HEAT TREAT

July 2005

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

JULY 18-21, 2005

HOLIDAY INN, KENSINGTON FORUM

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

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, JULY 18, 2005 (User Meeting)

Closed meetings were held on Monday and Thursday. Open meetings were held on Tuesday and Wednesday. If a subject was discussed in both open and closed session, it is reported under the open session.

1.0 /

OPENING COMMENTS

1.1 /

CALL TO ORDER/QUORUM CHECK

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson John Gourley. Quorum requirements were met at all times for both Open and Closed meetings.
Attendance
An attendance sheet was routed and annotated by attendees. The combined meeting attendance for the four days was as follows:
User Members Present:
Bernhard Honemann / Airbus (Germany)
Helmut Wielenberg / Airbus (Germany)
Peter Edwards / Airbus (UK)
Giuseppe Campanile / Alenia Aeronautica
Doug Matson / Boeing, Wichita
William Stewart / Bombardier
Mitch Nelson / Cessna Aircraft
Pedro Rosas Bernaldo de Quiros / EADS-CASA
Marc Taillandier / Eurocopter (France)
Thomas Pfannenmueller / Eurocopter (Germany)
Doug Wilson / GE Transportation
Tom Norris / Goodrich Aerostructures
John Gourley / Honeywell
Andreas Elbs / Liebherr Aerospace
Eddy Pham / Northrop Grumman
Andy Snow / Raytheon Aircraft
Susan Margheim / Rockwell Collins
Steve Maus / Rolls Royce (US)
Phillip Cox / Rolls Royce (UK)
Tom Murphy / Sikorsky Aircraft
Robert Faticanti / Textron Systems
Jas Malhotra / Vought
PRI STAFF:
Jerry Aston
Other participants/members:
Larry Phipps / Alcoa Fastening Systems
Alison Wilkinson / Beagle Aircraft
Christian Tournier / Bodycote
Derek Alty / Bodycote Heat Treatments Ltd
Bill Hewitt / Bodycote Heat Treatments Ltd
Ed Jamieson / Bodycote Thermal Processing
Bob Lehnen / Bodycote Thermal Processing
Johanna Lisa / Continental Heat Treating
John Pease / Corus Engineering Steels
Ivan Christiansen / Gardner Aerospace
Arash Hatefi / Gardner Aerospace
Nick Brenton / Goodrich Engine Controls System
Zia Karim / Heat Treat Professionals, Inc.
John Kunkle / Howmet Dover
Tony Denton / Howmet Ltd
Sergio Bibao / ITP Spain
Frederikus Jonck / Maycast-Nokes Precision Engr.
Elena Ritolli / Metallurgical Processing
Stu Sherman / Metallurgical Processing
Bob Akin / Quality Heat Treating
Roger Bird / TTI Group
Steve Britten / TTI Group
Radu Ionescu / Turbomecanica
Peter Carpenter / Wallwork Heat Treatment
Nick Olpin / Wallwork Heat Treatment
Petr Sramek / Walter Engines A.S.
Dave Sullivan / Wyman Gordon
Lu Weilin / Xian
Ma Xiaoqing / Xian
Tang Yongfeng / Xian
1.0 /

CALL TO ORDER/QUORUM CHECK

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gourley. A quorum of primes was present at all times.
2.0 /

AUDIT REPORT REVIEWS

The Task Group closed 136 audits (95 reaccreditations (of which 56 received 18 month and 4 the newly instituted 24 month accreditations), 23 initials, 7 follow ups, and 11 failures) between April and July. These were all done using eAuditNet.
3.0 / Work Assignments and Workload
The Task Group signed up for audits to be done in next quarter. There are presently 25 voting members. However, six have just become eligible and did not sign up this quarter, At least three members have limitations on their participation, so there are really only 16 reviewers.
At about 170 audits to clear this quarter by 4 hours by 2 members, the average workload for this quarter will still be around 30 hours per month for each member. NMC needs to continue to work the management support issue.
4.0 / Metrics
The Task Group reviewed the metrics as supplied by PRI.
§  Auditor capacity is YELLOW, since we are still below the required margin. PRI recruiting is addressing this
§  On time certs is YELLOW. We are still running at over 15% lapsed accreditations
§  Supplier cycles to close on initials and reaccreditations is RED
§  Percent eligible on merit is YELLOW, note that the goal was redefined from 75 to 80% Prime cycle time needs discussion; it is GREEN for initials, but RED for reaccreditations. Since there is procedurally a minimum of 7 days for each ballot, this may need refining/
§  All staff cycle times and all prime support metrics are GREEN
Some thoughts on metrics
·  It was again noted that follow up audits do not stop the clock and are a driver for our time metrics. We could start failing, but we do not think that is the correct response.
·  Task Group will examine the reasons for the five accreditations that lapsed from last month
·  Cycle count is still affected by administrative cycle issue
·  AQS delays are still occurring, but should vanish with new policy to schedule AC7004
·  Staff should be contacting prime members as needed if prime response is holding up closure
At NMC request, we discussed why percentage of eligible suppliers attaining merit is decreasing. We reviewed with Glenn Shultz. In particular, 75% of suppliers were attaining merit as soon as eligible. It is now more like 66%. Primary reason not to attain merit is repeat findings. One theory put forward is that European suppliers may have more repeats because of unfamiliarity with AMS 2750. We will look at some suppliers not attaining merit to see what shows up. Glenn Shultz offered to pull out any data we needed. It was also noted that we began allowing merit after second audit only since the January 2004 meeting. It had been after three.
5.0 / Pilot Audits
There were no new pilots but more thoughts were expressed on previous feedback. The added AQS questions should not increase audit time. We need to train auditors to use them to write NCR against based on observation during the audit not as a requirement to answer them to validate QC documentation.
Pyrometry could be reduced in a couple of ways and will be much less under D revision. More will be discussed in October. It will also be more efficient to use table driven job audits, but fewer short jobs is not good idea.
6.0 / Delegation
The Task Group reviewed concurrence data for the past three months. Jerry Aston, Anne Allen, John Ewing and Laura Fisher are still maintaining acceptable concurrence rates and their delegation is continued. The Task Group requests that the staff continue to use this format and to include a summary of total NCR’s closed and percent concurrence.
7.0 / Staff Training
Jerry Aston still needs to observe an aluminum audit and has committed to do so by end of year. Jerry Aston and John Ewing have satisfied AQS audit requirements. Laura will observe an AQS audit November 14-18, 2005.
A new staff engineer, Marcel Cuperman will be coming on board. A training plan has been developed and we will start the delegation process.
8.0 / Twenty-Four Month Accreditation
The NTGOP now establishes criteria for 24 month accreditation. Congratulations to the first four suppliers received 24 month accreditation this quarter.
9.0 / Queries of eAuditNet
We now have feedback on number of NCR by question. We asked staff to disregard job audits since it isn’t possible to separate flowdown form discipline, but we did keep those as a separate category.
Most common findings on initial are pyrometry, start of soak, round robin. Essentially the same findings in slightly different order occur on reaccreditations. This suggests that there are no “problem questions” but misunderstanding of pyrometry. This is not good news since we have already tried to address this in the Pyrometry Guide. There may be further disruption since AMS
2750D is going to Aerospace Council and should be published before October. There will then be checklist revision, roll out and prime implementation. It looks like we will need a new guide.
We should try to get new supplier(s) to discuss their experience. It was suggested that there should be a full day in Los Angeles and again in Beijing for supplier workshops.
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2005 (Open Meeting)
1.2 / Minutes
Minutes from the April 2005 meeting were accepted as posted.
2.0 / HTSTSTG
Johanna Lisa reported on the Sub Task Group meeting, which was attended by 25 to 30 suppliers.
NMC has tasked them with reducing cycle time and increasing merit. They still need vice chair; anyone interested should e-mail Johanna Lisa (). The complete minutes of the HTSTSTG will be posted on the PRI website. The following minutes reflect the open meeting discussions.
2.1 / High Priority Findings
The Sub Task Group still wants to provide example findings or findings that need to be disseminated. There is still concern about anonymity and, so far, only Johanna Lisa’s organizations have so far offered examples.
2.2 / Flowdown Issues
Flowdown of correct revisions and interpretation of requirements remains a topic of concern. Suppliers ask that primes try to improve responsiveness during the audit and response review. Every prime has a response system and the suggestion was made that each prime should document their process. In the interim, direct contact with the appropriate Task Group member is encouraged. Staff to provide prime contact information to suppliers.
This is a general issue not specific to Heat Treat and should go to NMC for further action. It was also noted that the Handbook is a source for interpretations. Suppliers talked about asking PRI to measure responsiveness (i.e., how quickly primes reply to supplier requests) and advising primes. It was also suggested that PRI staff review prime specs for clarity, but this is outside their scope and not a good use of resources. Suppliers should submit problem specs to PRI for use in training.
2.3 / HTTG Top Ten
The primes shared anonymous results of review of findings by question. Pyrometry and job compliance clearly drive performance. Staff will post these summaries where suppliers can review. Sub Task Group still wants to go to posted findings and good responses. However, we are not allowed to this because of confidentiality agreements. The suppliers must volunteer their findings for use. Or we could consider posting typical good and bad responses, not specific to a real finding.
2.4 / Auditor Advisories
It was asked if suppliers can also receive auditor advisories either by mass e-mail or “subscription” (or at least that the STG chair be included and could then decide to distribute further through PRI). Laura will follow up. It was also suggested advisories should be automatically attached to the handbook until incorporated. It was also asked that handbook changes be shown with revision bars and staff reports that new additions are currently underlined when the version on eAuditNet is updated.
2.5 / Auditor consistency
Since we can track findings by question, it was asked if we can track by auditor. The concerns would especially be voided findings, other patterns or a tendency to write findings against certain specs. Chem. Process tracks question by auditor, but we believe they do it manually. Jerry Aston will see what enhancements are in queue.
2.6 / Miscellaneous STSTG Items
·  The concept of “administrative cycles” need review, and it clearly affect metrics (see Mitch Nelson presentations). SSC did not seriously champion this concept for HTSTTG, so the Task Group will take it to NMC.
·  SSC mentoring program needs volunteers
·  In order to increasing merit, suppliers need to do self-audits. Especially to avoid repeat findings
·  Audit feedback and auditor feedback forms are being submitted to headquarters and placed in the auditors’ personnel files. As of August 4, 2005, there is a mandatory supplier survey which is required to be filled out prior to the supplier submitting the first round of responses.
3.0 / Airbus Problem Solving
NMC has no objection to use of 8D as an alternate RCCA tool, which is the sub-team proposal.
Several suppliers agree to use in their next audit, so we should have data in October. Discussion centered on while it may not be best tool for small problems, it may be perfect for others.
4.0 / AMEC/AMS 2750 Revision Status Report
Affirmation of what is again the D revision is expected without comment and it is on way to Aerospace Council for 28 day ballot. It could be released as early as September. The Task Group team will develop checklist questions for review in October and if possible will send out a copy in advance for review with the released spec.
In other AMEC news, they are working a limited scope on AMS 2770, including calibration of refractometers. There are two schools of thought, with little or no give. One favors standards from the actual polymer in use, the other the NIST sugar standard. At this point, the Task Group is not planning to take a position.
AMEC also has renewed interest in ARP1962 training standard in terms of improving the document then making mandatory. They are also looking at ARP 5264 on pyrometry personnel.
5.0 /
Late Audit Drivers
At the last meeting, Mitch Nelson agreed to do some analysis of late audits. Some expirations are due to late scheduling, some due to follow ups. Those aside, his review showed that the clear driver for expired certs is days in review, which is driven by number of rounds, which are driven by incomplete communication.
There needs to be better communication between staff and suppliers. Supplier answers are often non-responsive or confusing or only partially respond to the staff question. It was also suggested that we republish objective evidence rules. These rules are, in fact, available as a link in every NCR. As “click here for directions on how to respond to a NCR”. We should also re-emphasize that operator error is not an acceptable root cause although it may be in the path to the real root cause. John Gourley offered to follow up with supplier we reviewed in Task Group eAuditNet training who had excellent responses. Ideally, we would get permission to scrub and post these responses.