At the moment our company is moving towards TS16949 but a lot of our customers are asking for nadcap, we shall be sticking with TS for the time being as most of our customers are auto. All i want to know is if there is a big differance and how much extra work would it be, also would it be hard work two run the two standards.

Hi Durnan,

Nadcap is a standard to control special processes (heat treatment, welding, NDT, etc.) and is a requirement of many aerospace and military customers.

There are several threads on the cove on this subject, I would suggest you start with this one.

NADCAP Standard - What is NADCAP and its Requirements? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=18215)

The nadcap requirements are very prescriptive and must be followed to the letter!
If the bulk of your work is automotive, you may want to look at all of the implications carefully before you decide to go down this route! :2cents:

Hi Durnan,

if you most automotive, then the handling of special processes (on believing in the words of prototyper), then you can or will also come tot the CQI requirements of the AIAG. Here also the handling of special processes is described, then you direct in contact witht the TS .

Greetings from Germany

TamTom

As a commercial heat treater we get the best and worst of all things quality....we are TS registered and NADCAP registered. We got NADCAP last year. We too are mainly automotive; however with the downturn in the market we want to expand out 10% aerospace work to a greater portion of our business.

NADCAP, like stated above, is a much more letter of the law type of process. It's focus is on customer and aerospace standards such as AMS 2750 Pyrometry. They are sticklers for every little detail and in fact they have stick interpretations of the standards. I had a recent issue where the auditor had one opinion of a requirement; when I called PRI and asked their heat treat guru; he had a different opinion but said I had to go with the auditors. I then got a third opinion on the same point by the audit reviewer.

None of them saw it the same way but they all agreed that it had to be addressed per the auditors finding; even though it might be wrong...:mad:LOL

What I do like about the process is its all online - and once you learn to use their site it's very easy. They also have one person or team do the audit and a completely different person review it and work through the CA. Interesting approach...

AIAG has been moving in the direction of NADCAP for several years now. CQI-9 has referenced to the aerospace spec for pyrometry now and other items that are specific to the aerospace field. Tighter controls and clearer instructions. The big three still do not know how to use the CQI-9 but it's getting out there and people are getting exposed to it more. We were in the loop so to say way back when it was going to be called HT2005; but it didn't actually come out tell much later. Imagine that...