Unconfirmed Minutes s11

PLANNING AND OPERATIONS JULY 2006 UNCONFIRMED MINUTES JULY 18, 2006 AUDITORIUM HOTEL MADRID, SPAIN

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

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 2006

Call meeting to order & record attendance

The following representatives were in attendance:

NMC Voting Member in Attendance:

Janice Abeita-Lynch Raytheon Aircraft Rossella Andreozzi Alenia Dianna Berube Pratt & Whitney Jon Biddulph Rolls-Royce James Bratton Lockheed Martin Mark Cathey Spirit AeroSystems Frank Gritsko Sikorsky Debra Harrison DCMA Richard Hill Praxair Surface Technology Arne Logan The Boeing Company Michael McLean Bombardier Steve Meyer Eaton Aerospace Jay Park Northrop Grumman Michel Pierantoni Eurocopter Manfred Podlech MTU Aero Engines Stephen Pollard BAE Systems Gus Rathgeber Rockwell Collins Mark Rechtsteiner GE Aviation John Reid Bombardier Chatt Rhodes Cessna David Soong Hamilton Sundstrand Camille Valmy Airbus Jerry Wahlin AAA Plating Kevin Ward Goodrich

Task Group Chairs in Attendance:

Wayne Canary Rolls-Royce Mark Covert Honeywell Jim Doherty GE Aviation Alan Fletcher Air Force US Mark Gleason GE Aviation Keith Kastner Cessna Phil Keown GE Aviation Manuel Koucouthakis Honeywell Robert Koukol Honeywell Doug Matson The Boeing Company Philippe Pons Airbus Ken Prather Vought Aircraft

of 5 PLANNING AND OPERATIONS JULY 2006 John Sattler Raytheon Aircraft David Watson Bombardier

Attendees: Neil Clarke Rolls-Royce Ghazi Kashmalah Rockwell Collins Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines Quan Lac Rolls-Royce Mitch Nelson Cessna Jeremy Phillips Cessna Andy Statham Rolls-Royce LaVerne Waalkes Spirit AeroSystems

PRI Staff in Attendance:

Jerry Aston John Barrett Jeff Conrad Nigel Cook Laura Fisher Rebekah Foutz Lisa Glavan Mike Gutridge Arshad Hafeez Judy Herilla Lisa Knestrick Jim Lewis David Luoni Seema Martin Heather Meyer Scott Nelson Keith Purnell Glenn Shultz Ian Simpson Richard Sovich

1.0 Review of Open Action Items from Previous Meeting

The following action item was reviewed as open from the previous meeting:

 Chet Date to review the follow up audit process

A motion was made to approve the Planning and Operations minutes from the April 2006 meeting. This motion was seconded and approved.

2.0 Feedback/Suggestions from Task Group Chairs

ETG – Philippe Pons reported that the task group is currently working on its assembly checklist.

Seals and Sealants – Alan Fletcher noted that these task groups are looking for more primes to mandate these product groups.

MTL – Keith Kastner reported that the task group currently has a ballot out to NMC.

of 5 PLANNING AND OPERATIONS JULY 2006 WLD – Wayne Canary thanked the NMC for their approval of the Welding Baseline documents.

FAST – John Sattler reported that the task group is planning a second pilot audit.

NDT – Phil Keown discussed the task groups issue with audits being with held due to no quality system. It was noted that enhancements have been programmed into eAuditNet regarding this issue. The task group has also been discussing GIDEP and if this information can be shared within the task group and asked NMC for guidance as to the sharing of GIDEP information

ACTION ITEM: NMC to provide GIDEP distribution policy answer to the NDT task group.

NMSE – Mark Gleason asked the NMC for guidance on how the task group should be handling prime specific slash sheets to its baseline.

ACTION ITEM: NMC to send letter to task groups regarding how to handle prime specific slash sheets

ACTION ITEM: Standardization sub-team to determine if primes can disapprove another prime’s slash sheet to baseline efforts in the task groups

ACTION ITEM: Mark Rechtsteiner to forward the Standardization sub-team baseline proposal to the NMC and task group chairs. Comments on this presentation are to be forwarded to Mark Rechtsteiner no later than August 18, 2006 for incorporation into the baseline proposal.

CP – Ken Prather stated that the task group is focusing efforts more on job audits in an attempt to prevent escapes in periodic lot testing. The task group requested that NMC make data reporting from eAuditNet a priority.

PRI noted that it is looking at two options for eAuditNet data reporting. The first option is to have a next generation of eAuditNet and this would take a significant amount of programming and this could take up to 18 months. The second option is a reporting tool. This reporting tool could have functionality very soon but would not have the ability to drill down to a job audit level for data extraction.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to report out on the status of the reporting tool functionality at the October planning and operations meeting.

COMP – David Watson reported that the task group has just submitted Rev. A to its checklist to the NMC.

3.0 Featured Deep Dive:

 Cross Commodity Communication

Heather Meyer reported on the status of cross commodity communication and proposed a new process. The process would include defined communications, joint ballots, and development of implementation plans. MOUs would be established to document all agreements. Fore more details please see the attached presentation.

Cross Commodity Communication

ACTION ITEM: Heather Meyer to forward Cross Commodity Communication proposal to task group chairs for review and comment within 30 days. All comments are due by August 25, 2006.

of 5 PLANNING AND OPERATIONS JULY 2006

 Major/Minor Definition

Kevin Ward reported on the Standardization sub-team progress on Major/Minor definitions. The sub-team had proposed to adopt traditional Aerospace accepted definitions and supplement the definitions with many examples including task group specific examples. The task groups then suggested that the sub-team review the elimination of major-minor altogether. The sub-team audit finding definitions are as follows:

• Product Impact: A finding which directly affects the product regarding the conformance to the defined design and or specification requirements and for which there is no evidence of acceptance disposition with approval as defined by contract.

• Product Impact Requires Investigation: A finding which potentially directly affects the product regarding conformance, but actual product impact cannot be determined during the audit. Supplier to provide written support when no impact is the result of the investigation as well as formal corrective action.

• No Product Impact: A finding which has no direct product affect to the design and or specification requirements.

• Systemic: A finding which has multiple occurrences and is pervasive and represents a breakdown in the quality management system or sub systems.

• Non-systemic: A finding which is isolated or limited in occurrence or affect and is not pervasive and does not represent a breakdown in the quality management system

The group is now determining whether to go with the standard Major/Minor definitions or the audit finding definitions. For more details please see the attached presentation.

Major/Minor Definitions Report

ACTION ITEM: Lisa Glavan to email the Standardization sub-team report on Major/Minor definitions to task group chairs.

4.0 Incorporation of NOP-009 (Early Review Process) into Supplier Advisory Process

Arne Logan reported that NOP-009 is being incorporated into the Supplier Advisory Process. The attributes of the new procedure are as follows:

. Provides for a prime specific auto alert filter replacing the early review process . Provides for issuance of Level 1 advisory for all audits considered for failure and product impact . Requires packages failed for Modes “B’ (too many findings) and Mode “C” (severity of findings) be reviewed for potential product impact . Requires any supplier that fails an audit for Mode “B” or “C” or had a Level 3 Product impact advisory issued, be reviewed for: − Withdrawal or suspension of all current commodity approvals − Withdrawal or suspension of AC7004 approval or notification to applicable CRB and industry RMC

The new procedure will be balloted by the October 2006 meeting. For more details please see the attached presentation.

of 5 PLANNING AND OPERATIONS JULY 2006

Early Review & Supplier Advisory 5.0 Other issues / New Business/ Discussion  Customer Continuous Improvement Process

Camille Valmy reported on the Customer Complaint process. The target is to create a transparent process which provides to primes and supplier, a way of continuous improvement of Nadcap process by tracking & registering all comments, remarks or complaints by providing a common response from the Nadcap community. A proposal was made to draft a continuous improvement template and make it available through eAuditNet.

ACTION ITEM: Team to be created to understand the Customer Continuous Improvement Process. The team members will be Camille Valmy, Debra Harrison, Arne Logan, and John Barrett.

An issue was raised regarding auditor consistency among the task groups. The NMC requested all task groups to come prepared to the October 2006 meetings with auditor consistency metrics.

ACTION ITEM: Task Group Chairs to present auditor consistency metrics at the October 2006 planning and operations meeting

Manfred Podlech and Mark Rechtsteiner expressed their view that the new meeting format has improved communication. With the task group chairs and NMC sub-team chairs sitting in the “U” facilitated discussions. Both were appreciative of PRI staff for their efforts in making the changes.

6.0 Adjourn

Minutes prepared by: Lisa Glavan [email protected]