unconfirmed minutescdn.p-r-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/nmcsteeringfeb200… · web view* *...

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.


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.


Presentation


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.


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.


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


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

[email protected]

Page 1 of 5

_1265514580.ppt

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 *



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 *



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 *



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

_1265514920.ppt

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

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



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


AC7114/ 3AJapaneseRemoved

BFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet

AC7114/4JapaneseRemoved


HTAC7102BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website

CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet

AC7102/1BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website


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


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


AC7109/2BFrenchN.BarthelemyEuropcoter (EADS)F.CrabosTURBOMECA (SAFRAN)A.StoikaBombardiereAudinet



AC7109/5AJapaneseRemoved




CompAC7118AFrench??O.GoupillonEurocopterEric LefortSonaca

AGerman??Udo GoesslerEurocopter

ASpanish Draft??Alberto Portal-MaciasEADS CASAMiguel GenderThermal Aerostructure

JapaneseRemoved

WeldAC7110CJapaneseRemoved

AC7110/5CJapaneseRemoved

MTLAC7101/1BJapaneseJAQGJAQG 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?







AC7114/ 3BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website

BFrenchAlain BoucherSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Y.EsquerreAirbus11-Jan-07Thierry JacquesEurocopter11-Jan-07eAudinet



AC7114SNCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website

AC7114/1SNCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website



HTAC7102CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website




AC7102/2CFrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet

AC7102/3NCJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website

FrenchEric BarreauSnecma Services (SAFRAN)M.TaillandierEurocopter100%Laurent GeertsSonaca100%eAudinet


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







AC7108/4AFrench (Translated but not validated)M.GourlainSnecma Services (SAFRAN)Not mandated by European Primes

CoatAC7109BJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website











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



MTLAC7101/1CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website

CFrench (on going)M.AuzanneAirbusO.GoupillonEurocopter?Snecma

AC7101/2B

AC7101/3B

AC7101/4CJapaneseJAQGJAQG Website

CFrench (on going)M.AuzanneAirbusO.GoupillonEurocopter?Snecma


AC7101/6B

AC7101/7B

AC7101/8A

AC7101/9A

AC7101/11A

AC7109/5B

AC7110/13



AC 7116/4AJapaneseJAQGJAQG 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


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




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?



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


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



2.2 Globalization : what does it mean ?

Impact ?



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



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



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…)

&CPage &P

graphs

Topics# questions

General11

CP5

HT Process4

Standard4

NDT Personnel4

Training3

Pyrometry2

Nadcap Documents1

Registration1

Mentoring1

NCR1

Accreditation1

graphs

# questions

Topics/# Questions

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



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.

A20072

Highlight

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

A20072

Highlight

2.5 Impact of globalization on the

Nadcap process



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



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



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 .




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


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


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


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


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


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



# 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



# audits2008281224114802124

# audits20091005160040

Auditors who speak French400508111NA

*

Supplier-Auditor Language Requests 2008

7 requests have been received so far in 2008


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


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



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


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



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