I have a question or two about NADCAP.

What checklists would I need to use to do a gap analysis for a Heat Treating facility?

I have two that are on the road toward NADCAP. One is AS9100 B and the other is ISO 9001:2000.

Also, does the ISO9001 facility have to get AS9100 B or can they self audit to AC7102? Can the facility verify compliance to AC70102 or does PRI have to come in and audit them?

Thanks!!!!

:bonk:

As you've indicated, you're on the right track with an ISO 9001:2000 QMS. Review all of the NADCAP public documents related to the Nadcap Quality System Requirements 1-May-07 and any of the pertinent Heat Treat Systems Requirement that are applicable to your organization.

Compare the NADCAP requirements with your Level 2-4 (Specifications, Work Instructions and Forms) QMS Documentation and identify and fill in the gaps between the NADCAP requirements and your current QMS.:read:

I would self audit, (You should be doing this anyway per ISO 9001:2000 (element 8.2.2) and then after you've implemented changes to comply with NADCAP, follow their contact an auditor information and request them to come out and audit your facility.

They have all of their pricing tables available for download along with all of the audit documents.

If you haven't already done so,Log onto the PRI NADCAP website via the link below.

http://www.pri-network.org/

and go to the resouirces tab on the left then select Public Documents.

What checklists would I need to use to do a gap analysis for a Heat Treating facility?
Start here and register http://www.sae.org/servlets/index?PORTAL_CODE=PRI

Then go into the site and select checklists from the left side of the screen. From the drop down select Heat Treat. You will need the main one AC7102 and the possably the others depending on what you do. You can call one of the staff engineers Marcall or Laura and they will guide you.

The AS facility is set to gat as far as a QA system requirement. The ISO one will need to have an audit to the AC7102 in addition to the HT audit.

To get ready for the audit the first thing is to take the Pyrometry Training class they offer. http://www.pri-network.org/resource/attach/384/PyroRegistrationform2008.doc

Next get a copy of the HT auditor handbook from the eauditnet web site and read thru the guidance the auditors are being given.

Now start going thru the checklists line by line and make sure that you can clearly identify a writen document that speaks to the item ( identify the page and paragraph) and that you also have the objective evidance to show that you are doing what is said.

Last use the job audit part of the check list and check you line process.

Avoid the trap of "we meet the intent" and you will do fine.
:2cents:

What checklists would I need to use to do a gap analysis for a Heat Treating facility?
Start here and register http://www.sae.org/servlets/index?PORTAL_CODE=PRI

Then go into the site and select checklists from the left side of the screen. From the drop down select Heat Treat. You will need the main one AC7102 and the possably the others depending on what you do. You can call one of the staff engineers Marcall or Laura and they will guide you.

The AS facility is set to gat as far as a QA system requirement. The ISO one will need to have an audit to the AC7102 in addition to the HT audit.

To get ready for the audit the first thing is to take the Pyrometry Training class they offer. http://www.pri-network.org/resource/attach/384/PyroRegistrationform2008.doc

Next get a copy of the HT auditor handbook from the eauditnet web site and read thru the guidance the auditors are being given.

Now start going thru the checklists line by line and make sure that you can clearly identify a writen document that speaks to the item ( identify the page and paragraph) and that you also have the objective evidance to show that you are doing what is said.

Last use the job audit part of the check list and check you line process.

Avoid the trap of "we meet the intent" and you will do fine.
:2cents:


Does this mean that if we are ISO9001 that PRI will have to audit and certify the facility to AC7102?

Thanks!
:bonk:

Yes it does.
Since Nadcap is auditing on behalf of the aerospace primes they want the QA system to cover their slant. The only choices are the AS9100 certification or haveing the AC7102 audit( can be in the same week as your process audit)
Is there a reason you would not concider just changing the ISO to an AS system audit?

I just went through my first Nadcap Audit. What a waste of resources.
These people don't care about the Primes, they care about their checklist.
3 days of auditing and not once were we asked about our customer satisfaction rating, not once were we asked about our customer complaints, not once were we asked about any late deliveries. NOT ONCE!!!:mg:
But we were asked about Appendix C of AC7108 and because our matrix was titled Primes and approved specs and not a test matrix we got a Major! I kid you not. "The available test matrix under par 4.1.1 of AC7108 rev-c, was not consistent with the format of Appendix C:. The document presented as test matrix was named "Prime Customers and Processing Specifications".
I asked for some clarification on what was considered "consistant with the format" and shall be in the format. I was told, I audit to the checklist, it's not for me to help or interpret the checklist for you.
I have never seen a more useless pile of :notme:. And I have never seen worse auditors, never. You know, after he found his "Major", he wrote up the findings, called the closing meeting and went along his way. What a tool.
Keep looking towards the sky, because it doesn't matter if the parts are right, what matters is that I have the proper form filled out in accordance to the Nadcap checklist. The planes can be grounded or falling out of the sky, but as long as I'm in compliance with their checklist who cares.
The best part is that of the findings he had, not one was about an inadequate process or not following the spec, nope, they were derived from the holy checklist that was brought into existence by the almighty Emo.
These people make IRS auditors look intelligent.

This is totally bogus. I am not familiar with the checklist (we are looking at Heat Treating not Chemical) but the matrix is titled “Example Test Matrix”. The operable word is “EXAMPLE”. What was the auditor thinking!

I am really sad that there are still auditors working who are this superficial and can not use there own judgment when it comes to a checklist.

:mad:

Now start going thru the checklists line by line and make sure that you can clearly identify a writen document that speaks to the item ( identify the page and paragraph) and that you also have the objective evidance to show that you are doing what is said.

Last use the job audit part of the check list and check you line process.

Avoid the trap of "we meet the intent" and you will do fine.

Read that part very carefully. This is what you will be audited to. They do not audit for processes they audit to their checklists and their interpretations of the checklists.
Once you sign up at the website you can find the checklists. As was mentioned, go line by line through the lists and follow with the Auditors Handbook. Also under "users Docs" on their site, look at the auditor training. You can get a feel for what they are going to be looking for.
One area to be careful of will be the calibrations of your ovens. There is an emphasis on the difference between the accuracy tests and the uniformity studies. They have more requirements than just AMS 2750 so your calibration certs need to have evidence of both.
If possible, they are having a meeting in Pittsburg the week of July 21st, it might help.
I have been in the ISO/QS realm for more than 18 years and I have never been through anything that would have prepared me for that audit. With no real training sessions like the automotive side provides (FMEA, QS, ISO, etc.) plus there are no consultants to assist, it is a little difficult.
Having just been through the audit, I'll help as much as I can.
Sorry about the rant, but the wounds are still healing:frust:.

Wow. I mean wow. I've never heard anything good about NADCAP audits, but at least the issues I've seen brought up in the past have been about the processes being certified. :frust:

I guess when you're the only game in town, you can do whatever and still keep customers. I believe that at some point the OEMs will realize this and allow some competition to keep PRI on their toes.

I feel your pain but since I have been on both sides of the fence all I can say is that some of the task groups ( who are made up by your customers) hammer pretty hard on the auditors to just follow the questions and guidance and if there is any doubt write up the finding and let the supplier challenge it.
PRI is getting better combining the quidance into the checklist so that expectations are clearer up front.
I do not see how it can be a Major. I would recomend that once eauditnet get back on line you chalange the clasification. Keep in mind that you have the right to chalenge any finding.
The other thing is if you realy belive that the auditor was out of line you can not submite you RCCA unless you fill out an evaluation on the auditor. Put it down in writting. It realy does get back to the auditors on areas that they need to improve on.
Last go to the meetings and get with the other suppliers and make you views known. There has been progress recently on getting ride of the "raise the bar" questions that are realy not part of any specification or contract flow down that have no place in the checklists.
:2cents:

Any help is greatly appreciated!
I have heard many horror stories about NADCAP audits and I am trying to be as prepared as possible.
We do not want to try this until late next year. My boss keeps asking for a cost analysis but it is difficult when you do not have the experience of having seen a NADCAP audit.

Thanks!

:agree:

Thanks Andy, yes this was like stepping back in time when the B-3 made QS mandatory and there just wasn't enough auditors to keep up with the registrations. They pulled anyone off the streets, gave them 36 hours of training and a checklist and told them to go audit. All they knew was the checklist. However, I have never been through an audit where there was no mention of customer sat. Blew me away.
We have completed the surveys and never heard anything back, no response, nothing. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt. I've never seen any mention of them in the (Nadcap) meeting minutes either. Don't take it personal, but I don't think anything becomes of them. In the computer and out the shredder.
Andy, we were even told, and I quote, "I don't know where the exact requirement is, but that is my interpretation of the checklist". Here's your minor. This was for not having an employee sign an evaluation, we had other evidence that it was reviewed with the employee but the auditor didn't accept it. We are challenging the finding. See where that leads.

dbzman,
No problem, we don't do heat treat but we are a service provider (NDT).
I do have a question for you, do you have a definition of "Thermal Treatment".
We took a hit for a forced air parts dryer (max temp <165 degrees F) not having the controller calibrated. We didn't calibrate it because we felt that drying wasn't a thermal treatment. We were wrong.
I would like to get a definition so I can apply it to any other equipment that we may have.
In the mean time have a look at the attached file.

"We have completed the surveys and never heard anything back, no response, nothing. Not even an acknowledgement of receipt. I've never seen any mention of them in the (Nadcap) meeting minutes either. Don't take it personal, but I don't think anything becomes of them. In the computer and out the shredder."

As the saying go "in quality you have thick skin or you get out"
No offence taken. Back 3 years ago the meetings that these came up is durring the auditor training sessions that only are attended by the PRI staff engineers and some Primes. The other thing is they can affect the auditor finicanly especialy if they get their findings or clasifications overturned by the Staff engineer. It will affect their rating and pay ( while not alot they realy are not paid all that much so it is noticed). I am sure it is still inplace. You should hear some of the comments and discussions in the all hands auditor meeting.

These people make IRS auditors look intelligent.

Just curious. Would this person have found a serious problem if it existed?

Did they really understand heat treating? Did they really test your system and records. Or could you easily snow them (not that you ever would)?

I am used to this lite weight auditing in automotive, but hoped somehow it would be better in aerospace.

If you review my previous posts on the subject, I am not fond at all of NADCAP. The main reason why is that they take AMS 2750 C (is that the latest?) and make a "bible" out of it, so to speak. Or like previously mentioned, a checklist. Well, IMHO, that specification was not written to be utilized in that manner.

Too, the average size organization that is performing aerospace heat treating work has multiple customers. Even within those customers, there are another set of specifications that govern the process, alloy, etc. Saying, it can make the head of the most astute quality professional spin like a top.

Before NADCAP, an organization could develop calibration/ metrology practices based on the process. They could write a worst case approach (or even middle of the road) process, and then have all the process information contribute to determining an effective process.

I agree Brad. From what I saw, the Primes do not set the requirements, Nadcap does. Majority of the audit is not to the spec but to the checklist. In their defense here, some of the specs are vague or just poorly written so clarification of the requirement is needed. But when you process to the spec(s) you must make sure that you have covered the checklist too.
Chemical processing and NDT are the same when it comes to specs. We some 27 binders filled with different specs - Hamilton Sundstrand, Boeing, Bell Helicopter, etc., etc. So things like this Test Matrix is just a paperwork drill. According to NADCAP we have to go back to the spec, we can't use memory or a test matrix to dictate how we run hardware. So we have to put together this document containing some 125 specs, that we can't even use (except for audits).

Caster, As for the auditor, well 1 audit does not an auditor make. I'll reserve my opinion to just his technique, I don't know how many he has done or how long he's been in the business so I'll leave it at that. You ask a question and all you'd get was, it's in the checklist, that's what the checklist says or I don't go by the spec I have to follow the checklist.
Believe me, I feel like I've started all over with QS again. It's like I've gone back in time 15 years. Remember the Ford STAs doing your Q1 audits, back in the day? Yep, much like that.

Andy, I don't want to see an auditor flogged but just to be recognized as being an issue would be nice. There is no problem publishing the most popular findings (the biggest problems) that NADCAP identifies, so what would be wrong with publishing the most troublesome areas of your checklist and if there is anything to be done. Example: look at the TAM panels issue. Is NADCAP going to establish a baseline for the picture analysis? What is the lighting going to be, at what pixel setting should the camera be set too, at what resolution (or what program) do you use to evaluate the picture, what magnification? Etc.

Just a point of clarification
It is not Nadcap who is creating the checklist it is your customers (the same ones making you get Nadcap approval). Each of the primes have their representitive on the task group and they all determine what they want in the checklist. The disagreements that come about over what is or is not important are the basis for the supplimental checklist that have come about (and should have never been allowed in my view). The Staff engineer acts more as a moderator and interface back to the auditors to let them know what the primes want and expect. Pri is responsable for the auditors and so if there is a problem with one you need to let them know so they can deal with it. Each task group is required to have more than then they need so if there is one that has to go they have no incentive to keep him.

:2cents:

Just a point of clarification
It is not Nadcap who is creating the checklist it is your customers (the same ones making you get Nadcap approval). Each of the primes have their representitive on the task group and they all determine what they want in the checklist. The disagreements that come about over what is or is not important are the basis for the supplimental checklist that have come about (and should have never been allowed in my view). The Staff engineer acts more as a moderator and interface back to the auditors to let them know what the primes want and expect. Pri is responsable for the auditors and so if there is a problem with one you need to let them know so they can deal with it. Each task group is required to have more than then they need so if there is one that has to go they have no incentive to keep him.

:2cents:


Additionally, NADCAP is very welcoming of supplier participation. NADCAP requirements are indeed a flowdown from the primes, and PRI audits are basically a checklist rundown followed by laboratory observations. PRI has little involvement with the quality system and I have found their auditors have little interest in the quality system as well. The primes want to know that you're following the requirements to make a product/perform a test that conforms to their specification, outside of that they don't care as much whether your customers are happy with your service. What bothers me about that is PRI still accredits to ISO 17025 which should have a strong focus on the quality system.

A parts dryer is usually not considered “Thermal (Heat) Treatment” by someone in the industry. Thermal Treatment transforms the material in some form; not just dry it. The materials properties are changed.

However; the term “Thermal Treatment” is a very generic one and could be interpreted in a number of ways. It sounds like the auditor is splitting hairs.

I believe that the NADCAP Heat Treating Auditor would not consider this “Heat Treating” equipment.

What significance does the drying process have to you part or service? It may be that the dryer is so important to your process that it would require this type of treatment.

:D

A parts dryer is usually not considered “Thermal (Heat) Treatment” by someone in the industry. Thermal Treatment transforms the material in some form; not just dry it. The materials properties are changed.

However; the term “Thermal Treatment” is a very generic one and could be interpreted in a number of ways. It sounds like the auditor is splitting hairs.

I believe that the NADCAP Heat Treating Auditor would not consider this “Heat Treating” equipment.

What significance does the drying process have to you part or service? It may be that the dryer is so important to your process that it would require this type of treatment.

:D

You're right. However, there are a lot of interpretations regarding ovens drying paint that are putting them into requirements for uniformity surveys and the like. And if the drying is that important, I would suspect uniformity requirements would be specified. IMHO, no interpretation would be necessary.

Instead of customers seeing this as a way to improve their process, they are wringing their hands, trying to figure out any way to get around NADCAP. Some of those who have gone into it are getting out because it's not worth the trouble.

A parts dryer is usually not considered “Thermal (Heat) Treatment” by someone in the industry. Thermal Treatment transforms the material in some form; not just dry it. The materials properties are changed.

That's how we interpreted it also, but according to the auditor (and the checklist) a forced air, unenclosed dryer that doesn't go over 150 degrees is thermal treatment. Parts coming out of Chem Process were dried, we could use air but the dryer was quicker. No requirement to use it.
It was a learning experience that I had been warned about. Now I know and will be better prepared for the next one.
Anyway, that's all water under the bridge. The Quality System part still baffles me. My Quality System is what supports how the specs and, of course, the checklist will be implemented into my processes. It is the governing policy on process performance (to spec), operator training, decision making, disposition, corrective/preventive action, etc. If it isn't working, then all the auditor is looking at is the symptoms. It is the groundwork, the foundation of my process and in my opinion the most important piece of the puzzle.
I've said it here before, if I standardize a subpar process (by a checklist) we all make the same junk. If I automate a subpar process I just make junk quicker. And I can still be in compliance with the checklist.
It is the Quality System that is going to monitor and track. I agree with the emphasis on Continuous Improvement and getting away from a pure SPC approach. However, does anyone really know how to implement, monitor and attack the requirments? BTW I'm a student of the Taguchi's Lost Function, especially in this industry.
It is the Quality System that sets the "philosophy" of the processes. It establishes the requirements necessary to "meet or exceed customer expectations". It should be the backbone of the organization.
Okay, I'll stop.
bdzman,
Lets move on with your gap analysis. Have you signed up on eauditnet yet? I've done numerous gap analysis in different industries so the philosophy is the same. Let me know.

Things are getting confused between the various special process.

For Penetrant the temperature is important as indicated by ASTM E 1417 para 6.6.2.

For Paint or surface tretment temperature can be important depending on the specification that applies. If there is a requirement then you have to comply. Your specification identifes this.

For Heat treat Thermal surveys are the way you assure that all the load saw the temperaturs you thought. AMS 2750 is the way to go.

Special process are called such since it it extreemly difficult if not impossable to verify acceptability based on their out put you have to control the methodology and parameter control.

:2cents:

Understood Andy,
This dryer is used after Passivation or Temper Etch. There is no temp requirement in any spec, like I said we can use dry, clean air. We used a dryer to speed up the process. The finding was written against AC7108 5.5.1. Calibrated Controllers for Thermal Treatments below 200 degrees.

Instead of customers seeing this as a way to improve their process, they are wringing their hands, trying to figure out any way to get around NADCAP.

It has nothing to do with getting around NADCAP. It is called having a limited amount of resources and trying to apply them where they will do the most good. The oven calibrations are very involved, our embrittlement relief oven takes the better part of a day to do. That's scheduled down time, that's a resource that I do not have access to.
On a class 5 oven, calibration is very important. But on a dryer that can not get to a temp that will cause a problem with a part, it's a waste (in my book). I could calibrate it to be +/- 100 degrees and still not be hot enough to matter.
Brad it's like making it mandatory for you to only use certified pens, pencils and paper to write down your shopping list. What benefit will it bring you, and how does that make that shopping list more robust. Will it make your shopping experience better? Will it make the items on the list more appealing? Will the sales people give you a discount?
No, it's a shopping list. Doesn't matter if it's in crayon (purple is my favorite, they taste like grapes!), marker etc. You don't need to have a watermark on the paper, the margin in a newspaper might do the job.
Now if it was how I respond to an RFQ, I may not want to put it on Toilet paper and in crayon.
See what I mean. It has nothing to do with circumventing NADCAP, it's called living and working in the real world.

Well stated, Randy. To clarify- my choice of words were poor when I said 'to get around'.

What I was suggesting is the customers are exactly where you are, feeling what you do. There are so many of these "requirements" that increase their expenses and headaches, they are looking hard to see if the amount of work they get from those customers are worth it.

You got it right on the oven, thing. Ovens are like anything else; they have to be designed for a specific purpose/application. Namely, you would specify a temperature range/ uniformity tolerance/ ramp up rate, etc. So going in on equipment not designed for uniformity and trying to meet that is a real big headache.

Now, recall, it may be worth it on those ovens to get some thermocouples and hook up to an electronic system/ recorder. Given the specific application, you can extend (or go without altogether) those survey requirements. Too, customers like coming in and seeing evidence the temperature did not go wacky on their parts.

Wow, this oven thing has become complicated.
If the oven is just for drying (and the parts could just as easily be air dried) then I do not see a need for any thermocouple, calibration, etc activities.
A simple check that the oven is hot and it is working should be sufficient. It looks like the oven was put in place to speed up the dry of the parts. If this is true, than simple is the best.

If the oven becomes an issue than it would be simpler to go back to air drying of the parts.

:cool:

We are calibrating it in-house now. But, according to the Staff Engineer at NADCAP, we will still need to do the uniformity study and accuracy tests. A bit much for a dryer.
What gets me is that the last audit the section (AC7108 Rev-C, 5.5) was N/A. We did not change our process of drying parts and the checklist didn't change. But this audit it was not N/A and we were hit. Oh, well, what are you going to do?
Thank you sir, may I have another!!!!!:lol:

Randy,

What would you say your cost were to get certified? I am familiar with the auditing cost and such but I do not know what to expect for hidden costs.

Thanks!

:bonk:

I had to do some digging on the cost. I wasn't here when they were first registered.
The figure I have is just for materials and audit costs. It doesn't include all the overtime, calibrations, etc. that come from the requirements :rolleyes: (I'll bite my tongue!!!!).
We have a small staff so take that into considerations also. The price that I found was around $7500.

The next time you are on the PRI website, take a look at the "Top 25 Findings". Go to the almighty Checklist and take a good look at your evidence and how it answers their requirement.

What you have to do is form the mindset that you are guilty (of nonconformance) until proven otherwise (conforming). Your objective evidence has to be "beyond a shawdow of a doubt".

On a side note and an OBTW. If you have anything that falls under the ITAR/EAR programs, let them know. There has been a big push the last few weeks over it.

I had to do some digging on the cost. I wasn't here when they were first registered.
The figure I have is just for materials and audit costs. It doesn't include all the overtime, calibrations, etc. that come from the requirements :rolleyes: (I'll bite my tongue!!!!).
We have a small staff so take that into considerations also. The price that I found was around $7500.

The next time you are on the PRI website, take a look at the "Top 25 Findings". Go to the almighty Checklist and take a good look at your evidence and how it answers their requirement.

What you have to do is form the mindset that you are guilty (of nonconformance) until proven otherwise (conforming). Your objective evidence has to be "beyond a shawdow of a doubt".

On a side note and an OBTW. If you have anything that falls under the ITAR/EAR programs, let them know. There has been a big push the last few weeks over it.

Randy,

Where on the PRI site can I find the "Top 25 Findings"?

Thanks!

:thanx:

Sorry about that. For Chem Process it was the Top 25. Look under Heat Treat in the Public Documents. There is a 2008 Suppliers training or something. You'll see it close to the bottom of the list. It's in a Power Point Presentation.

What checklists would I need to use to do a gap analysis for a Heat Treating facility?
Start here and register http://www.sae.org/servlets/index?PORTAL_CODE=PRI

Then go into the site and select checklists from the left side of the screen. From the drop down select Heat Treat. You will need the main one AC7102 and the possably the others depending on what you do. You can call one of the staff engineers Marcall or Laura and they will guide you.



i dont have access to the checklists, for some reason, only public documents

can someone up the AC7102?

thanks,

GD