 Subscriber Accred scope exception Resolutions – open
No Subscriber Accred resolution items were discussed.
9.0 rail (rolling action item list) – open
The Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) was reviewed.
For specific details on all RAIL items, please see the current Coatings Rolling Action Item List posted at www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.
10.0 INDUSTRY STANDARD CHAMPION REPORT – OPEN
The Coatings Industry Standard watch list was reviewed. Dan Loveless discussed changes to ASTM E4 made in December 2015. These changes do not require revision to AC7109/5. No other revision changes have been made to the relevant standards.
11.0 SSC Introduction – open
Jeff Tomczak (Techmetals, Inc.), Coatings representative to the Supplier Support Committee (SSC), presented an overview of the SSC and its activities along with the agenda items for Tuesday’s general SSC meeting.
12.0 OP 1110 – OPEN
Proposed OP 1110 Mode B Failure Criteria for initial and reaccreditation audits were reviewed to establish the criteria for 2016. The proposed criteria were calculated using two (2) years of data (2014 and 2015) and a failure threshold of 96.5%. For reaccreditations, the calculated criteria are one (1) NCR less, for both Majors and Total per audit day, than the existing criteria that have remained unchanged since 2011. The CTTG preferred the current criteria and rejected the proposed change.
For initials, the proposed criteria were several NCRs less than the current criteria established in 2011. The CTTG determined that the current criteria for Major NCRs would remain the same. Additionally, the CTTG decided that proposed criteria for the total number of NCRs were too strict and that the current criteria were too lenient. The CTTG chose the criteria proposed in 2013 as a compromise between the two sets of numbers.
Motion made by Dan Loveless and seconded by Francis Monerie-Moulin to keep the existing OP 1110 Mode B failure criteria for reaccreditations and major NCRs during initials while changing the criteria for total NCRs during initials to 5, 10 ,15, 20, and 24 NCRS for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 day audits, respectively. Motion passed.
ACTION ITEM: Justin Rausch to submit the revised failure criteria for OP 1110 to document owner, Mike Graham. (Due Date: 14-Mar-2016).