unconfirmed minutescdn.p-r-i.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1252/etgminutes... · web viewthe...

ELECTRONICSFEBRUARY 2012

CONFIRMED MINUTES

CONFIRMED MINUTESFEBRUARY 20-24, 2012

SHERATON SAN DIEGO HOTEL & MARINA SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, 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, FEBRUARY 20 to FRIDAY FEBRUARY 25

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS

Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Electronics Task Group (ETG) was called to order at 8:00 a.m., 20-Feb-12.

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

David Barnes Honeywell AerospaceRossy Bedolla Goodrich Aerospace of MexicoBill Cardinal Hamilton Sundstrand

* Roy Garside Rolls-Royce plcErick Henry SAFRANJerome Hery SAFRANAndrew Kent Northrop GrummanRobert Koukol Honeywell Aerospace

* Eric Lacourt Thales* John Mastorides Honeywell Aerospace

Javier Mejia Goodrich Aerospace of Mexico* Scott Meyer Goodrich Corporation Chairman

James Park Northrop Grumman* Philippe Pons Airbus

Kimberly Raymond Raytheon Co.* Richard Rowe Honeywell Aerospace* Richard Rumas Honeywell Aerospace Secretary/ Vice Chairman

Victor Solorza Raytheon Co.* Suzanne Steketee Ball Aerospace Technology* Barbara Waller Raytheon Co.* Mark Whalley Goodrich Corporation * Gary Winter Northrop Grumman

Daniela Zarate Goodrich Aerospace of Mexico

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

Julie Barker Electromek* Cristiano Bazzi Somacis

Jackie Bottoms Cherokee Nation

1


CONFIRMED MINUTESKelly Boulard ElectromekDebi DeRoo Cristek Interconnects, Inc.

* Peter Edwards STS DefenceSarah Fuqua Kearfott Corp.- Motion Systems Division

* Stephan Gehrke Meggitt SA* Ian Hopps Ultra Electronics Manufacturing & Card S* Donna Lopez Cristek Interconnects, Inc.* Ishwar Mathur IEC Electronics* Jeremy Needs Ultra Electronics

Mark Northrup IEC ElectronicsRichard Papanicolaou STS Defense

* Douglas Schueller AbelConn LLC* Jennifer Wagner Ducommun LaBarge

PRI Staff Present

Bill DumasSusan Frailey

Code of Conduct, Ethics/Conflict of Interest and Export Control Presentations were reviewed.

1.1 Approval of Previous Meeting – OPEN

Motion made by Richard Rumas and seconded by Suzanne Steketee to approve the meeting minutes from October 2011 as written. Motion Passed

PRI Staff presented the Closed – Open Meetings presentation to explain the difference between what can to be covered in a closed meeting and what needs to be covered in an open meeting. This is a new presentation that is being shown at all TG meetings.

Scott Meyer was confirmed as the new ETG Chair.

Scott Meyer presented the ETG Priority List.

PRI Staff stated that signing an attendance roster at each meeting does not get you on the email list to the ETG. The person must sign up in eAuditNet and associate themselves with the ETG to get on the ETG mailing list.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to revisit email mailing lists since some people at this meeting did not receive emails. DUE DATE: (30-Mar-12)

Richard Rumas will be a new voting member for Honeywell Aerospace (was previously alternate voting member) to replace Dewey Whittaker, who was previously a voting member for Honeywell Aerospace.

Motion made by Suzanne Steketee and seconded by Mark Whalley to nominate Richard Rumas from Honeywell Aerospace as the new Vice-Chair to replace Scott Meyer who moved to Chair (due to the departure of Dewey Whittaker from the role of Chair). Motion Passed

Richard Rumas will continue as secretary for this meeting. John Mastorides from Honeywell Aerospace volunteered to be the new secretary at future meetings. The TG voted to approve John Mastorides as the new secretary.

2.0 Subscribing User Discussion – CLOSED

PRI Staff presented the Closed – Open Meetings presentation to explain the difference between what can to be covered in a closed meeting and what needs to be covered in an open meeting.

2


CONFIRMED MINUTESThis is a new presentation that is being shown at all TG meetings. The same presentation was presented at both the open and closed meetings.

Auditor staffing: The ETG needs at least 2 auditors to ease auditor availability constraints. After a request from the TG, PRI Staff presented a list of candidates to the TG to discuss

suitability and needs of the TG. Five candidates were presented to the TG with various levels of information available, some with only a resume and some with the proper afrm04 filled out. The TG offered recommendation on most suitable candidates. Information to be requested from suitable candidates with incomplete information.

The TG will consider specialist auditors (i.e. one checklist) and also regional auditors. The TG stated that both manufacturing and auditing experience (specific to the electronics

processes) are required for any ETG auditor. The order for auditor need is Printed Board (PB) then Printed Board Assembly (PBA), and

finally Cable and Harness (C&H) (due to the number of audits). Candidate requirements for Consultant Auditor were reviewed. Improvements are: have “or”

statements for the commodities; and change the Electrical Engineer reference to Engineering or Applied Science.

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to remove revision letter from J-STD-001 on a-frm-04. DUE DATE: (16-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to email Auditor Business Opportunity posting and schedule a teleconference for subscribing ETG members to review and comment, as appropriate. DUE DATE: (16-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to answer the following question: where does this posting for ETG auditor appear? DUE DATE: (16-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to post the new posting in as many relevant media as possible to generate quality candidates for the position. DUE DATE: (16-Mar-12)

ETG Participation Metrics: Bill Dumas presented this topic. It was identified that Mark Kasting from DDi did not attend any meetings last year and will also not attend this meeting. This does not meet requirements of NTGOP-001 for retention of voting membership privileges. Scott Meyer contacted Mark Kasting before this meeting and he understood that he will lose his voting rights.

Motion made by Scott Meyer and seconded by Suzanne Steketee to withdraw the voting member status for Mark Kasting from DDi. Motion Passed

Monitoring for Task Group Concurrence: Bill Dumas presented audit review concurrence data and provided clarification concerning the Delegation process. Whether Delegated or Non-Delegated all audits are available for review and remain in Task Group review for 7 days. The significant difference with Delegation is that the Staff Engineer (SE) does not need quorum to allow closure of an audit after the 7 day wait. Any concerns identified during this period needs to be addressed to allow closure of the ballot. At the moment the TG is not prepared to give the SE delegation. This topic will be brought up at the next meeting. Note that it is on the SE performance plans to participate in person on more audits.

Bill Dumas does not spend 100% of his time on the ETG: he also supports Chemical Processing about 10-15%. The ETG would like Bill Dumas to spend 100% of this time on the ETG. The ETG will prepare the case for this. Also, lack of backup for the SE is a concern. Susan Frailey is attending to possibly support the ETG going forward.

ACTION ITEM: ETG to provide Scott Meyer information to support the plan to present to PRI to request Bill Dumas to focus 100% of his time on the ETG and a plan to get Bill Dumas a backup. DUE DATE: (30-Mar-12)

ACTION ITE M: Scott Meyer to prepare the plan to present to PRI to request Bill Dumas to focus 100% of his time on the ETG and a plan to get Bill Dumas a backup. DUE DATE: (13-Apr-12)

3


CONFIRMED MINUTESPRI presented a proposed new meeting agenda format. Every SE will be bringing this to their TG’s for review and feedback. The new format is a Word format, as opposed to excel. The table format does not allow the agenda to be on one page (proposed is on 2 pages) however it is easier to use. This will also be discussed during the open meeting. Feedback will be captured at that point.

Audit 139772: The supplier did not have plating in their scope of accreditation to AC7119 as the supplier outsources plating. The supplier was accredited but the issue is that before section 12.2 there is a statement that a “plating facility” must either do 12.2 or 12.3 (i.e. both questions can’t be answered N/A). The statement was lost since all of 12 was selected as N/A. The checklist will need to be updated to fix this issue, but this is an open issue. The bigger issue is regarding minimum scope of approval. There is some concern that the ETG does not have the ability to come up with a minimum scope of approval due to issues around restricting business. One concern is that the work done over the past few meetings may have been wasted.

ACTION ITEM: Scott to approach Nadcap Management Council (NMC) to get clarity on the topic of minimum scope of approval. DUE DATE: (13-Apr-12)

Audit 142478: A “Qualified No” was generated for cleaning compliance question since the “if used” and N/A were left out of 49.4 and 49.5 on the AC7121 checklist. The TG agreed to accept this as a “Qualified No”, category 2, checklist error. The handbook is to provide clarification until the checklist is corrected. Question 63.6 e was captured as a “Qualified No” since the “if required” and N/A, that was in the previous revision, did not appear in Rev A (checklist error). The TG agreed to accept this as a ”Qualified No.” and to fix the checklist going forward.

ACTION ITEM: Richard to add audit note in the draft handbook of AC7121 for 14.2 to clarify that the question applies to automated equipment (not brush / hand cleaning). DUE DATE: (20-Feb-12) Complete 20-Feb-12

Subscriber Participation: Scott Meyer discussed the need for ETG Subscribers to participate more on oversight / observer audits.

Richard Rumas also brought up another topic for consideration: The ETG needs more support on the PB side with experienced Subscribers. Please go back to your companies and request experienced PB folks to become involved in the ETG, at the sub-team and even as alternate voting members.

Supplier Search: Audit manager does not allow you to search for PB, PBA or C&H Suppliers since “ETG” is the lowest level to search for all suppliers not currently accredited.

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to request enhancement to the audit manager to be able to search at the checklist level. DUE DATE: (30-Apr-12)

3.0 PRI Report /Metrics Review / RAIL Review / Checklist Vision – OPEN

Bill Dumas presented the ETG NMC Metrics Review.

RAIL Review: the RAIL was reviewed and all items “Closed Pending Verification” were reviewed and closed as appropriate.

ACTION ITEM: Regarding RAIL item 45 June 2011, PRI to bring issue on taking exception to AS9100 7.5.2 to PRI SWAT. DUE DATE: (20-Apr-12)

ACTION ITEM: Regarding RAIL item 45 June 2011, PRI SE to bring issue on taking exception to AS9100 7.5.2 to PRI Scheduling to determine if scheduling can review the AS9100 certificate. DUE DATE: (20-Apr-12)

ACTION ITEM: Scott Meyer to report during Berlin meeting the status of the NMC sub-team action to address the AS9100 7.5.2 issue. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

4


CONFIRMED MINUTES

ACTION ITEM: Suzanne Steketee to do gap analysis between AS9100C and latest revision of AC7004 and identify any risks. Related to closed RAIL item 45 Oct 2011. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

Checklist Vision: Each checklist sub-team to add references for each question to the handbook. This topic is planned to be discussed during the handbook reviews later in the meeting. See below.

Ultra Electronics has identified a potential auditor for the ETG, although the candidate may not have applied with PRI yet. Bill Dumas to tie out with Jeremy Needs from Ultra.

4.0 ETG Nonconformance (NCR) Metrics – OPEN

Staff presented the ETG NCR metrics. The data presented is for checklist revision in use during 2011. Due to the detail in the supplier symposium presentations for Wednesday, this was not discussed in detail.

5.0 SCOPE AND MERIT ISSUES - OPEN

Bill Dumas brought up a recent change to NOP-008 for merit. The change to section 3.1 allows merit if there are “No more than 50% of major and 60% of total NCRs allowed for failure threshold in NOP-011 (see Appendix B). This number shall not be less than one.” This takes effect for audits conducted on or after Jan 15, 2012.

Scope issues discussed at the Pittsburgh meeting required further discussion since all RAIL items for the topic were not closed. The concern is for auditor’s identification of change of scope. The TG reviewed the Auditor Advisory for the change in scope issue. The advisory was revised and accepted by the TG. In addition an eAuditNet enhancement ticket was generated to request that scope changes be documented by eAuditNet.

The ETG has requested that the SE notifications regarding change in scope from the auditors be communicated to the subscribing ETG, going forward. The SE has agreed to perform this task.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to issue Auditor Advisory defining required actions for an identified change of Scope. (16-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: ETG Chairs to add to NTGOP-001 the change in scope notification email agreement: The ETG has requested that the SE notifications regarding change in scope from the Auditors be communicated to the subscribing Task Group members, going forward. The SE has agreed to perform this task. DUE DATE: (1-Jun-12)

ACTION ITEM: SE to provide an update in Berlin, or sooner, regarding the eAuditNet ticket regarding the change in scope issue. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

The ETG recognizes that if/when a core checklist is used (i.e. minimum scope of approval), and during the audit the Supplier needs to reduce scope to not include an item in the minimum scope (e.g. for equipment down, or material not available due to shortages), this will impact the audit. The Supplier may need to schedule a scope addition audit to include the item that came out of scope.

6.0 AUDIT HANDBOOK AC7119 – OPEN

The handbook discussion was deferred at this meeting since there are a few comments from the latest ballot for the AC7119 Rev E draft that are still outstanding and need to be resolved prior to release of this document. Those comments were discussed by the ETG. The main issue is with question 39.18. The issue was discussed at length. A number of options were discussed and it

5


CONFIRMED MINUTEScame to a vote to accept one of them (see below). The AC7119 Rev E draft will now go to 14-day affirmation ballot.

Motion made by Roy Garside and seconded by Bill Cardinal to keep the draft question 39.18 as-is.Motion did not carry.

Motion made by Philippe Pons and seconded by Barbara Waller to change the question “Is there objective evidence that the representative coupon and/or PB has met all Class 3 acceptance criteria as required by the customer.” Motion passed

ACTION ITEM: John Mastorides to obtain AC7119 draft handbook from Dewey Whittaker and email to PRI and Barbara Waller (sub-team leader). (DUE DATE: 23-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: AC7119 Sub-Team to complete audit handbook. Also include RAIL item 24 Oct 2011 in this action. DUE DATE: (8-Aug-12)

ACTION ITEM: AC7119 sub-team to re-visit checklists to note where every question comes from (whether industry, AS9100, Subscriber flow-down). (DUE DATE: 15-Aug-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to prepare AC7119 Rev E for 14-day ballot. The only item on the ballot will be the change to 39.18. (DUE DATE: 9-Mar-12)

A bigger issue may be that not all Nadcap suppliers meet IPC standards, as IPC standards may not be as global as the ETG realizes. However, the industry in Europe and other places outside of North America is slowly accepting IPC standards. In this particular case, the IPC standard is 6012.


The AC7120 audit handbook was released in February 2012 so no discussion is required at this meeting.


Richard Rumas presented the AC7121 Sub-Team review.

The AC7121 sub-team will review the following, based on discussion surrounding the core/minimum scope checklist:

Review wording for 14.3 based on finding on a supplier audit (in reference to handling after cleaning), and consider an audit note regarding hand cleaning vs. equipment cleaning.

Look at a FOD section for applicability to cleaning with new revision. Discuss electrical testing and the option of making continuity testing mandatory which

would necessitate breaking 35.2.4 into multiple questions. Review the suggestion to update the core/minimum scope list to require either section 33

(finished assembly) or 36 (Storage, Handling & Packaging of Finished Goods). Review Mark Whalley’s suggestion about not including stripping/tinning in core

requirements for suppliers that buy everything pre-stripped and tinned. Review section 15 for rewording to allow N/A. There was some discussion surrounding this but no consensus.

Other open actions were reviewed (see presentation attached above). 6


CONFIRMED MINUTES Donna Lopez mentioned she didn’t list actual subscribers when completing her action

regarding the question references. At this point, since the handbook needs to be released asap, Richard Rumas stated to use “Subscriber Flowdown”. (This has already been fixed in the handbook.) Other subscribers had concerns about listing their internal specs and agreed to keep it general for now. Also, Rich Rowe had an idea that was left open for the TG to ponder: “if a subscriber does not flow down Nadcap yet, a question flowed down from that subscriber should not be included in the checklist”.

ACTION ITEM: PRI staff to find out which other commodity checklists/handbooks have subscriber specs called out specifically as a question reference and pass information back to ETG. DUE DATE: (30-Apr-12)

Donna Lopez also mentioned she had difficulty with question 12.6 regarding containers and usage since her company makes large harness assemblies. Mark Whaley stated his company has a spec for this. Richard Rumas suggested that Donna Lopez submit a request to delete this question, so it can be discussed in more detail.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to email AC7121 Handbook to sub-team for review and reformatting. DUE DATE: (16-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to schedule AC7121 sub-team meeting for end of March. DUE DATE: (16-Mar-12)

As an idea for reducing the length of ETG audits, Jennifer Wagner suggested that the TG consider the option of the auditor comparing procedure revisions on reaccreditation audits to verify if anything changed. If nothing changed, the auditor may not need to review and reduce time of audit. Bill Dumas mentioned that TG could consider existing process in (NTGOP-001 Appendix 8 – CP task group) for this action (they base it on sufficient verification after several audits).

ACTION ITEM: ETG to consider using NTGOP-001 Appendix 8 (CP) procedures for the option of the auditor verifying only the changes to procedures for the procedure questions after sufficient number of audits. To be discussed in Berlin. DUE DATE: (24-Jun-12)

As another idea for reducing the length of ETG audits, Jennifer Wagner also suggested that the TG consider after the first verification audit that the auditor be allowed to select odd or even items to verify for reaccreditation. The ETG was less warm on this idea.

9.0 FUTURE SUPPLIER SYMPOSIUM – OPEN

Does the ETG want to hold a supplier symposium at Berlin? No. The ETG does not feel that a symposium is necessary due to lack of participation.

Does the ETG want to hold a supplier symposium at Pittsburgh? No, since the San Diego symposium is covering the Americas in 2012.

The next earliest symposium may be held in Dallas February 2013, but no decision has been made.

One idea from Mark Whalley is to make the symposium a half-day as opposed to a full day. This is something to consider for the symposium sub-team. Bill Dumas had an idea to change the focus to be for suppliers who have been in the program for a while. This is another topic to consider for the symposium sub-team.

10.0 SUPPLIER SYMPOSIUM – OPEN

7


CONFIRMED MINUTESThe ETG Supplier’s Symposium was presented Wednesday 22-Feb-12. All updated presentations from this session will be posted in eAuditNet in the Electronics section of Public Documents.

In addition to those presentations, the following discussions were of note:

The SE suggested to add a presenter to each presentation as a contact reference. Richard Rowe objected and stated that there should be only one point of contact for a supplier – the SE.

STS Defence presented the supplier perspective. One of the key points was that they didn’t know they had many resources available to them at the time of their preparation and they prepared on their own (i.e. blind) which caused significant delays and issues. SE requested input from other suppliers as to what would help them.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to investigate providing to new suppliers a brief summary or “cheat sheet” as a reference to assist in preparing for their initial audit, including all the resources and documents at their disposal (including supplier symposium presentations). DUE DATE: (24-Jun-12)

During the “Responding to NCR’s” presentation, Bill Dumas reviewed that:o Posting International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) information on NCR

responses was not allowed. o Findings that are accepted on site are not closed: they are identified as “accepted

on site by auditor”. The supplier is not required to provide a response to this. The auditor is required to document issue and why it was accepted on site. The next step is that the SE will have to accept it. The TG still has visibility to the item (unless the SE is given authority to close findings – not the case with ETG).

o Findings can be contested within three (3) working days per NOP-001 in order for items to be considered for voiding.

o NCR’s can’t be closed until corrective action is implemented.

11.0 SPACE ADDENDUM – OPEN

Suzanne Steketee presented the Space Supplement Sub-Team report for consideration of Space requirements from J-STD-001ES. The presentation will be posted in eAuditNet after the meeting for review and comment by the ETG. Phase I is complete and Phase II is in-process with further discussions at this meeting. Currently only J-STD-001ES requirements are considered, and there are approximately 50 additional procedural questions. Note that NASA legacy documents such as 8739.2, 8739.3, and 8739.4 are not considered due to the NASA directive that they are using J-STD-001ES going forward.

ACTION ITEM: Richard Rumas and John Mastorides from Honeywell to discuss this possible addendum with NASA folks at the IPC meeting next week. DUE DATE: (2-Mar-12)

Scope of this addendum is limited to AC7120/PBA’s. Since the J-STD-001ES and IPC/WHMA-A-620AS are separate requirements for separate commodities, C&H space requirements won’t be considered for this document. There was a concern that some customers are flowing down J-STD-001ES for C&H soldering but it is believed that this is just a result of lagging flow down requirements and adoption of the more established J-STD-001ES and the newer 620AS spec.

Suzanne Steketee expressed the concern that not all sub-team members participated as much as a core group on the sub-team. This is not new to this sub-team.

Consideration of audit duration was deferred until there is a better understanding of the number of questions. However, as a rough guide, one additional half-day is likely. A pilot audit may be needed in this case, and would be applicable in any case.

Motion made by Suzanne Steketee and seconded by Ishwar Mathur to utilize the slash sheet format going forward for development of the space questions. Motion passed

8


CONFIRMED MINUTESLead-Free control plan questions were not included in the scope of the current addendum since they were thought of as design flow down. However, Richard Rumas requested that they be reconsidered. The Space Sub-Team will reconsider the Lead-Free control plan requirements for use here. Scott Meyer also brought up that this is not just a topic for Space – it would also apply to the AC7120 core checklist.

ACTION ITEM: Space Sub-Team to re-address lead-free control plan questions for use in the Space requirements slash sheet. DUE DATE: (1-Jun-12)

ACTION ITEM: AC7120 Sub-Team to address lead-free control plan questions for use on Rev C of AC7120. DUE DATE: (1-Jun-12)

12.0 CONFORMAL COATING – OPEN

Suzanne Steketee presented the Conformal Coating Sub-Team report for consideration of additional conformal coating requirements. The sub-team looked at requirements derived from NASA-STD-8739.1, IPC-HDBK-830 (changing should statements to shall statements), and Honeywell requirements. Phase I is complete and resulted in approximately 160 questions currently being considered by the sub-team. There are about 45 questions on the current AC7120 that need to be reviewed against these 160 questions. Apparently NASA is not, either short term or long term, planning on cancelling or replacing 8739.1.

Discussions on Phase II for the Conformal Coating checklist were initiated at the meeting. The format for this checklist was the initial concern.

Motion made by Richard Rumas and seconded by Suzanne Steketee to have the conformal coating questions appear in a stand-alone checklist and also in the AC7120 conformal coating section (replacing the current questions, which would be considered to be utilized, if appropriate); in addition, the conformal coating stand-alone checklist will also contain general sections such as ESD, handling, etc. Consideration will be made for the number of additional questions in the AC7120 checklist and additional audit days. Motion passed (3 votes for, 0 against, all other abstaining).

Concern from those abstaining would be the number of questions added to AC7120 and the possible addition of extra audit days. It was suggested by Richard Rumas that those who abstained are encouraged to participate in the sub-team to ensure their concerns are addressed. It was determined that the stand-alone checklist should be released at the same time as AC7120 Rev C.

ACTION ITEM: Conformal Coating Sub-Team to pursue the course of action in the motion below and present in Berlin in 2012 the status of this action. Motion, as copied from the minutes: “Motion made by Richard Rumas and seconded by Suzanne Steketee to have the conformal coating questions appear in a stand-alone checklist and also the AC7120 conformal coating section (replacing the current questions, which would be considered to be utilized, if appropriate); in addition, the conformal coating stand-alone checklist will also contain general sections such as ESD, handling, etc. Consideration will be made for the number of additional questions in the AC7120 checklist and additional audit days. Motion passed (3 votes for, 0 against, all other abstaining).” DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

13.0 CHECKLIST VISIONS – OPEN

The ETG is continuing to ensure alignment with NOP-002 requirements for checklist vision. Scott Meyer emailed the NMC on 10-Feb-12 to state that the ETG is compliant with the NOP-002 checklist vision requirements (to comply with an NMC action item).

ACTION ITEM: Scott Meyer to get clarity on definition of “common” from NOP-002 paragraph 3.3.1 from NMC. Essentially to re-confirm that “common” means “at least one”. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

9


CONFIRMED MINUTES14.0 NEW BUSINESS – OPEN

New Meeting Agenda Format: PRI presented a proposed new meeting agenda format. The new format is a Word format, as opposed to Excel. The table format does not allow the agenda to be on one page however it is easier to use. This new format will be used going forward. While the new agenda is easier to use and provides additional information it is a concern that multiple pages are required versus the previous single page format.

Scott Meyer described some items from the Chairs / SE Roundtable meeting at lunch Wednesday:1. NMC is allowing, per IAQG SR001, “accredited” and “suspended” AS9100 certification status

as acceptable per Nadcap in OASIS until 1-Jan-13. So the due date for AS9100C is extended until 1-Jan-13 from 1-Jul-12. If not AS9100C compliant after 1-Jul-12 the supplier’s status will be listed as “suspended”.

2. Issues of scope dropping brought up by welding at a previous roundtable meeting. ETG action should be to get the minutes (PRI) and figure out if same issues are being discussed.

ACTION ITEM : PRI staff to provide the latest status of the action from the welding task group scope dropping issue as identified in the minutes for the Pittsburgh 2011 roundtable meeting. (DUE DATE: 30-Mar-12)

3. Issues with satellite audits: there are no guidelines surrounding satellite audits other than distance requirements. The document defining Satellite Audit requirements is NIP-7-01, section 5.5.

ACTION ITEM: ETG to review NIP-7-01 section 5.5 for satellite audits and provide any feedback for improvement to ETG Chairs and SE. DUE DATE: (1-Jun-12)

4. Issues with Accreditation extensions for dangerous areas/environmental disasters are being reviewed by a sub-team at the NMC.

Demonstration hardware: discussions continued from the last meeting (see “dummy hardware” from the Pittsburgh 2011 minutes). Scott Meyer’s proposal, as an action from the last meeting, is:

Demonstration HardwareHardware produced without a purchase order so as to demonstrate process compliance. Demonstration hardware may be used to supplement the job audit during the compliance portion of the audit, expanding the scope of accreditation.

TG to consider: 1. Adding a reference that demonstration hardware cannot be used to satisfy the core

checklist requirements, whenever we have those defined.

2. Adding a percent limit of demonstration hardware (e.g. 10%, 25%). However, this was not as palatable as the other items for consideration.

3. Adding that not all questions would be applicable: the sub-teams would need to review all compliance questions to determine which could be allowed to be answered looking at demonstration hardware, with additional process controls (e.g. previous traveler sign-off of the process in the past).

4. Consider different requirements for initial and re-accreditation audits.

Other commodity TGs, such as Elastomers, may have encountered similar issues to the ETG. PRI to determine common practice for Nadcap Commodities.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to request information from all other commodity/systems and products Task Groups on the topic of demonstration hardware, and how that group has dealt with it, very specifically,

10


CONFIRMED MINUTESincluding definition of demonstration hardware. PRI Staff to email ETG on the responses DUE DATE: (13-Apr-12)

Discussion continued on Friday. Bill Dumas spoke to the Elastomers TG and they indicated that they allow demonstration hardware. However, they did not provide Bill Dumas with a written definition. The action item above is still valid and will help in this regard.

Jennifer Wagner stated their supplier perspective: while it is difficult to schedule a compliance job for every checklist question in scope for the week of the audit, it is also difficult to have demonstration hardware since it will take material out of stores, increase scrap for that material used, take an operator away from regular hardware, etc.

It seems that the ETG in general will accept demonstration hardware with a number of caveats, including that this will not apply to all questions (will be selected after detailed review by the sub-teams), that the supplier still has the requirement to use actual production hardware, and that additional controls need to be shown (for example: previous traveler sign-off of the process in the past, that is, before the audit).

ACTION ITEM: Scott Meyer to email out the definition from the minutes of demonstration hardware (including caveats) to the ETG. DUE DATE: (30-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: Checklist sub-teams to review all compliance questions in their respective checklists for consideration of allowing demonstration hardware being acceptable (based on the discussion captured in the minutes). To be presented in Berlin. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

NMC Meeting Report Out – Scott Meyer and Richard Rumas provided a quick summary on Thursday for the ETG.

Supplier Survey Committee (SSC) Representative: The ETG is in need of a representative to the SSC, since Cristiano Bazzi could only fill that role temporarily at the last meeting. Pete Edwards volunteered to represent the Task Group.

Motion made by Suzanne Steketee and seconded by Barbara Waller to have Pete Edwards (STS Defence) as the ETG representative to the SSC going forward. Motion passed

Pete Edwards did the SSC Report out as he had attended the SSC meeting.

IPC Status Report Out: Roy Garside suggested that a good standard agenda item going forward would be the IPC status report out (similar to the Newsletter article previously written by Richard Rumas). Motion accepted and the topic will be added as a standard item to the agenda.

ETG Mentors: Ian Hopps from Ultra Electronics brought up the supplier mentoring program, and suggested that the ETG participate in any current mentoring program, or create their own mentoring program. Some information is contained in a supplier symposium but not all suppliers can attend meetings.

ACTION ITEM: Pete Edwards to determine if the ETG can use existing SSC mentoring programs, and to feedback this information to the ETG. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

Audit Observers: NOP-007 on Audit Observers was presented by Bill Dumas, as Scott Meyer brought this up earlier in the meeting. It is recommended that all checklists and all auditors be observed at least once each year. Richard Rumas observed an AC7121 audit, Barbara Waller, Philippe Pons, and Mark Whalley have all observed AC7119 audits but it is believed that AC7120 has not yet been observed. Roy Garside is considering an observer audit and it was recommended that he try for an AC7120 audit.

Supplier Voting Members: New supplier voting members accepted by the TG by vote at this meeting (all have attended at least 2 meetings):

11


CONFIRMED MINUTES Ian Hopps from Ultra Electronics Jeremy Needs from Ultra Electronics (Alternate) Donna Lopez from Cristek

AQS Report Out: The AQS Liaison, Barbara Waller, presented the AQS report. The only topic at the meeting was the AS9100C issue concerning “suspended” accreditations after 1-Jul-12 (see above). There is concern that some Suppliers may not be able to meet the new deadline. There are concerns that some registrars are not posting certificates on OASIS in a timely manner (e.g. 3 months). Richard Rumas stated that he had experience with one supplier that confirmed the last concern.

ETG Sub-Teams: The ETG updated the sub-team lists. The updated list will be posted in eAuditNet by PRI.

ETG Newsletter: Since the previous scheduled newsletter was not released prior to the San Diego Meeting, it was determined that a Newsletter is needed before the Berlin Meeting.

Volunteers for articles: Richard Rumas to re-write his previously submitted article on IPC Status of Standardization Scott Meyer to write the report from the Chair, including the new checklist releases, and

major changes. Suzanne Steketee to re-write her previously submitted article on new sub-teams for

conformal coating and space addendum. Suzanne Steketee to write summary of Auditor conference (already complete). Peter Edwards and Doug Schueller to write articles about Supplier perspective on C&H

and PBA, respectively.

ACTION ITEM: Volunteers to complete their newsletter articles and send them to PRI. DUE DATE: (13-April-12)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to publish the ETG Newsletter and to post on the appropriate place on the Nadcap website. Recommendations: Nadcap website near the registration for the next meeting, in the ETG general link or some other appropriate place, possibly a hyperlink in Agenda. DUE DATE: (11-May-12)

AC7120 Checklist Concerns:

ACTION ITEM: Rich Rowe, as AC7120 co-lead, to verify numbering in AC7120 and AC7210 Handbook to ensure they are in sync with the new checklist format, and to report back to the ETG. DUE DATE: (24-May-12)

ACTION ITEM: Scott Meyer to review AC7120 “high hitter” NCR’s to determine other items to fix as a sanity check to ensure fixes were made in the Rev B release. Scott Meyer will review at Berlin. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

AC7119 Sub-Team:

Motion made by John Mastorides and seconded by Suzanne Steketee to have Barbara Waller from Raytheon to be the new AC7119 Sub-Team Leader. Motion passed

Checklist Revisions: Roy Garside had an idea to aim for restricting checklist revisions to before the auditor conference so as to ensure auditors are trained at the conferences before the checklist release occurs. This would be a guideline only. Roy to continue bringing this up as a new business item at future meetings.

2011 Oversight Audit: Reviewed Oversight Audit from Pittsburgh 2011; 2 observations were written by Auditor Gary Winters, answered by Bill Dumas.

12


CONFIRMED MINUTES

2012 Oversight Audit: Oversight Auditor, Robert Koukol, attended the Friday Open Meeting. He identified that NTGOP-001 Appendix V for ETG was not correctly aligned with the NTGOP-001. Mr. Koukol also expressed a concern with the number of sidebar conversations observed during the meeting.

ACTION ITEM: ETG Chairs and SE to address issue of NTGOP-001 Appendix 5 numbering not being in sync with NTGOP-001 numbering. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

ACTION ITEM: ETG Chairs and SE to ensure TG intro presentation addressing Meeting Protocol is up to date and ready for Berlin Meeting. DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

15.0 PRIORITY LIST – OPEN

The ETG reviewed and reset, as appropriate, the priority list.

New items added to the priority list: Hybrids (suggestion by Jeremy from Ultra Electronics). Box build (Scott Meyer mentioned that the NMC suggested this as a possible way forward, but

it would be contingent on IPC-A-630, IPC standard for box build, being released. Richard Rumas is the co-chair of this IPC committee and the status is that this standard is not expected to be released for at least 2 years).

Nucleonics was considered however, the nuclear industry is outside the scope of Nadcap, so it won’t be added.

C&H Space Addendum (for possible Space Addendum for AC7121).

16.0 FUTURE SUPPLIER SYMPOSIUM SET AGENDA AND ACTIONS – OPEN

No actions required at this time. Next Symposium tentatively scheduled for February 2013.

17.0 MEETING CLOSURE ITEMS- OPEN

The ETG reviewed the RAIL for items Closed Pending Verification and Open. Items that were closed were listed as closed. Richard Rumas and John Mastorides also reviewed all new actions from the minutes to ensure they are correct.

The agenda for Berlin was set by the ETG. Working sessions for priority topics are planned for Berlin. See action item below for details.

ACTION ITEM: PRI SE to email draft agenda for Scott Meyer and Richard Rumas to finalize. DUE DATE: (9-Mar-12)

ACTION ITEM: Names associated with working sessions are to bring documentation (e.g. specs, documents, industry standards, etc.) to the Berlin meeting as preparation. Long Term Part Storage (Jeremy Needs/Richard Rumas), ESD (Suzanne Steketee), Lead-Free (Scott Meyer), Repair/Rework (John Mastorides). DUE DATE: (25-Jun-12)

ACTION ITEM: Scott Meyer to write email and PRI SE to email out to ETG about Berlin working meetings so people can prepare accordingly. DUE DATE: (30-Mar-12)

ADJOURNMENT – 24-Feb-12 – Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Richard Rumas [email protected]

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

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved 13

mailto:[email protected]


CONFIRMED MINUTESduring this meeting? (select one)

YES* NO

*If yes, the following information is required:

Documents requiring revision:

Who is responsible: Due date:

14