COMPOSITES/ NON METALLIC MATERIALS MANUFACTURING/ TESTING FEBRUARY 2017 CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2017 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, 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, 20-FEB-2017

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS – CLOSED

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Composites (COMP), Non Metallic Materials Manufacturing (NMMM) and Non Metallic Materials Testing (NMMT) Task Groups (TG) were called to order at 8:00 a.m., 20-FEB-2017.

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

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Jason Adams Lockheed Martin Corp. * Monica Alcala Honeywell Aerospace * Douglas Armstrong GE Aviation * Randy Armstrong Raytheon Co. * Christine Brassine SAFRAN * Kevin Dowling Spirit AeroSystems * Patrick Dunleavy SAFRAN * Achim Enzmann Airbus Helicopters Ray Fontanares The Boeing Company * Javier Garcia-Baeza Airbus * Brett Hemingway BAE Systems - MAI (UK) Veronica Guerrero The Boeing Company * John Key Bell Helicopter Secretary Uwe Alexander Kleinert Airbus Helicopters * Ronald Kramer Gulfstream / General Dynamics * Eric Le Fort Sonaca * Herman Leibovich Israel Aerospace Industries * Lance Loeks The Boeing Company Muriel Malhomme Airbus * Andreas Mastorakis GE Aviation * Angelina Mendoza UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) John Merritt Lockheed Martin Corp. Brian Minchuk The Boeing Company Ashley O'shea The Boeing Company * Rick Ouellette The Boeing Company Scott Palmer Rolls-Royce * Richard Perrett GKN Aerospace - Filton Vice Chairperson * Patrick Phelan UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) * Jeremy Phillips Textron Aviation * Minh Quan Triumph Group María Sánchez-Arjona Airbus Defence & Space * Kodai Shimono Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. * Sally Spindor Triumph Group Ranganathan Srinivasan ST Aerospace Ltd. Fabrice Trebeden Airbus Helicopters Andy Williams Gulfstream / General Dynamics

PRI Staff Present

John Tibma

1.2 Safety Information

1.3 Review Code of Ethics

1.4 Present Antitrust Video

1.5 Approval of last meeting minutes

A motion was made by Doug Armstrong (GE Aviation) and was seconded by Brett Hemingway (BAE Systems) to approve the meeting minutes with the correction that Tara Campbell was not physically present at the meeting. A voice vote was taken:

The voice vote was a unanimous “Yeah”.

The Motion Passes and is approved.

1.6 Review Agenda

2.0 REVIEW DELEGATION STATUS– CLOSED

T-frm-07 for John Tibma (COMP, NMMM, NMMT) and Betty Kocsis (NMMT) were reviewed and found acceptable per OP 1115.

A motion was made by Doug Armstrong (GE Aviation) and was seconded by Sally Spindor (Triumph Group) to approve Betty Koscis as a delegated Audit Consultant Reviewer. A vote was taken:

15 Green (Yea), 0 Yellow (Waive), 0 Red (Nay) - The motion passed and is approved.

John Tibma presented his delegation maintenance status:

Requirements – Work 10 audits and 30 Nononformance Reports (NCRs) Task Group/SubTask Group (TG/STG) and observed 1 audit, any TG/STG (complete t-frm-1)

AC7118 1 Feb. 2016 – 31 Jan 2017 - 185 Audits, 575 NCRs

AC7122 1 Feb. 2016 – 31 Jan 2017 - 25 Audits, 42 NCRs

AC7124 1 Feb. 2015 – 31 Jan 2017 - 23 Audits, 47 NCRs

Observed COMP Audits 169423

This was reviewed with the Task Group and maintenance of this requirement was documented. This meets the requirements for the Task Group and John Tibma has shown that he has met his delegation maintenance status

John Tibma requested that the Task Group consider the use of OP 1115 for Delegation Maintenance and strike the requirement within our specific requirements within our Appendix of OP 1114. The requirements within OP 1115 are more lenient than what we currently have within COMPOSITES/ NON METALLIC MATERIALS MANUFACTURING/ TESTING FEBRUARY 2017 CONFIRMED

our Appendix of OP 1114, but now that Nadcap has requirements where they did not have this in the past, our requirements should be reconsidered. John Tibma made the argument that what we are protecting with our requirements would realistically never be violated.

A motion was made by Angelina Mendoza (GE Aviation) and was seconded by Eric LeFort (Sonaca) to strike the requirement for Delegation Maintenance from our Appendix of OP 1114. A vote was taken:

16 Green (Yea), 0 Yellow (Waive), 0 Red (Nay) - The motion passed and is approved.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to remove the Delegation Maintenance requirements from the OP 1114 Appendix for COMP/NMMM/NMMT. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

3.0 COMP/NMMM/NMMT AUDITOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW – CLOSED

The Composites Task Group Metrics for Suppliers, Staff Engineer and Task Group Initial and Reaccreditation Cycle Time, Supplier Merit and Subscribing Member Balloting, Oversight were all reviewed.

John Tibma then went over the Auditor Rating. For some of the new members of the Task Group, John Tibma went over the questionnaire that he fills out concerning the auditor performance that created the auditor rating. He went over each section and how it was weighted. He also showed the questionnaire the Supplier sends in that acts as a multiplier to the score that came from John Tibma’s review. Our auditors fall within the acceptable range.

Auditor Consistency Rating for COMP was presented showing the auditors requiring observation and what the observers should be looking for.

A discussion ensued on how the scores for Experience are generated and it was explained that Lance Loeks (Boeing Company derived this information and that it is a “years of service” recognition more than anything else. John Tibma requested that we look at our statistics and how we weight the categories to determine our observation needs. Also, how do we incorporate other information that is known to show within the data as we have had auditors that were perceived as problems, but did not show up within the Auditor Consistency Rating.

Jason Adams (Lockheed Martin) asked if the Task Groups share best practices on this topic to see if there is a better way to perform this requirement, and John Tibma stated that this is a topic that the Staff Engineer SWAT meeting (SE SWAT) within PRI is placing this on their agenda and this information will be made available in a future meeting for discussion.

John Tibma then discussed that an overall view was considered with allowances such as Supplier Merit, historical issues at the Suppliers, language or cultural differences, checklist changes, etc in determining the consistency of our auditors and why certain actions were taken.

Harry Coffee and Brian Johnson are no longer auditors for our Task Group.

The next meeting will remove the data for Harry Coffee and Brian Johnson and the data shift will show our new trends and issues. This data will be presented at the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to revise the Auditor Performance Review data to remove Harry Coffee and Brian Johnson’s data from the group charts and present during the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting in Berlin, Germany. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

A question was asked by Javier Garcia-Baeza (Airbus) if we could do a year-over-year direct comparison of the auditors, but the suppliers the auditors sees and scopes reviewed year-over- year are so different that this would be difficult to review due to our rules of no repeats of auditor to a supplier and the Merit Program. A discussion ensued and it was agreed that this is something we need to look at during a future meeting and placed on the agenda. We have added our requirements and criteria for our expectations for the auditor to our Handbook and clarified this information within our Training Program and our Training process within our Task Group.

Patrick Dunleavy (SAFRAN) stated that he feels we are actually doing a good job in this task as we have removed auditors that we were concerned with over the last two years.

Jason Adams (Lockheed Martin) wanted to look at monetary incentives to make our auditors better, but PRI states that our auditors will just quit since the only tool we have is a pay cut, or withhold a prep fee which is a small slap on the wrist. This would also require a rewrite of contracts. And if we give them more incentive and they assume it is for NCR count, the Suppliers will be hesitant to support this initiative even if it is only a perception issue.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to add an agenda item to the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting in Berlin, Germany to review our auditor consistency requirements and discuss if there are any better ways to perform trend analysis on how we are grading and documenting our concerns back to the auditor base. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to add reaccreditation 2016 NCRs per day scatterplots for the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting to the NMMT Auditor Consistency presentation. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

Reviewed Submitted Observation Audit Forms from the Observers

2016 Observation audits have 19 completed and 27 scheduled for the year. Two were denied and 6 were cancelled.

2017 Observation audits have 4 completed and 12 scheduled for the year. One has been denied and 2 have been cancelled. We are currently on schedule for 2017.

4.0 AUDITOR CONSISTENCY SUB-TEAM REPORT OUT – CLOSED

The Task Group asked if a formal auditor mentoring program may be desirable.

SE SWAT stated that no other Task Groups were interested in the concept, and PRI management is staunchly opposed unless some strong cost-benefit data can be provided. The consensus was that most of the mentors’ responsibilities just duplicate the Staff Engineers’ responsibilities.

John Tibma explained how he currently chooses trainers, and that we can keep this within our Task Group since there is really know guidance within the Nadcap Operating Procedures. The Task Group believes that the current way that John Tibma is handling the situation is acceptable.

Lance Loeks (Boeing Company) asked if the scheduling system breaks down the auditor competency to the scope of audits he is available for. John Tibma stated that there was with the restrictions identified within the afrm27 that is filled out during the interview of areas of concern. There is no official way to remove these restrictions, and our Task Group currently does this with additional training audits in the areas or concerns or reviewing training presentations that relate to the shortcomings. This was the original proposal that was brought to PRI from the Task Group.

Lance Loeks (Boeing Company) asked if PRI could put a competency matrix for the auditors so that we can see the gaps, if they exist, and know what we need to do. He also requested that a list be provided on who can be training auditors, and other allowances for the auditors. John Tibma explained that currently, everyone is approved for all scopes within the checklist and that he would provide that data at the next meeting.

ACTION ITEM: PRI will provide the auditor scopes of approval and to query the auditors if they feel they are comfortable with being training auditors, and disseminate the information to the Task Group. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

The mentor idea was not denied, but was put back to us to provide data and a plan for how this program would be implemented. COMPOSITES/ NON METALLIC MATERIALS MANUFACTURING/ TESTING FEBRUARY 2017 CONFIRMED

John Tibma then presented the data of Supplier Comments from the audits conducted during the time between our meetings.

All feedback was generally positive from the Suppliers concerning their audit experiences. Many of the auditors were called out by name and would be welcomed back to the facility. One negative comment was to establish an agenda with no changes. This is not always possible and this comment was not assumed to be applicable since the choice of Job Audit should not be staged and some flexibility is required. Another issue noted was the lack of French speaking auditors available through the Nadcap process. PRI is trying to address this with an advertisement in Europe for a French speaking auditor.

Quorum was re-established after lunch with 14 Subscribing Voting Members

5.0 INTERLABORATORY PROFICIENCY TEST (IPT) – CLOSED

 2017 IPT Participation o 73 labs invited to participate o 63 labs responded . 40 labs opted to participate in the 2017 IPT . 32 labs indicated they participate in Exova’s Proficiency Test (PT) - 8 labs participate in both - 2 labs are not accredited to any of the test methods in the IPT or Exova PT

 2015 IPT NCR Responses

John Tibma stated that the responses for the IPT was not consistent and very lackadaisical in the response date. No suppliers closed on the first cycle and only one was closed on the second cycle. Two were never officially closed, but Andreas Mastorakis (GE Aviation) witnessed this laboratory and reviewed their Root Cause Corrective Action (RCCA) while on site, and validated that they were successful in their implementation of their new procedures. The final data was not completed for the 2015 IPT until the middle of June 2016.

6.0 OPEN DISCUSSION – CLOSED

Topic 1: PRI Requirement for Staff Engineers to become a Nadcap auditor.

PRI is insisting that John Tibma become a Nadcap auditor as is the requirement for Staff Engineers.

Our OP 1116 appendix requires 3 years of 2nd or 3rd party auditing experience which John Tibma does not have.

John Tibma asked that the Task Group waive the requirement stated above and the Task Group interview based on his four years of experience reviewing and observing our audits with the Task Group.

A motion was made by Jason Adams (Lockheed Martin) and was seconded by John Key (Bell Helicopter) to waive the Task Group interview for an AC7118 auditor. A vote was taken:

17 Green (Yea), 2 Yellow (Waive), 0 Red (Nay) - The motion passed and is approved.

A motion was made by Jason Adams (Lockheed Martin) and was seconded by John Key (Bell Helicopter) to waive the requirement for the three years of second and third party auditing experience for an AC7118 auditor. A vote was taken: 17 Green (Yea), 1 Yellow (Waive), 0 Red (Nay) - The motion passed and is approved.

Lance Loeks (Boeing Company) requested that John Tibma perform a T1 audit and a T2 audit and observe one Aerospace Quality Systems audit. The Task Group agreed with this suggestion. The scopes recommended by the Task Group for John Tibma to be approved for were Prepreg- Adhesive-Resin Film Infusion (PAR) and Core Processing (CP). John Tibma concurs with these suggestions. The Task Group and John Tibma agree that he cannot review and work on audits that he performs or is a part of.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to schedule a TI and T2 audit for John Tibma to perform to become a COMP auditor with the scope of PAR and CP. PRI will schedule an observation of an AQS audit for John Tibma in a timely fashion and John Tibma will report progress at the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting in Berlin, Germany. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

Topic 2: Compaction/Debulking NCRs

Auditors have been writing many NCRs for compaction/debulking operations. The suppliers are not recording the start/stop time, pressure, etc. They were not using calibrated gage and not referring to the operations in the work instructions.

Do we need to provide handbook guidance in regards to what is required for compaction NCRs to be written?

The Task Group discussed this issue and Scott Palmer (Rolls-Royce) stated that his company requires compaction stop and start times to be documented within the work instructions. This is the only Subscriber which is currently present that has this requirement. The Subscribers agree that a hot-debulk cycle would be documented with the oven/autoclave system or within the work instructions to document the time at temperature. The Task Group agrees that formalize training program for this requirement would not be necessary and that on-the-job training would suffice.

ACTION ITEM: Tawny Blumenshine (Cessna) will provide Handbook Clarification and/or Auditor Training presentation concerning Debulk/Compaction/Hot-Debulk to detail the expectation of the Task Group concerning documentation within work instructions and when a NCR should be written against it. Subteam to consist of Tawny Blumenshine (Cessna - Lead), Lance Loeks (Boeing Company), Doug Armstrong (GE Aviation), Scott Palmer (Rolls-Royce) and Monica Alcala (Honeywell). (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

Topic 3: Software Quality Assurance (SQA) NCRs

Auditors have been writing NCRs against AC7118, AC7122-P, AC7122-I and AC7122-R SQA questions for failing to lock fields and provide revision control for spreadsheets used to make calculations for test reports.

Is this acceptable to the Task Group and is Handbook clarification required?

Lance Loeks (Boeing Company) stated that there is a presentation on the agenda for Tuesday, 21-Feb-2017 that will address this issue. The Task Group concurs and will defer this item until this agenda item.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to contact the Chemical Processing Task Group to determine their method of complying with SQA requirement for lock/revision control of spreadsheets and bring this information to the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting in Berlin, Germany. (Due Date: 31-May-2017)

Topic 4: Expiration Dates

We frequently have NCRs written for expired materials such as potting compound, strain gage adhesive, etc. Is it sufficient for the Supplier to require the operator to verify the expiration date before using, or is the mere presence of the expired material a legitimate NCR?

Discussion ensued as to what does their Quality System require of the Supplier? If they are meeting their requirements internally, can it really be written as an NCR? There is an understanding of the need to write the NCR, but the Supplier’s point of view is understandable. COMPOSITES/ NON METALLIC MATERIALS MANUFACTURING/ TESTING FEBRUARY 2017 CONFIRMED

Handbook clarification was created to give relief for expendable materials, but if a solvents manufacturer’s date expires but there is not customer requirement, should it be an NCR? The Staff Engineer will need to bring this on a case by case basis to the Task Group as required.

The consensus is to write the NCR if expired material is found that does not meet customer requirements and Quality system requirements as is the current auditor practice.

Topic 5: Thermoplastics

A supplier that was mandated by Airbus was recently failed as the production of Thermoplastic Composite Blanks was deemed out of scope for AC7118. Do we need to consider adding a Thermoplastic Composite slash sheet for AC7124 or should there be a Thermoplastic Composite sub-scope for AC7118?

Andreas Mastorakis (GE Aviation) advised the Task Group that this is limited to continuous Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic, not injection molded thermoplastic resin or fiber filled Injection Molded Thermoplastics. Chopped fibers would need to be discussed as to what fiber length would be considered “continuous reinforced”. This is a possible scenario within the near future for structural components.

It was noted that this is a future state, and it is recommended that the Task Group continue to keep these on our radar, Injection Molding Thermoplastics and Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastics, which is a function of the advancement of the material technologies in this field.

This issue will require a review of our checklists hierarchy and see what the approach should be.

ACTION ITEM: Subscribing Voting Members will contact their companies to see if a Thermoplastic Section of the checklist should be added in the 2020 timeframe. PRI shall send E- mail reminder and should also include new topics such as Dry Fiber Placement Resin Infusion, Ablative application, 3-D Weaving/Braiding/Preforms and Out-Of-Autoclave Manufacturing. Subscribing Voting Members to report this information to the Staff Engineer by the June 2017 Nadcap Meeting in Berlin, Germany. (Due Date: 31-Mar-2017)

Topic 6: Segregating Non-Nadcap Work

Recently suppliers have been asking details of the requirements for segregation or best practices. Should the Task Group develop Handbook guidance for this? (This would benefit both auditors and suppliers)

The order of precedence determines this and this should be what the auditor uses to determine which job audits and processes he reviews. This requirement is adequate. It is on the Supplier to verify what projects and customer he has in his facility, and should have methods and logistics in place for their business case.

Topic 7: Future Projects

What do we need to address in the future on new technologies?

Dry fiber placement with infusion

Ablative applications

3-D weaving/braiding/preforms

Out-of-Autoclave processing

Topic 8: Mode E Failure Mode – Severity of Findings Andreas Mastorakis (GE Aviation) gave a presentation of Effect of Silicone Contamination on Adhesive Bonding.

How do you detect silicone contamination and what tests are available? You can use IR/FTIR (Infrared/Fournier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) which tells you it is silicone, but not the type or amount of contamination. XPS (X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy) can determine the amount and type of silicone that is there. Knowing the Chain Length is critical in determining the source of contamination. Airborne will accumulate on the working surfaces first which are associated with short chain silicones which is mold releases and sealants. Long chains are associated with RTV (Room Temperature Vulcanization) Adhesives and Medium chains are associated with silicone adhesive backed pressure sensitive tapes.

Three percent or greater of Dimethyl Siloxane can be detrimental to the bonding characteristics of the surface that is contaminated. Silicone free adhesive tape can remove 50% of the existing contamination.

7.0 SUPPLIER DATA MINING – CLOSED

Presented by Shariq Parvez

This information is under Resources/Documents/Public Documents/Eauditnet/”User Guides/Tutorials”/Subscriber Guides/Business Objects.doc

• Tutorial on the Use of SAP Business Objects to Analyze Supplier Performance.

• Longitudinal Analysis

The PRI Staff member went through the steps that are within the presentation and showed the Task Group the live version of the SAP Business Object and went through a step by step recreation of the report capability of the system.

ADJOURNMENT – 20-Feb-2017 – Meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: John Key, [email protected]

***** For PRI Staff use only: ******

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select one)

YES* ☒ NO ☐

*If yes, the following information is required: Documents requiring revision: Who is responsible: Due date: OP 1114 App PRI 31-May-2017 COMP/NMMM/NMMT