CONVENTIONAL MACHINING AS A SPECIAL PROCESS TASK GROUP

OCTOBER 2012

CONFIRMED MINUTES

CONFIRMED MINUTES

OCTOBER 22 - 25, 2012

OMNI WILLIAM PENN HOTEL

PITTSBURGH, PA USA

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

MONDAY, OCTOBER 22 to THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25

1.0Opening Comments - Closed

Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Conventional Machining as a Special Process Task Group (CMSPTG) was called to order at 1:00 p.m., 22-Oct-12.

It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed session of the meeting.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME / COMPANY
* / Ken / Abram / Honeywell Aerospace / Chairperson
* / Nicolas / Batista / SAFRAN / Vice Chairperson
* / Marco / Cherubini / Avio S.p.A.
* / Philippe-Jacques / Durand / Eurocopter
* / John / Pfeiffer / GE Aviation / Secretary
Doug / Webb / Honeywell Aerospace
Calijia / Zelijko / Goodrich (UTAS)

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME / COMPANY NAME
John / Cammet / PRI Consultant / Auditor
Arthur / Dorfe / PRI Consultant / Auditor
Rick / Pollack / PRI Consultant / Auditor
Nai / Puay-Guan / PRI Consultant / Auditor
Rick / Scott / PRI Consultant / Auditor
John / Tattersall / PRI Consultant / Auditor
Brad / Woodiel / PRI Consultant / Auditor

PRI Staff Present

Andy / Statham

The PRI video covering anti-trust, export control, and conflict of interest was viewed.

John Pfeiffer has been appointed as Secretary, in lieu of any new volunteers.

2.0Subscriber Clarifications– CLOSED

Andy Statham has created a new document to log Supplier clarifications. They will be reviewed at each meeting and then posted on eAuditNet.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to remove audit numbers and other specific identifiers from the Subscriber Clarification running log.(Due Date:30-Nov-12)

The Task Group (TG) needs to provide guidance on which devices need to be calibrated (reference AC7126/6 6.7.9), based on an audit where the need to calibrate the run-time meter on a vibratory finisher where the meter was used to set the media replenishment cycle. “Calibration” vs. “verification”? Subscribers are to add guidance to Appendix A where appropriate.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to update Appendix A for question AC7126/6 6.7.9, regarding which devices do or do not need to be calibrated. Also consider whether guidance should be added for similar questions on the other slash sheets. (Due Date: 15-Feb-13)

The TG needs to provide guidance on calibration requirements for coolant monitoring systems where they exist. Distinguish between “monitoring” and “alarm”.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribers to provide clarification where appropriate on calibration requirements for coolant monitoring systems (ref AC7126/1 5.5.1.2 and 5.5.2.3).(Due Date: 15-Feb-13)

ACTION ITEM: Marco Cherubini to prepare a presentation on Coolant for Pittsburgh 2013. (Due Date: 25-Oct-13)

AC7126 Base Draft Rev B was balloted. 4 approved and 1 disapproved. 6 (of 11) are required to pass the ballot. After the comments are reviewed the revision will be re-balloted.

3.0SUBSCRIBERS METRICS – CLOSED

Delegation Review:

  • Both Staff Engineers (Rick Sovich and Andy Statham) have reviewed about 18 audits so far towards delegation. Rick Sovich will be participating less as he focuses on other initiatives.

NCR Analysis

Metrics were compiled by Melanie Petrucci.

  • Base Checklist AC7126: 8.2.1 (cutting fluid maintenance procedure) and 9.2.1 (machine maintenance plan) are the most common findings. The TG feels the checklist questions are clear enough.
  • AC7126/1: 5.3.9.1 (coolant nozzle positioning in work instructions), 5.7.7 (actual process matches approved process)
  • AC7126/2-6: Insufficient data to draw any conclusions due to the low numbers of audits to date.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to establish whether the audits/day metric represents ½ day audits. (Due Date: 30-Nov-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to remove the auditor-specific information from the audit finding analyses so that it can be posted on eAuditNet to help suppliers prepare for audits. Staff is also to investigate if it is possible to combine repeat Slash Sheet questions (e.g. 5.3.9.1 and 6.3.9.1) on those same documents. (Due Date:30-Nov-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to look into re-organizing checklists (similar to NDT) so that repeat questions for additional job audits do not appear to be separate questions in eAuditNet. This should make both loading audits and compiling metrics easier.(Due Date: 15-Feb-13)

TABLED ITEM: Meeting review of Auditor metrics has been tabled until the next Closed session (February 2013 meeting)

Oversight Audits

  • One oversight audit in the past quarter. There is a need for TG Subscribers to continue to support this initiative.

NUCAP

  • There are no NUCAP CMSP audits.

4.0Review of Auditor Conference – CLOSED

Auditor comments on training:

  • ½ day was not sufficient time.
  • Subscriber presentations were informative and technical presentations should continue to be provided.

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff to determine if other Subscribers need to leave the meeting when a Subscriber is presenting prime-specific requirements (e.g. during auditor training).(Due Date: 30-Nov-12)

ACTION ITEM: Marco Cherubini to supply his Surface Integrity Auditor training presentation to be posted for general use. (Due Date: 25-Oct-12) Item completed 25-Oct-12

ACTION ITEM:John Pfeiffer to supply the Tool Control presentation from October 2011 to be posted for general use (if possible).(Due Date: 25-Oct-12) Item completed 25-Oct-12

  • Potential future technical topics:
  • Basics of NC program code
  • RoMAN failure data summary
  • WZL Process monitoring
  • Coolant control (Ken Abram)
  • Future general topics
  • Specific concerns/emphasis of the Subscribers
  • First-time vs. re-accreditation audit findings
  • Edgebreak/Transitions

Auditor Suggestions:

  • 2.2.1 should be converted to a question to enforce pre-audit discipline. Also require Suppliers to list their internal procedure references against checklist questions. Reference AC7116paragraph 2.2.7 as an example.
  • Can CMSP turn this into an audit question? If so, what Subscriber requirement would it flow from? Andy Statham and Ken Abram will raise this question at the NMC meeting.
  • Even without making it a question, should the TG leverage the AC7116 wording regarding Specification/Procedure cross-referencing to the current 2.2.1 wording?

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff and Ken Abram to discuss making completion of the pre-audit an AC7126 question at the February 2013 TG Chair/Staff Engineer Round Table meeting.(Due Date: 22-Feb-13)

Auditor Suggestions Cont.:

  • Need to have the TG review the number of job audits required per slash sheets, the scope of those audits (e.g. does a single job audit include multiple operations if the feature is produced at multiple operations?), and how many days are to be allocated.

ACTION ITEM:Task Group review the number of job audits required per slash sheets, the scope of those audits (e.g. does a single job audit include multiple operations if the feature is produced at multiple operations?), and how many days are to be allocated. – February. (Due Date: 22-Feb-13)

5.0CLOSED NEW BUSINESS – CLOSED

No items brought forward to discuss.

6.0OPEN SESSION OPENING COMMENTS – OPEN

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME / COMPANY NAME
Michael / Bath / DCMA
* / Tim / Crowe / Hunting Dearborn
Becky / DeGutis / SAE
Doug / Evans / Janicki Industries
* / Brad / Gould / Hunting Dearborn
* / James / Jensen / Moeller Manufacturing
Hubert / Kern / FACC AG
Kyle / Lindsey / Danville Metal Stamping
Mike / Nosek / Precision Aerospace
David / Osenar / PAKO, Inc.
Jack / Rockstad / Precision Gear, Inc.
Tim / Scarlett / Danville Metal
Bill / Vaith / Janicki Industries

The PRI video covering anti-trust, export control, and conflict of interest was viewed.

Motion made by John Pfeiffer and seconded by Doug Webb to approve the minutes from the June 2012 meeting as written.

Motion Passed

Brad Gould of Hunting Dearborn volunteered to serve as the CMSP representative to the SSC.

7.0CLOSED MEETING DEBRIEF – OPEN

Ken Abram presented the major discussion points of Closed Meeting.

NCR Report-out

  • See prior day’s minutes. Data re-presented for the benefit of the Suppliers present. No discussion from the Suppliers.

8.0STAFF REPORT AND RAIL REVIEW – OPEN

Task Group Metrics

  • Andy Statham reviewed current TG membership metrics. There are currently 3 members mandating (GE Aviation, SAFRAN, and Honeywell Aerospace). As of 22 October (this meeting), we now have an SSC representative.

Changes to Procedures

  • Andy Statham reviewed changes to Nadcap procedures. No discussion.

Discussion of Merit

  • There are a number of companies that have already had three audits. At least one has been granted merit. There are a significant number (~20) of Suppliers that are scheduled for their third audits this year.
  • A discussion of Merit criteria was added to the Agenda for Thursday.

RAIL Review

  • The RAIL has been reviewed and updated.

9.0Review P&O, SSC, and TG Chair Agenda – OPEN

  • SSC: Review of SSC agenda
  • P&O: Review of agenda
  • TG &SE chair roundtable: review of agenda

No further actions or subjects identified

10.0AC7126/7 – OPEN

Rick Scott suggested just using the current checklists, but ignoring any questions that refer to specific customer requirements rather than creating a new /7 checklist. This approach would likely result in Suppliers signing up for a number of processes (e.g. holemaking + turning + milling) which could lead to longer audits. The /7 approach might result in shorter, lower cost, audits.

Brad Gould suggested a three-tier system:the base, a /7 with common questions from each of the slash sheets, and “skinnied-down” slash sheets containing only the unique questions. Then a later audit for a Subscriber could include only the third-tier checklists, which would presumably be shorter and cheaper.

Andy Statham questioned whether there is really a need? How many Suppliers would sign up for a generic audit?

TABLED ITEM: Discussion of possible /7 checklist has been tabled until the Subscribers most likely to use this approach for their supply base are present.

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff to send an e-mail to the team indicating that /7 has been tabled until such time as a Prime expresses a need.(Due Date: 25-Oct-12) Item was completed 25-Oct-12

Above item was closed at this meeting.

11.0CLARIFICATION AND AUDIT HANDBOOK UPDATE – OPEN

There is only one clarification – regarding GE’s GT-193 authorizations to perform Special Processes as discussed earlier.

The Handbook needs to be updated to match the revision of the Base document. Subscribers also need to update their entries to Appendix A.

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff to re-order the handbook to match the revision B of AC7126. The TG will work on adjusting the guidance wording as required after the current text has been re-ordered. (Due Date: 18-Jan-13)

ACTION ITEM:Task Group to update the Handbook Appendix A to match the revisions to the Base document.(Due Date: 22-Feb-13)

12.0REVIEW COMMENTS TO AC7126 BALLOT – OPEN

  • The Task Group agreed to eliminate 8.1.2 as redundant to 8.1.1.
  • Question 8.1.3 and the accompanying guidance were updated for clarity, with no change to requirements.
  • 11.6 & 11.7 are deleted as being redundant to 11.1 and 11.3. - editorial
  • 7.1.7 – The TG engaged in significant discussion around the ability of a tool purchaser to require and receive information from tool Suppliers about modifications (e.g. carbide grade) to stock tools. Consensus on an effective approach was not reached, but “assure” was changed to “require” in the question, and the word “foreseen” was removed to better match the question to the ability of the Supplier to control incoming tools. - editorial
  • 7.15 – The question was clarified with no change to requirements.

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff to notify Rick Scott that the team eliminated three AC7126 audit questions to shorten the checklist as he requested. (Due Date: 30-Nov-12)

13.0Supplier Training – Deep Dive on Process Monitoring – OPEN

John’s presentation is available in eAudit.net

14.0REVIEW COMMENTS TO PLANNED EDGEBREAK SUB-SECTION – OPEN

Draft questions were circulated to the team to enhance the review of Edgebreak Processes within /1-/5 audits for cases where the Subscriber does not require a separate /6 Edgebreak audit. This would be the case, for example, where the Edgebreak/transition zone is considered part of the base feature.

The team discussed a series of proposed questions and made changes to some. A concern was raised as to whether the proposed questions are sufficient and the team was unable to re-construct the process by which they were collected. It is agreed that the /6 checklist will be reviewed at the February 2013 meeting to determine which questions might be pulled in to the other slash sheets.

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff to add continuing discussion of potentially adding Edgebreak questions to the /1-/5 checklists to the February 2013 agenda. (Due Date: 16-Nov-12)

Topics include:

  • If a significant number of questions are pulled forward, how will that impact the time required for the audit?
  • Note that /1 already covers topics such as hone, abrasive flow, & jig grind for finishing of holes. This was accomplished mainly by adjusting existing questions rather than adding questions.
  • Would a Subscriber-specific slash sheet be an appropriate tool?

15.0REVIEW CHECKLIST REVISION SUGGESTION LIST – OPEN

The PRI video covering anti-trust, export control, and conflict of interest was viewed.

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME / COMPANY NAME
Steve / Bissell / Alloy Specialties
Michael / Graham / PRI
Rose / Sadosky / Alloy Specialties
Sunder / Rajan / Raytheon

Grinding after Heat Treatment – Additions to AC7126/5

  • Sunder Rajan presented suggested additions to the grinding checklist based on information from the Metcut publication Low Stress Grinding for Quality Production. Based on TG discussion, several updates were proposed to the checklist.

ACTION ITEM:John Pfeiffer to contact TechSolve to see if the team could make copies of Low Stress Grinding for Quality Production and publish on eAuditNet. If allowed by TechSolve, Brad Gould is willing to create an electronic copy. (Due Date: 15-Feb-13)

The TG is unable to reverse-engineer the current status of the checklist drafts. Andy Statham presented a long list of comments (Excel spreadsheet), but it is unclear which may have been incorporated into drafts already. PRI staff will try to locate/identify the most recent drafts of the various slash sheets and then compare the proposed revision list to the drafts.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to locate/identify the most recent drafts of the various slash sheets and then compare the proposed revision list to the drafts.(Due Date: 30-Nov-12)

16.0Meeting Reports – Open

Andy Statham, Ken Abram, and Brad Gould summarized the activities of the Planning & Operations, TG Chair Round Table, NMC, and SSC meetings.

17.0CHECKLIST TRANSLATION – OPEN

Currently have Chinese translations and French translations for all but /6, on which Nicolas Batista is working. Ken Abram is moving toward Spanish translations and will report out at the February 2013 meeting in Dallas.

ACTION ITEM:Ken Abram to report out in February on the status of Spanish translations.(Due Date: 22-Feb-13)

18.0PROCEDURE REVIEW FOR TASK GROUP – OPEN

NOP-003: Staff Engineer Delegated Authority

NOP-006: Supplier Advisory

NOP-007: Oversight Audits – Significant discussion ensued regarding PIA implications in the case where an Observer might wish to observe an audit at a facility where another Subscriber’s parts are the only CMSP products. This will become less an issue as more CMSP Subscribers mandate more Suppliers.

19.0VALUE PROPOSITION – OPEN

What is needed from CMSP to add more value to Subscribers?

  • How can we make the TG meetings more impactful and attractive to potential participants?
  • How can we make the value of the CMSP process more visible to potential mandating Subscribers?

The team generally feels that the current meeting structure/content is valuable to attendees.

The team discussed the potential of launching the long-envisioned Industry Specification as a way to attract more Subscriber participation and also provide more value to the Subscribers and Suppliers. Andy Statham located a year-old e-mail from Laura Feix describing an AMEC discussion around creating an industry standard based on CMSP.

ACTION ITEM:PRI Staff to add a recurring topic to Pittsburgh meetings to take a pulse on the value proposition of the face-to-face Task Group meeting (e.g. Continuous Improvement strategy). (Due Date: 16-Nov-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to contactLaura Feix of SAE to see where 2011 discussions regarding the potential to launch a CMSP industry standard ended up. (Due Date: 25-Oct-12) Item was completed 25-Oct-12

Above item completed at the meeting. Laura responded that the AMEC committee is receptive to the idea of creating an Industry Standard for Special Process Conventional Machining, but that the idea has been effectively tabled because they feel their group does not have the expertise to create such a Spec. She feels that AMEC might be receptive to Nadcap CMSP providing the expertise, but this has apparently not been discussed by AMEC.

ACTION ITEM:Andy Statham and Ken Abram to add the topic of creating an Industry Specification to the NMC presentation, with the particular goal of identifying whether the existence of an industry standard might be of interest to Subscribers that are not currently active with CMSP. (Due Date: 15-Feb-13)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to add a topic to the February 2013 meetingagenda to discuss launching an industry standard. (Due Date: 16-Nov-12)

20.0AUDIT LENGTH – OPEN

Are the current time budgets for each audit appropriate? Specifically, is sufficient time allocated?

Factors that influence audit length:

  • Redundant questions – minimizing them reduces time pressure
  • Good pre-audits including specification references reduces time pressure. Should submission of a pre-audit be a finding-worthy requirement?
  • Multiple operations to complete a feature (e.g. separate machining and Edgebreak operations) require additional time.
  • Adding Edgebreak questions to /1-/5 slash sheets adds time pressure

The Task Group needs input from the Auditors as to which questions they feel are redundant.