UNCONFIRMED MINUTES
SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE (SSC) MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2004
FIESTA INN
TEMPE, AZ
These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting.
Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Group and shall
not be considered as such by any agency.
1.0
CALL TO ORDER/QUORUM CHECK
The meeting was called to order by Ed Engelhard. A quorum was established (minimum 5 members
were present).
ATTENDANCE
SSC Members Present:
Jerry Cedrone, Howmet
Ed Englehard, Owego Heat Treat
Arnie Horoff, Laboratory Testing
Jay McMurray, Metal Improvement Co
David Michaud, Fountain Plating
David Mitchell, Mitchell Labs
Cindy Roth, Cooperheat-MQS Inc.
Tim Scarlett, Danville Metal
Jerry Wahlin, AAA Plating & Inspection
Supplier Attendees:
Bob Akin, Quality Heat Treating
Matthew Akin, True Logic Company
Lisa Barnes, Howmet
Gus Batol, Moog Aircraft
Ken Bouchard, Metallurgical Processing
Frank Brander, Vian Enterprises
Mark Brown, Suncoast Heat Treat
Diana Crombie, Skills Inc.
Tom Croucher, Croucher Assoc
Robert Custer, AAA Plating & Inspection
John Cuup, Weber Metals Inc
Rick Dehner, Douglas Machine
Suzanna DeMoss, AC Tech
David Demy, Air Capitol Plating
Eric Dirats, Dirats Lab
Brady Fitzpatrick, Moog Aircraft
Gary Fox, EME Inc
Richard French, Alcoa Fastening Systems
John Gerardo, Weber Metals Inc
Niko Gjaja, The M&P Labs
Dale Harmon, Cincinnati Thermal Spray
Sharon Harmon, Cincinnati Thermal Spray
Gerald Harvey, Chem-Fab Corp
Rene Ignacio, Presto Casting Co
Dave Isenberg, Parker Hannifin
Tom Johnson, Alcoa Fastening Systems
Phillip Kelman, Modern Industries
John Kunkle, Howmet
Don Lowman, Continental Heat Treating
Ken Mantle, Coating Technologies
Leslie Mason, Applied Aerospace Structures Corp
Steve Michaud, Parker Hannifin Stratoflex
Gil Monos, Sherry Laboratories
Ronn Nelson, Howmet
Greg Newton, Newton Heat Treat
Dale Norwood, Parker Hannifin Stratoflex
David O’Leary, Goodrich Corp
Eric Oswald, Ducommon Aerostructures
Mike Park, Stack Metallurgical
Laurence Perry, Dynamic Gunver Technologies
Larry Phipps, Alcoa Fastening Systems
Elena Ritoliwa, Metallurgical Processing Inc
Dale Roberts, Praxair Surface Technologies
Greg Sayler, Joined Alloys
Steve Shea, Scarrott Metallurgical Co
Andrew Sheppard, Coating Technologies
Stuart Sherman, Metallurgical Processing Inc
Mark Simmons, Anoplate Corp
Jeffrey Smith, Tensile Testing
Ryan Soule, Howmet
Vitorio Stana, Avcorp Industries
Jeff Steele, D Aircraft Products
Jon Steltenpohl, Paulo Products
Jerry Stutzman, Goodrich Corp
Dave Sullivan, Wyman Gordon
Eric Tolliver, CAD Enterprises
1
Supplier Attendees (Cont’d):
Johanna Lisa, Continental Heat Treating/
Quality Heat Treating
Bill Lodwick, Praxair Surfaces
John Unghire, Aerospace Support Inc
Chao-Ping Wang, Aero Engine Factory
Joe Yockey, Joined Alloys
Primes Present
Michael Davis, GEAE
Jim Doherty, GEAE
Doug French, Vought Aircraft Industries
Jim Graves, Rolls Royce Corp
Andy Iesalnieks, Rolls Royce Corp
Earl Koechig, Boeing
Robert Koukol, Honeywell ES&S
Frank Lennert, Boeing
Arne Logan, Boeing
Teresa O'Leary, Cessna
Julio Perez, Airbus
Nigel Picken, Rolls Royce, plc
Chatt Rhodes, Cessna
Michael Song, Boeing
Peter Torelli, Boeing
Camille Valmy, Airbus
PRI Staff:
Jim Borczyk
Don Buehler
Michael Forman
Jennifer Gall
Lisa Glavan
Arshad Hafeez
Jamie Heusey
Seema Saleem
Glenn Shultz
Louise Stefanakis
Bill Wagner
2.0
Minutes from the October 21, 2003 meeting were approved as written.
3.0
PRI Update
3.1
Arshad Hafez and Seema Saleem presented information regarding 2003 performance and
future direction of Nadcap.
Error! Not a valid link.
4.0
General Quality System (GQS) – Quality System Data
4.1
Jim Borczyk presented information on quality systems regarding their status relative to
Nadcap.
5.0
Supplier Support Committee Initiatives
5.1
NOP Updates – Ed Engelhard presented updates on recently released NOPs (Nadcap
Operation Procedures) which significantly impact suppliers. Suppliers are encouraged to
review them thoroughly. They can be accessed via eAuditNet under “View User Documents”.
Action: Suppliers to review NOPs 009, 010, & 011.
2
Supplier Support Committee Initiatives (Cont’d)
6.0
5.2
Automatic Scheduling – Jerry Cedrone presented a summary of the new automatic scheduling
system for Nadcap audits.
5.3
Supplier Independent Survey – Ed Engelhard presented the actions planned to address the
seven key questions selected from last fall’s independent supplier survey on the
Nadcap process.
5.4
Other Supplier Support Initiatives
5.4.1
Auditor Effectiveness / Feedback – Status of document – A draft of the revised
questionnaire has been submitted to PRI for ballot. Also, Eric Oswald presented his
recommendations for the auditor feedback questionnaire during our meeting in
Tempe. Action: Ed Engelhard to review Eric Oswald’s recommendation for
incorporation into the questionnaire currently being balloted. SSC to review
changes before document is re-balloted.
5.4.2
Communication Team – Johanna Lisa presented the status of her sub-team’s effort to
develop improved communication tools to benefit the supplier base. Johanna asked
for volunteers to help implement the new communication tools.
5.4.3
Supplier Support Committee NOP – Ed Engelhard reported that the NOP governing
SSC operation has been issued. It is located in Appendix C of NOP 001.
NMC Update
6.1
Arne Logan presented selected items from his NMC presentation that are very important to
suppliers. He stressed the importance of all suppliers becoming very familiar with NOP 011,
Audit Failure Policy, since all Task Groups have implemented it.
Action: Same as 5.1 above.
3
7.0
Open Discussion
7.1
AS9100 is not accepted by the MTL Task Group to satisfy the requirements of a quality
system for suppliers holding or seeking a Nadcap accreditation for MTL. Dave Sullivan
pointed out that 2 and a half days of a recent 5 day audit of his facility were expended
assessing their quality system when they hold AS9100 Certification. Jerry Cedrone stated he
had a similar experience at one of his facilities.
Action: Dave Sullivan to send a letter detailing the situation and expressing his concern
regarding this issue to Jim Borczyk. Jim Borczyk will assure the letter gets forwarded to
the SSC leadership for action.
7.2
NOP 012, Escapes – There continues to be much discussion and concern from the supplier
base regarding this NOP. The following concerns were expressed:
a.
Why was NOP 012 not balloted for supplier input prior to issuance? Ans: NOP 012 was
balloted and accepted by NMC Supplier Voting Members with the understanding that it
would be released in trial form only. There is to be a year long data collection period for
this NOP before implementation. NOP may be re-balloted at the end of the trial period
prior to implementation.
b.
What is the definition of an escape? Ans: Escapes are defined in NOP 012. It was pointed
out that NOP 012 has not been released to eAuditNet because it has not finished the
approval cycle. It will be posted to eAuditNet shortly. Action: Jennifer Gall to check
status and advise supplier base when NOP 012 is released.
c.
Will suppliers be notified when there is an escape before data is posted to the aeroscapes
web site? Ans: YES
d.
What happens to the data in the aeroscapes database when the trial period is complete?
Ans: Data will be reviewed and if valid will be retained. If data is not valid, it will be
deleted.
e.
How will supplier base be updated on the status of the data collection for NOP 010 &
012? Ans: A system will need to be devised to report status. Action: Jim Borczyk.
f.
Why are more labs being approved in Europe thereby reducing business opportunities for
US based labs? Also, why do the Primes continue to build airframe subassemblies offshore thus eliminating jobs for American workers? Ans: This is outside of the scope of
the SSC and the Nadcap program.
7.3
How are suppliers notified of the release of a new or revised NOP? Ans: There is no system at
present. It was suggested PRI’s mass e-mail notification system be used. Action: Jim
Borczyk to evaluate.
7.4
NACLA Status – MTL accredited suppliers expressed concern regarding the status of NACLA
as it relates to Nadcap. Action: Jim Borczyk to advise supplier base by Tuesday, Jan 27.
7.5
Increased business level for Nadcap suppliers – Some newer suppliers were concerned that
after they had achieved Nadcap accreditation and advised the Primes of their status, some
Primes, in turn, advised these suppliers they were not accepting any new suppliers. This topic
received much discussion. The SSC advises suppliers to make sure a Prime is accepting new
suppliers before seeking Nadcap accreditation. Nadcap accreditation alone does not guarantee
the supplier will receive any business or be added to a Prime’s ASL. Action: SSC to advise
NMC and NESPB of this supplier concern.
4
Open Discussion (Cont’d)
8.0
7.6
Use of non-Nadcap special process suppliers – There was much discussion regarding the
Primes’ use of non-Nadcap suppliers when Primes are mandating Nadcap accreditation for
these special processes. There were no specific instances of this situation noted by suppliers.
Primes state they continue to work this issue within their respective organizations. One
supplier suggested that Primes track the use of their non-Nadcap suppliers and make it
available for review by the supplier base. Action: SSC to submit this issue to the NMC /
NESPB for investigation / action.
7.7
General question - Is Nadcap accreditation becoming too easy? Are suppliers accredited that
shouldn’t be? Some agreed with the comment/question. No action specified regarding this
issue.
7.8
NUCAP question – Will the Primes be issued a finding during their audit if it is discovered
that a non-Nadcap special process supplier is being used? Ans: John Barrett stated they
would not receive a finding because their business needs may dictate the use of a specific nonNadcap supplier for some period of time. It certainly is the Primes’ objective to use only
Nadcap suppliers if at all possible. Boeing stated their use of non-Nadcap suppliers is less than
5% and being reduced continually.
7.9
MTL Task Group will not accept internationally recognized test labs to conduct
interlaboratory proficiency testing unless they participate in the Nadcap program. Action:
SSC to investigate and advise supplier base.
7.10
Cooperative advertising with PRI was briefly discussed. If suppliers are interested, please
contact Jim Borczyk or Jennifer Gall at PRI details.
7.11
E-mail Addresses – Action Suppliers - make sure your e-mail addresses are correct in
eAuditNet. This will ensure you receive the latest news regarding the Nadcap program. PRI is
using the e-mail tool more than ever.
7.12
Eric Oswald completed his assignment from our last quarterly meeting to create a draft postaudit questionnaire. It was submitted to the SSC on Jan 20, 2004. Action: Ref item 5.4.1
above.
7.13
Andrew Sheppard suggested that a forum be established to facilitate supplier contact with subtiers for the purpose of pursuing business opportunities. This request is outside the scope of the
SSC charter, however, the SSC suggests the best way to establish contacts with sub-tiers is
through active participation in the Nadcap Quarterly Meetings both at the Task Group and
SSC levels.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:50 pm.
5