Has anyone felt the wrath of Nadcap yet? My initial audit is Oct 27-29th. I feel I'm prepared but I have not spoken to someone (outside of a Nadcap Convention) about how their audit went.

Hello there, Johnny! Thank you for dropping by the Cove! And yes!! There are many that have suffered at the hands of NADCAP. Have you had a chance to review some of our threads on it?

Does anyone have any experience with NADCAP? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8914)

NADCAP and Gap Analysis for a Heat Treating facility (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=24369)

Here are two that I found. I do believe I recall Randy Stewart being especially fond of it.:notme::lol:

Anyway, it's good you dropped by, and look forward to seeing some of your thoughts on our threads.

It looks like the emphasis has been on not just doing the right things but having procedures in place that actually say to do them.
They are also issuing findings for items identified during the self audit but the C/A not yet in place so try and get as much implemented and in place as you can.
When you take a measurement as a QA record/check make sure that you have the value logged not just pass/fail.

A bit short in time for you to really do anything more at this point in time but since the electronics task group is the new kid on the Nadcap block keep in mind that there is more opportunity for you to challenge findings issued that appear to be based on interpretation. Lightly work your auditor for items you want to challenge while he is on site but as the saying goes know when to fold and save the real push for the staff engineer with pushing for task group review if you think you have a good enough case.
Good luck and let us know how you make out.
:2cents:

Thanks Andy.

I think I am prepared for this. I have spent months re-writing Management Systems, Procedures and work instructions. I went to Pittsburgh for the convention/symposium, in July. I met with a lot of the Prime reps and got some good info from them. There is only one unrestricted auditor (We are heavily ITAR weighted) so that should (shall) hopefully go in our favor. The staff engineer is a young kid and is easily pursuaded. I have found from reading past forums that the auditor will probably just stick to the checklist, which I have painstakingly gone through, item by item, to make sure we are covered. This accreditation will complete our trilogy: DSCC, AS9100 (Scored 98.9% initial audit) and Nadcap. Will it REALLY keep the contract Manufacturers out of my facility for their own audits? That is my biggest question and I have doubts.

The only thing that it keeps them out is repeating the special process audit covered by Nadcap. I have pushed this issue every now and then when it comes up with sucess. Primes still will come in and review your general production and quality systems and if they find a problem dirrectly related to the Nadcap process all bets are off.
We find that we do get a internal benifit from the Nadcap audits especialy compared to the AS9100 audits. But like most still have some issues with the interpertations and views that come up from time to time but work them as best I can when the come up.

Thanks for the info. My audit is the week after next. I will let you know how it went. I'm not sweating it, though. I'm good at what I do, this isn't my first Dog and Pony show. I'm a BAD MOTHER @%*#ER when it comes to audits. I Aced the AS9100. They had to make up a finding, saying there was a fault in my internal audit checklist. That was my one and only minor on my initial audit, 98.9%. Can anyone top that?

I will love to hear the update of the NADCAP audit...its nothing like any other type of audit you have been through. They say that on your initial audit you are allowed 10 major findings and 20 minor findings for a reason...We had ours last January and it was tough...they are real sticklers for the smallest little detail; they also have their own interpretation of the specs that you must follow.

Good Luck and let us know how it goes...:agree1:

BY THE WAY - if you have to do corrective action and you have to send them evidence black out everything except the evidence. Don't send them a whole procedure for one paragraph because they will look at it and can ask more questions or even write more findings based on what you submit.

What do you mean "Sticklers for little things?"

An easy example for you is this...

We are a commercial heat treater and we are required to do daily test block checks on our hardness testers per ASTM E-18. The test blocks are certified test blocks and E-18 lists out the parameters that you must follow; then NADCAP throws theirs in as well.

So long story short; indentations on the test block have to be at least 3 times the diameter between centers of two separate indents; so they have to be two times the diameter apart from edge to edge. The auditor took the test block and looked at it under the microscope to measure the distance...

That’s a stickler for the details.:bonk:

Under A SCOPE?!?!? that is pushing the envelope, eh? We are a pretty tight shop, though. We build circuit boards for military and aerospace industries. I am hoping we have our sh%# together at this point. Did you have to go back and forth with the task group on many C/As? or did you meet their requirements in one shot? I am ok taking a few hits, but if I have to spend weeks and months trying to satisfy some prick from Boeing, i'll go nuts. I have put too much time into this already.
And another thing!?!?!
They (Prime Reps) told me that once I am accredited I won't have to endure any more "Customer Audits." Has that been the case at your facility?

You get three cycles to resolve the issues - we had 5 major findings and 10 minor findings - this included both the quality system and the heat treat processing audits. We went to cycle 2 on 8 of them and went to cycle 3 on two of them - the whole process took us about 3 weeks - but we were under the gun to get it done by a prime...

Its a good process but even if they just have a question it counts as a cycle - do not be afraid to pick up the phone and call the audit reviewer to discuss it will save time.

To answer your question about customer audits - I am traveling tomorrow to our NADCAP facility for a Honeywell audit....so no it does not stop them from coming in...:nope:

Tom,
We were mandated by several Primes (Goodrich, Honey, Ball, etc.) to get Nadcap accredited by the end of the year. I'm anxious to see if they will actually back up their threats of stopping ordering from non-accredited shops. It doesn't look like any other board shops, like mine, are taking them seriously. I haven't seen one other PCB Mfr get accredited since the mandate. My corporate Muckity Mucks think that we will be the sole provider of circuit boards to the industry once we have our Accreditation. Any thoughts?

Honeywell approached us because their current source for Heat Treat at the time said they would not get NADCAP; we said we would and they said how fast? They were also directed by the big plane makers to get NADCAP suppliers. So we rushed through it and got it. The experience was a tough one but a good one. It is starting to pay dividends as they are sending their other suppliers to us now.

I would like to think you will be ahead of your competition for this type of work and that it might bring you more business but there is no promises....good luck and let me know how it goes.

Hate to break your bubble but there are others allready thru the electronics Nadcap process and their is no prime that is going to shot themselvs in the foot and shut down their manafacturing and limit price competition so early in the game. Over time ( next 2 yrs) you will be ahead of the competition as the requirement will become less and less flexable and buyers will be required to get their suppiers on board or use eauditnet to find a shop allready approved and go to it.
As for GR if you get thru the audit you will not see them audit your process EXCEPT if you have an escape. If they do with out an escape on your part I can put you in touch with their corporate Nadcap director who has made it very clear Nadcap is the basis for special process audits and since GR pays into Nadcap as a prime not to waste money repeating the process with out cause.

Johnny B.
You are in for a whole new experience. You know how the AS9100 audit guide tells the auditors NOT to use a checklist? Nadcap only uses their checklist.
My advise is to go through the applicable checklist (you should have already sent your preaudit package in) item by item and have notes on what is your objective evidence for each. Make sure there is no "interpretation" on your part. As I was told, get away from meeting the intent and you'll be alright.
Other quality system audits will look at the big picture of your "system". Not Nadcap, it is by the checklist and that is the final word. If the auditor doesn't see what he wants to see it's an NCR.
if you have to do corrective action and you have to send them evidence black out everything except the evidence. Don't send them a whole procedure for one paragraph because they will look at it and can ask more questions or even write more findings based on what you submit.
Great Advice!
The one that got me the most was when we called about a finding to question the validity of it. We told the Staff Eng that there is no requirement for us to do "X" and he agreed! So we asked why our CA to do "Y" was rejected. He told us it wasn't good enough. So we asked what they would accept. He told us "if you are not doing "X" then we will not accept the CA!
So even with it not being a requirement, we had to do what the auditor wanted to see in order to have the minor closed.

One other thing to be informed of is the ITAR/EAR issues. Know if your auditor is "Restricted" or "Unrestricted" so you can have the proper product available for the audit.

If you were around the automotive industries when QS was first coming out then you will be somewhat prepared for Nadcap. It's like stepping back in time about 20 years, when there was a lack of good auditors due to the number of companies needing QS.

Even the auditors from our Primes have shaken their heads at how the checklist has been implemented and interpreted.

Something else to look at. Go to their website and look up the top findings for the audits in your field. It will give you a good idea of what and how they are interpreting that checklist. I found it too late, we were hit for almost the exact samethings as was listed on their graph. Then look at the "average" findings per audit, and yes we were right at the mean for total findings and for majors and minors.

My Nadcap NDT audit is coming up also, I'm hoping that it will be different but from the folks here (they've been doing this for years) I don't get that warm fuzzy.

And Brad, you're right - it was an eye opener for me. I'm better prepared now.

Hello - was just browsing Nadcap and now registered on forum... Not sure what happened to Johnny B. How did the Audit go? We have recently been accreditated to Nadcap AC7119 - the Honeywell Directive... You will see there are 6 named companies on the Nadcap eAuditNet database.

Hello - was just browsing Nadcap and now registered on forum... Not sure what happened to Johnny B. How did the Audit go? We have recently been accreditated to Nadcap AC7119 - the Honeywell Directive... You will see there are 6 named companies on the Nadcap eAuditNet database.


Hello, Crick! We sure are glad that you dropped by the Cove!:agree1::bigwave: Please, jump in on any of these threads and share your experiences. It would be greatly appreciated.

A question... what do you mean by the 6 named companies?

Hello Brad

Thanks for the welcome. Basically there are currently 6 companies in the world (8 sites) who have Nadcap accreditation for manufacture of printed circuits. You can verify this if you log in to eAuditNet. You can access eAuditNet from the PRI website. Once you arrive in eAuditNet you will have to login (you may have to register first...). Anybody on the Nadcap route will be familiar with all of this. When you have logged into eAuditNet, click on "Online QML". This brings you to a search site - click in "electronics" box and hit search button. You will now see list of accreditated companies. The Electronics "special process" covers 3 sub groups - PCBs; assembly; cable and harness. As hinted earlier, there are currently 6 PCB companies accreditated to Nadcap AC7119. I would like to reinforce that that all of the comments / tips raised earlier are very applicable. We had 5 majors and 4 minors and closed all out in 2 cycles. Half the battle was understanding what was expected by PRI staff engineer, when submitting the NCRs. For a "first timer" addressing NCRs a useful reference is "eAuditNet Suppliers Guide", page 22+. This can be found in eAuditNet/Public Documents under the heading eAuditNet Users Guides. Hope this helps interested parties...

NADCAP hasn't been too painful, but two comments. First, we have had three auditors that have audited us to the same checklist over five audits. Their application of the checklist has been inconsistent.

Second, after the auditor reports findings, the entire Qualified Products Group has to accept every response. The auditor is done after the closing meeting. I find this difficult. Most auditors can't describe exactly the circumstances surrounding the finding and there is a round of rejecting responses because someone on the QPG doesn't understand the circumstances. I wish the auditor would close the findings instead of a group of people who weren't even there for the audit.

Nadcap is certainly a different experience to the usual QMS type accreditation. I guess, as always, there are "pros and cons" to Nadcap auditing approach. We, PCB manufacturers, are the specialists in our process / site. Different auditors can't possibly know / understand all our subtleties. Perhaps their inconsistencies are balanced by the task group overview. I think we have to take constructive benefits from these audits, bite the bullett and just get on with continual improvements...

For those having to deal with the electronics checklist here is a review sheet PRI has that you can provide imput back on the checklist questions.
Make sure you give logical justification.

Keep in mind that it is not the PRI Nadcap folks or auditors that come up with the questions (or guidance) it is driven by your customers who rarely agree with each other as to what has to be included in the final checklist that we get to suffer through. This is the reason the suplemental checklists came about in some of the methods because the majority of the members in a task group did not want to have everyone of the suppliers work to comply with a requirement unique to a single customer.

The newer the method being audited the more issues. Processes like Chemical processing, NDT, HT which have been in place for many years have better quidance and more consistancy between auditors and others than the newest methods such as electronics.
:2cents:

Under A SCOPE?!?!? that is pushing the envelope, eh? We are a pretty tight shop, though. We build circuit boards for military and aerospace industries. I am hoping we have our sh%# together at this point. Did you have to go back and forth with the task group on many C/As? or did you meet their requirements in one shot? I am ok taking a few hits, but if I have to spend weeks and months trying to satisfy some prick from Boeing, i'll go nuts. I have put too much time into this already.
And another thing!?!?!
They (Prime Reps) told me that once I am accredited I won't have to endure any more "Customer Audits." Has that been the case at your facility?


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not listen to your PRIME reps.... Just one example of why is that in December NADCAP gave us our PFD re-accreditation.... this covers us, amongst others Boeing Airbus BAE SYSTEMS.... now Airbus and Boeing both want to audit our PFD line!!!

I have 4 special process NADCAP accreditations! That means 12 months of the year we prepare for audits, are being audited or closing out NCR's.

My fav example to give people on how some of the auditors are I had a minor NCR on my chemical processing line because..... a label on a tank of WATER did not identify the tolerance of temperature control!!!! Fair point some of you will be saying..... the copy of the procedure NEXT to the label clearly stated the tolerance!!!

ANAL to the nth degree!

PS... I do trust any company with NADCAP though!

"PS... I do trust any company with NADCAP though! "

This kind of says it all. Good bad or otherwise you know that a firm that has made it through a Nadcap audit has a handle on what it takes to perform the process they are certified on.:2cents:

We have our second HT audit coming up in two weeks - so it will be really interesting to me to see how this goes. I am cautiously optimistic as it’s like a crap shoot with the auditors interpretations.

I will update everyone in a few weeks on how it went.:rolleyes:

We have our second HT audit coming up in two weeks - so it will be really interesting to me to see how this goes. I am cautiously optimistic as it’s like a crap shoot with the auditors interpretations.

I will update everyone in a few weeks on how it went.:rolleyes:

Are you being audited to the new 'revised' standards? We have our HT audit the 1st 3 days of March and having to make a few changes due to the change in handbook!

Are you being audited to the new 'revised' standards? We have our HT audit the 1st 3 days of March and having to make a few changes due to the change in handbook!

I believe the new revision goes into effect after our audit - February 2nd. So i would gather that we are to the current one.

Congratulations on your 98.9% score on your AS9100 audit....we scored 100% on our initial AS9100 registration audit in October so we know what an accomplishment that is.

Congratulations on your 98.9% score on your AS9100 audit....we scored 100% on our initial AS9100 registration audit in October so we know what an accomplishmet that is.Congratulations, but luckily, with the upcoming AS9101 standard, we will no longer quantify/score audit results in the Aerospace ICOP scheme. One less nonsensical dysfunction to deal with.

Well we just had our second NADCAP audit for Heat Treat last week. It was once again a learning experience, as they are very proud of their checklists and their interpretations of heat treat.

We did ok with some items to correct but nothing to bad. Mostly procedural things that we where doing but were not in the procedure.

Yeah, let us know Tom. Good luck to you! I'm in the process of leading the NADCAP implementation at a Chemical Processing shop. Looks like we'll be ready by July :confused: I've gone through this a couple of other times with Heat Treat, but never CP. Anyone have any experiences hosting a CP audit? Thanks in advance!

Yeah, let us know Tom. Good luck to you! I'm in the process of leading the NADCAP implementation at a Chemical Processing shop. Looks like we'll be ready by July :confused: I've gone through this a couple of other times with Heat Treat, but never CP. Anyone have any experiences hosting a CP audit? Thanks in advance!

Every year I go through NADCAP heat treatment, welding, chemical process and PFD. My chem line is very small though so not sure how much info I can give you..... main thing is if you have any operator controlled operations then make sure the timing is logged. An example is our operator lifts a basket from the acid tank into a wash tank.... then time taken has to be logged. There is a clause somewhere in the spec that states this is a requirement?!?!

I know I've said it before but; I thought some of the QS/ISO auditors were bad. The ones I've had with Nadcap take the cake. There have been times that I'd rather go through an IRS audit! But what can you do? They have you by the short hairs.

Good job Tom, we don't have a lot to do with AMS2750 but what we do have (embrittlement relief oven) it's costly and detailed.

Anyone have any experiences hosting a CP audit?
I've been through 1 Nadcap (2 findings), GE, Bell, DOD, Hamilton Sunstrand, Pratt & Whitney CA, and couple other audits for Passivation and Temper Etch.
Like Phiobi, we have a small line but haven't had any issues so if I can help ask away.
First thing, get the new checklists! They just posted them a few weeks ago.

Tom, have you run across the auditors that are a Level III internal auditor for your competitor but your Nadcap auditor yet?
They can be a Nadcap auditor and be a consultant for someone else. Set up their system and then have one of their subordinates do the Nadcap audit on them. Sounds good to me. No conflict of interest there.
However, in their Nadcap capacity, they can't help you answer a question or give you direction on CA.
I had some questions on the ITAR/EAR stuff and called the Staff Engineer for some guidance. He sent me a flyer to attend "his" training session, not associated with PRI, for $600.
Their scam is almost as bad as the Nigerian Prince scam. I think they all could be doing the Sham Wow commercials!:lmao:
In all my years of auditing and being audited I've never come across an issue like our last NDT audit.
We received an NCR for not having an employee sign the annual performance review. We questioned the validity of the finding due to no requirement to have a signed review. We showed evidence of the evaluation being reviewed with the employee but that wasn't good enough.
So we called the Staff Engineer when our corrective action was not accepted. When we asked to see the requirement for the signature we were told that there wasn't one. So we asked why our CA was rejected. The answer, "We will not accept anything other than a signature". Once again asked where the requirement was, and we were told there wasn't one but the only thing that they would accept was a signature.
Real good use of man power and monies there. Really saving the Primes some funds with that!

It's a no win situation with the suppliers. If the auditors don't find enough NCR's they are reviewed, they could lose their jobs. So they keep those little nit picky findings in their pockets to hit you with. And how can the Staff Eng go against the auditor. If they do it shows that the system is flawed, plus the Staff Eng wasn't on-site. He didn't see what the auditor saw. All they have to go on is the write-up.
Not a good set-up.
I go through their RAILs, it's scary. And the only way you get a say is to spend tons of money to become a voting member. I went to the meetings in PA last year in July. It's real scary!
But what are you going to do? Resistance is Futile, we will be assemilated.

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help. Yeah, I was unpleasantly surprised when I saw how much of the checklist was consumed by AMS2750 (and so was the boss when he found out how much it was going to cost him :mg:).

Randy is correct! I found it is all about the checklist. Mind you, our auditor was a rookie, old, small and couldn't handle the altitude of Colorado, therefore was under the weather, but all he really cared about was the checklist. We got hit on a couple of logs. Make sure all of your logs are accurate!!!!! When (if) you have corrective actions, fill them out by their format and give as much objective evidence as you can find. Once the Staff Engineer has accepted your response, it has to be approved by 3 Task Group Members (this is what I've heard). Then you become, "ACCREDITED!" Then all your customers call you up to congratulate you and set up a time when they can come into your facility and AUDIT YOU AGAIN!!!! It's a big, expensive pain in the arse!! We should get some of the Cove people together and start a Regulatory Agency of our own. We could all get rich too!!
On a serious note, I recommend going to a Nadcap meeting, if you are planning to get accredited. There is one, in Dallas, TX, February 16-20, 2009. It will give you insight into how the whole thing works and you can meet all the members of your Task Group (and have cocktails with them). The Dallas meeting will be the second one I attend. That should give me voting privileges for upcoming drafts and revisions.
Good luck to you!

Hello all, I'm a senior quality engineer for a large multi-disciplined aerospace company in the UK.

Previous to my current employment I had 4 years experience with Nadcap.. most of which was painful. However the one thing we did learn was PPPPPP is deffinitely the order of the day as far as Nadcap is concerned. "We" is important too.. most companies assume its a quality function. If your Prime Customer is breathing down your neck and you fail Nadcap.. The company MD will soon catch on that it's his problem too.. getting the management on side (internal pollitics permitting) for production is a big help.

The checklists are very direct and I would say that at least one person should be responsible for answering it well in advance of the audit (3-6 months preparation). I would never farm out the checklists to someone who should know the answers because its in their section and accept a string of circled YESs and NAs either. I found the best way was to dowwnload the relevant check list and copy the text into a word document.. then include under every question a hyperlink to the relevant objective evidence.

With most of the checklists there is a section regarding Preventitive Maintenance.. Im at a bit of a loss with this one. We have an external contractor that performs TUSs and thermocouple replacement IAW 2750D. The operators also complete their daily/weekly.. check sheets to confirm the ovens are in good working order. This forms the basis for our Preventitive Maintence work instruction.

At our last Audit an observation (not an NCR) was raised by the auditor, he believed that really we should be doing more.. like paying an electrical contractor to basically test switches on air circulating ovens and salt baths... then create a report to say the equipment is fine.

This seems a little OTT to me... and is my only Nadcap criticism, One idea I did have was to monitor the temperature of the motors used to circulate the air.. but as for switches.. The red/green and yellow lights are a bit of a give away.. switch broken should equal no light.

if anyone has any ideas on this I would definitely appreciate them.

"He sent me a flyer to attend "his" training session, not associated with PRI, for $600. "
Randy did you contact this number and report it? IF not then as with all things in QA you are doing nothing more than condoning it by your inaction. If you feel that the actions are not ethical call 724 772 1616 Bill Wagner or Arshad Hafeez woulb be your contacts high up in the food chain.
As far as teh auditors
"could lose their jobs."
Been one ( now am answering the questions they ask) and can say for the task groups I worked with as an auditor there defenatly is not a quota system. The way it is srtuctured there is absoutly no incentive for the auditor to write a finding as it is more work and potential agraviation for their set pay. If the finding is downgraded or voided it goes against their compensation. But there is is no down side to not writing one as far as compensation.

Do not get me wrong there are some realy stupid things in the Nadcap system some bad task group members, staff engineers and auditors as well as suppliers. In a perfect world why would we need QA at all? everyone would do what they should do with out any audits at all. I much prefer a single source of suffering than having every prime come in through out th year with their individaul pet peaves of the day to drive me nuts.
I make my noise and fix what I can and play the game through the rest.

Oh hell with the snow and ice today I have now fallen off my soap box and can not get up. See you with the spring thaw:D

Slimplynth
That raise the bar approach is an issue that is currently going through the Nadcap Management Councile as some thing that has to be eliminated. It is outside of the scope and Mandate given to PRI by the Primes.

I would not do anything about an observation that does not benifit my orginization. If it is not a finding then I am in compliance. Some task groups have begun to have observations included in eauditnet. This is not the original intent and needs to be fought against. I doubt that they have clean coverage in their procedures even to do it. Will have to mention that to my corprate contact so that he can review it as part of the primes audit of PRI and see how they like to answre findings against not folloing their own procedures.

To many firms roll over with PRI. Push back with in their system as long as you can suport your position. Staff enginers answere to task groups and task groups answere to the managemetn councile. Use their appeals process and make it a formal answere instead of a phone conversation.:2cents:

Andy,
I agree, this snow sucks! I'm tired of it.
Yes we did log a complaint, for whatever good that will do.
The Achieving Excellence Together logo is a crock. You can't get answers or inputs to correct issues because that would be "helping". The last auditor we had flat out told me that he was looking "extra" close because "I wasn't an NDT guy". I'm just an engineer, not an NDT guy.

If any of you do Passivation you know that some specs require a validation test - 24 hour Humidity, Copper Sulfate, etc. Some specs do not require a validation test, the ASTM specs for example.
I found that we were doing a test for all specs and removed it from our flows and travelers due to not being required and just added cost.
It turns out that the company had received an NCR for not validating the Passivation process while following the spec and to clear it they had to do the Copper Sulfate test, as a minimum.
When I asked why I was shown the NCR. That auditor will forever be known as "Where I Come From". He wrote up the NCR because, "Where I come from we always test".
And to clear it they had to put in a test even when the specification didn't call for one.:truce:

I would not do anything about an observation that does not benifit my orginization.

Be careful how you approach this. I have seen an Observation become an NCR and almost a nonsustaining NCR! If the auditor feels that you ignored it, you'll be punished.

I am in quality I LIVE FOR PUNISHMENT it is one of the job perks:biglaugh:

:truce:I guess I'm joining the club...
Latest nadcap audit... What a nightmare. I know the people who have gone through this, know what I'm talking about. The lack of specifics in the checklist, the auditor's subjectiveness, and the staff engineers having to make sense of something they have never seen or experienced... they fish around for a root cause and you have to guess what they're looking for (why don't they just tell you what to do?) the fact that we're stuck with a bureaucratic mess and have no other provider to use (PRI monopoly)... The stringent requirements (number of days to reply, automatic failures, etc.) not based on the number or severity of findings... I am not a happy camper. I tried to believe that the NADCAP process would be one of continual improvement, but what I've seen is this... a great improvement the first audit... and everything after that is nit-picking, meaningless waste of my time, when I could be spending time working on actual improvement.

This is our 5th CP audit. You would think the process would be smooth at this point. We were on merit from the last audit. I think we will be off merit this time, because of a repeat finding.

Our auditor found 13 NCRs, on the most minute items.
OK, well, after I got over that shock (previous audits had 5 and 6 NCRs, also mostly on minute items), the automatic email they send when the staff engineer replies to you - it didn't work. So I sat at my desk wasting 7 days of response time while I waited to receive the email.... finally I called. We had no record of ever receiving the email, although they claim to have sent it.

There is so much more ... it's very disheartening. And I am really a believer in the idea of Quality, for improving an organization.

Does anyone know of a forum or organization of suppliers who are actually attempting to get something real accomplished as far as fixing what's wrong with NADCAP? The SSC seems like a gratuitous and ineffective gesture. I think we as suppliers need a better and more effective forum. Perhaps if we got together we could petition for more effective action. Or at least share war stories.

I really don't know how many more years I can maintain my career in Aerospace if I have to deal with NADCAP.

Mamayoga,

I feel your pain!! It seems like everyone has pretty much a similar story to tell. I agree, something has to be done. They are a monopoly and they know it!

I am currently getting ready for the fourth NADCAP I've had the pleasure to be a part of :frust:(although the other three were for HT, and this is my first CP audit).

To be honest with you I don't mind the preparation and the actual audit too much. It's the CA responses to the Staff Engineers that I dread. I've gone with their RCCA course, and I'm still not sure what they are looking for half of the time:confused:

We are at their mercy. They believe that they are "representing the Primes" but they are so removed from reality they don't have a clue.

The last 2 times I have complained here, about Nadcap, my boss has been called:notme:. I don't know who it was from but I'm waiting for the "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse".

The auditors are similar to the local Police, if they don't write NCRs how does anyone know if they are doing their job? Just like the Police with writing tickets.

We started reviewing the Top 10 Findings and going over those areas. Last time during our NDT audit it was NAS410 Rev-3. Now tell me, how bad is the impact on the Primes if one of my exams is still a closed book vice an open book? How many bad parts went out of here because we had a higher standard than what NAS410 Rev-3 stated. It was a closed book in Rev-2 and changed in Rev-3. We had it documented in our "Written Practice" as an additional requirement but we received an NCR anyway.

Well there's another phone call.

:confused::mg::frust::nope:

VENTING ON PRI...

Well we just got our response to our corrective action submissions and once again I am shocked at the arrogance and unprofessionalism of the PRI staff. The lack of full communication in the process is incredulous. They actually asked for things to be submitted that I submitted which tells me they do not really look at what they have.

It is a shame that they have no competition because they feel they have the free hand to do and say what ever they want. 15 years in this professions and they treat me like I am an idiot and know nothing...

The audit process is a joke and they create so much red tape its amazing to me. I realize the seriousness of the commodity and I would like to think that it is complicated and bass actwards for a reason. I am getting on a plane next week so lets hope I am frustrated for all the wrong reasons.

I'm surprised! You are usually an advocate of Nadcap!?!?! :sarcasm:
Honestly though, I feel your pain. I went through my initial accreditation process at the end of last year. I am associated with the Electronics Task Group which is still in it's infancy. I found the best way is to use the old phrase, "If you can't beat 'em, get a bigger stick!" I just returned from my second Nadcap meeting in Dallas. I don't know if you attend those or not. I achieved Supplier Voting status in my task group and agreed to help re-write some aspects of our checklist, currently under revision. Being "On the Team" seems to help get an understanding of the philosophies of the system and you get to meet all of the Prime Reps that are scrutinizing your processes. It will probably not ever be the only watchdog we have to deal with, but one day, I'm sure, it will be the biggest as it is funded and supported by all the big boys in the aerospace industry. I hate to have to conform to most anything, but this will not go away, so you might have to get used to it or get on board.

hate to have to conform to most anything, but this will not go away, so you might have to get used to it or get on board.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. You will serve the Nadcap!:mg:

Hi All,

I'm hoping somebody can help me out here. I have just had my 4 day heat treatment audit and fell short on harndess testing. We only had 3 NCR's but 2 were for hardness testing. I, as usual feel it is down to who the auditor is and how they feel at the time. We have had HT NADCAP for 6 years now and this is the first time anybody has made a negative comment about hardness testing procedures, let alone given an NCR.

Is there anybody out there that would let me take a look at hardness testing procedure? I wouldn't normally ask but with NADCAP I know I am going to have to re-write the procedure 2 times minimum and just wanted bit of a head start.

On a further note I would like to ask a question:

Have you ever been audited by somebody who would not abide by company H&S rules, insisted on a break every hour to smoke and also thought it was OK to start drinking alcohol, on site in the middle of the morning?

Report the auditor as that is clear grounds for termination of their contract.
This process is hard enough with out auditors like that. You are paying for the audit and are to expect that you are getting an audit with out that type of foolishness.

We just completed our HT audit and got hit with 2 "interpertations" that resulted in minors. I am going to fight one but the other I can agree with and will implement as I can see us tripping on the interpertation and having problems. Better the cheap insurance. I am more angry with my task group memeber who did not give us guidance on these new interpertations.
I let him know that it would be realy helpfull:sarcasm: if they would send advisories out to all those who are scheaduled for a HT audit that the task group is changing an interpertation. I can fix our system to be in compliance much easyer that I can satisify a PRI staff engineer:cool:.

For those that are due for an audit the new guidance items are:
1) Some one other than the oppertors must review the HT charts and show evidance of such review.6.1.2
2) You have to record the the furnace load time and the start of soak. We had a system that only recorded the end time and charted every minuit so we worked backward to "know" when the soak started.

Drop me a PM and will look at what you have.

2) You have to record the the furnace load time and the start of soak. We had a system that only recorded the end time and charted every minuit so we worked backward to "know" when the soak started.

We had lengthy conversations with them last year about the "start of soak" issue. Then they came out with their guidance on it after we even got a prime involved that had the same issues. PRI's take up until the guidance memo was that the start of soak happens when the actual set point is achieved. Then it could go anywhere within the tolerance. Our contention was that the start of soak was when the temperature entered into the set point tolerance.

You could have a furnace that achieves one degree below set-point and holds there for hours; never actually reaching the exact set-point - and it would never start timing with their original interpretation. Even though the SAT provides a known tolerance for the control system.

Their new guidance states it starts within 5*F of the set-point. So we had to set all of our controllers to start timing at 5*F from set point rather than their original settings from the manufacturer.

Have you ever been audited by somebody who would not abide by company H&S rules, insisted on a break every hour to smoke and also thought it was OK to start drinking alcohol, on site in the middle of the morning?

We did have an auditor that wanted to smoke every hour or so, but they didn't start drinking! I believe we would have called PRI the first time the bottle was brought out.

As for interpretations, if you look at the top hits during any year, you will notice a trend. Once an issue gets "calmed" down you will see it pop up again. Once the clients get something under control the interpretation will change so that the auditors will have another means of collecting an NCR.
If you have had Nadcap for a few audits, look over your NCRs. Is there really anything that made your company a better supplier? Was there anything that they hit you on that could have been an impact to hardward? More than likely not. It's all a matter of interpretation and pleasing the auditor.
I really have not seen anything, past audits or in the ones I've been through, that makes the company a better supplier to the Primes. It's been more of a justification of purpose.
Think about it. If they really wanted you to be more productive and a better supplier, don't you think they would give you more help in compliance? But they can't, or won't.
We Must Comply:2cents:

Good points.... on the drinking thing, he never appeared drunk onsite and I didn't actually see the bottle until the last day, for the 1st 3 days it was just the smell that increased as the day went on.

It is true though, NADCAP is sold as the way to imrpove your systems and comply with primes desires but they never help.... also they have the ordasity to say "cost effective".... thats a joke!!

Oh well, time to stop complaining and get on with the hours and hours of pointless procedure changes and RCA's!!! I love NADCAP :sarcasm:

Test bars - we produce mechanical testing test bars as per EN2002-1. The actual dimensions required are supplied within the specification but there are no tolerances.

Anybody out there use the same spec? Do you know the tolerances that are applied to a machined test bar?

Look at EN 2002-1 Annex C.3.

Tolerance on the diameter, width or thickness of the parallel length is +/- 0.5% and shall not vary by more than 0.03 mm.

I have my first Heat treatment NADCAP audit starting on Tuesday 7th and finishing on Thursday 9th.We have been told by our customers if we don't gain this accreditation we will not gain any new business (No pressure there then). I am really nervous about this audit, as these people seem to be have rules of their own, and we are walking into the unknown. Please everyone pray for me!!!!!! I'll report back if I live through it.

My experience is with the elastomer seals audit, but I'm sure there are some similarities. I'll have you in my prayers. You must audit yourself to the checklist and auditor's handbook thoroughly, ask questions or report inconsistancies to the staff engineer, implement all the requirements, then deal with the auditor's application of the requirements. After that, you have to satisfy the staff engineer and every person on the QPG with your NCR responses (it usually takes two or three tries) and be happy you're done for another cycle. Continual improvement is not even a topic in the checklist I deal with. The check list for elastomer seals deals with solutions that the QPG thinks will work, even though they bear little effect on product quality. I'm frustrated by the process. I must take a more proactive approach to the QPG and their formulation of the checklist. The elastomer seals QPG meeting is nearby this summer and I'm going to go and advocate for a better checklist. Wish me luck!

HI WChorn,

Many thanks for your kind words and prayers!!! As I said I am really going into this blind, and very nervous, but hay we can only do our best and go from there. Insidently I see you work for an elastomer seals company, we supply springs for elastomer seals, if you are ever in the need please let me know. LOL

I have my first Heat treatment NADCAP audit starting on Tuesday 7th and finishing on Thursday 9th.We have been told by our customers if we don't gain this accreditation we will not gain any new business (No pressure there then). I am really nervous about this audit, as these people seem to be have rules of their own, and we are walking into the unknown. Please everyone pray for me!!!!!! I'll report back if I live through it.

From my experience with heat treatment audits you need to ensure that you have very acurate traceability. My last auditor was very hot on being able to identify the start of the soak for the old jobs and he looked at every bit of information supplied for our TUS and SAT.

Good luck!

How did you get on with answering your NCRs Phiobi?
I've just finished updating our work instruction for Hardness - a slow and tedious job, appliacble to 3 internal companies who have a different mix of upto 10 external customers from most continents :0).
Might be just about ready for the next heat treat audit by the time I've done with Conductivity and Heat Treat ;0)

How did you get on with answering your NCRs Phiobi?
I've just finished updating our work instruction for Hardness - a slow and tedious job, appliacble to 3 internal companies who have a different mix of upto 10 external customers from most continents :0).
Might be just about ready for the next heat treat audit by the time I've done with Conductivity and Heat Treat ;0)

I'm not getting very far. The staff engineer is being an idiot except for one thing. I have stated that we will retest (hardness) as per ASTM E18, he has come back and asked where in E18 I reference.... for the life of me I can't find it though.......... I'M STUCK!!!!!

Yeah I think you'll struggle there mate.

ASTM E-18 08b is more really to do with the machine set up (Daily verification and periodic calibrations.) and doesn't go into the nitty gritty of daily operation.

The requirement for retesting comes from Nadcap - AC7102/5 section 3.3.

Though you've now said to a staff engineer that you'll do retesting I.A.W ASTM e18... ouch. I think you can only apologise and say it was a genuine mistake in mis-quoting the incorrect spec.

Thanks for that. i feel an idiot now. It was one of those things I was putting together the response, put that as a question to remind me to check it out and it ended up being put in the spec by my engineer!!!!:bonk:

Oh well, should sort it out now......

Again thanks!!

I have my first Heat treatment NADCAP audit starting on Tuesday 7th and finishing on Thursday 9th.We have been told by our customers if we don't gain this accreditation we will not gain any new business (No pressure there then). I am really nervous about this audit, as these people seem to be have rules of their own, and we are walking into the unknown. Please everyone pray for me!!!!!! I'll report back if I live through it.


Good Luck, let us know how it goes. If you have any questions, especially about the corrective action phase just ask.

Well I lived to tell the tail!!! We ended up with 5 Majors and 3 Minors, which since this was our initial audit, I am told is not too bad. The most difficult one I see to close off is where I was told by the company who perform our TUS that they do not use offsets, and I have stated this in my procedure, but the auditor has noticed that during the last TUS a offset was used!! has anyone got any ideas of how to get this one through and signed off.

Thats a very good result for a first audit, well done.:cool:

You are going to have to put in a review of the subtier's paperwork.
Now the question is if you allready state that this is what you do for out side services? If you allready state that you do this then the Staff engineer will push the issue that the current review is ineffective.
BE CAREFUL what you post as suporting evidance. Just post the specific sections of procedures that were revised to address issues.
:2cents:

Good advice from Andy, use a marker pen if need be to black out anything you don't want him to see.

The hard part starts now. Make sure you do deep, deep root cause analysis and corrective actions. Also - like others have said black out non-CA related information as it will then be auditable.

Look through the user manual on the website for the details they want for you submission.

Use the Nadcap Response Guidelines, very carefully. I had to be very specific and provide in-depth proof of Impact: possible escapes, customer notification, etc. I didn't get away with hiding any part of my objective evidence because of the stubbornness and immaturity of my staff engineer. He has since been replaced. He wanted a lot of obj evidence and didn't let it rest until I gave them everything. The last time I went to a Nadcap event, I was told that the process wasn't designed like that and personality might have played a part in the whole situation. Also . . . you have the right to appeal the staff engineer and anything else! I didn't realize how that worked until I brought that up in front of my task group. Remember you have 45 cumulative days, on top of the deadlines they give you. Use all the time you need to get it right the first time! One of my findings, I felt, was incorrectly portrayed by the auditor (who had no experience in the area he was auditing), I wrote the response as such and it was accepted. You can win with these guys if you do it correctly!

All good responses. Be very careful to only, ONLY reply to the NCR as written. Remember, the Staff Eng wasn't a part of the onsite audit so he doesn't know the set up, etc.
Be detailed as far as the NCR is concerned but stick to the NCR. As was posted before, once you submit it, it is auditable. It is not beyond the Staff Engs to write another NCR based upon what you submit. So be careful and to the point.
Don't waste the response time or postings. These guys won't help you address an issue or tell you what they want to see. It's just Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3, you're out and you fail. Don't believe the "Achieving Excellence Together" bull. They won't help you.
So get your info together, go over your audit notes, read into what the auditor wrote up, and as Mike Rowe says, get ready to get dirty.
Good job on the audit.
Oh BTW, check their website for the Top 25 NCRs and look over the meeting minutes. You get some valuable insite as to what and how the auditors are evaluating the checklist.
:2cents:

Good point about the staff engineer not being on site. They are trying to achieve closure on an audit they didn't conduct so you do need to send them everything they need (but nothing more :mg:)

I did find speaking with the staff engineer very useful but you have to be careful not to put your foot in it. He wasn't my point of contact for the last audit but I've found Jerry Aston the UK staff engineer to be very approachable and helpful.

"Please reassess the root cause" - :bonk::bonk::bonk::bonk::bonk:

Folks, I would HIGHLY recomend that you go to the PRI website and read up on the minutes from their last meeting, especially the AQS minutes.
They are complaining that their are not enough NCRs being written.
I always believed that as your system matures that you would see less NCRs, I guess they don't see it that way. Look at the slide shows.:mg:

Ludicrous.:lmao: Apparently NADCAP's world ignores Deming (ban numeric goals) and the necessity for a standard normal distribution to use "Z-factors.":frust:

They are complaining that their are not enough NCRs being written.Who wants to bet the next wave of NADCAP audits will have, as a result, more NC's being reported? Auditors (most) can take the hint very well.:tg:

Talk about audit bias...

Many thnaks for the advise, but will the engineer not come back and ask why the rest has been blacked out, if he does what should I say?

That, in fact, happened to me. I originally sent sections of my documents, following the same advice from the guys here at Elsmar Cove. The staff engineer responded with "Need more objective evidence" until I had sent every doc, procedure and work instruction pertaining to my findings. It all depends on the personality of the staff eng and the prime reps involved with your particular task group.

Good Luck!

I will normaly just send a pdf of the page with the change. Of course this will not work if you have extensive changes to make in a document.
The staff engineer will look deep to ensure that you have appeared to address the root causse of the problem and coverved and possable systemic issuess. They key is to try and work to prevent finding creep as much as you possably can.
That said all those things that you might be uneasy to have the staff engineer see you will need to work on over the time before the next audit to get them into a condition that you can just put them out there. I can assure you that they know exactly what we are doing when we submit like this and wil at times push when they see responses that are more borderline than the rest that they have been reviewing.

Who wants to bet the next wave of NADCAP audits will have, as a result, more NC's being reported? Auditors (most) can take the hint very well.:tg:

Talk about audit bias...
I am in for that bet
Bet this wish by the Primes gets implemented no better than the AS9100 registrars "tighting up" after Boeing gave a warning shot over the bow. Sorry a cheap shot not applicable to all.
Was not the case for HT but I may be proven wrong in my upcomming Chem process audit and will have to see. I know what will be asked just need to make sure we have the answeres.

As big a pain as it is Nadcap is at times still my best suport in driving basic change to actualy do what is required or actualy resolve items and not just try our best to do what is required by our internal and external requirements.

Andy is right. If you address the NCR properly, they don't ask for anything else. But you have to be to the point.
Once again, remember that the Staff Eng hasn't seen you operate nor have they seen your shop. So what comes as a given to you, they are blind concerning it.
Give details and "black out" the rest. Look at your answer as if you don't know your system. Think of it as giving driving directions, to your plant, to someone who has never been in your area.
You know, I don't care for their mode of operation. I really don't care for their way of doing business. But it is what we are given and we have to learn to operate within it.
I can't stress the fact enough, the Staff Eng has not been onsite. He does not see your procedures, etc. You must have a nice tidy package so he gets a feel for what your system can do and how your system can operate.
I don't envy their job, think about how many different approaches they see to correct similar problems. Which ones can work and which ones don't quite get there?

HI Randy,

Have looked on the NADCAP website and I do not seem to be able to find the 25 NCR's can you point me in the right direction on where I can find this information.

Many thanks

Fred

I go to Resources, Documents, Public Documents and then to NDT. There is a listing for the TOP 25 findings.
I don't know if they publish them for each grouping, I know they do for NDT.

NDT and Composite groups put this out as a metric but the others do not.
You would think that all groups would present the same look and structure but they act as independent entities and each is differnat from the other.

In the public documents also look at any thing labeled "auditors handbook" as this can contain the interpertation, expectations and guidance given to the auditor to follow.
:2cents:

In the public documents also look at any thing labeled "auditors handbook" as this can contain the interpertation, expectations and guidance given to the auditor to follow.
:2cents:

Not only do the so-called handbooks give interpretation, expectations and guidance, in the case of elastomeric seals, they give further requirements. I've always had a problem with this. Suppliers helped the QPG put the checklist together after much haggling. After the checklist was published, the QPG just added to the handbook those things the suppliers recommended against. It's really a comedy, or is it tragedy?.:frust:

Has anybody had a look at "the all new website"? It's pretty much the same just a slightly different layout!!?? Not quite what I expected after the THREE emails I had telling all about it!

In the public documents also look at any thing labeled "auditors handbook" as this can contain the interpertation, expectations and guidance given to the auditor to follow.

Yes, you have to keep up with these. They make some changes to the Handbook/Checklist with no notification to the users. An easy NCR for the auditor.

Monitor the meeting minutes and the RAILS, it will give you an indication on what is being looked at, what is being revised and what is being discussed as concerns.

Can I get ISO 18004:2008 Guide to acheving effective occupational health and safety performance

H Gopinath

Can I get ISO 18004:2008 Guide to acheving effective occupational health and safety performance

H GopinathWhere to start? Oh, yes. Welcome to the Cove. There is no ISO 18004 document. There is no OHSAS 18004 document, either. OHSAS 18002 would be what you want, but it can not be freely distributed because it is protected by copyright. It is against The Cove policy to solicit copies of documents protected by copyright. So, please don't do it again.

And, finally, the thread where you posted this request has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Please note that The Cove has thousands of threads. Please familiarize yourself with the search function.

Did I say welcome to The Cove?:tg:

I agree with Randy regarding the obersvations. Although there's no such thing as "Observation" in Nadcap, one of the biggest benefits of the audits is to write down auditor's every comment and issue the auditor frowns at, and then later take a look at them and see if there's room for improvement. Look at it as free consulting, guys!
I've had my 3 initial audits (HT, NDT w/PT&RT, and Weld). Total of 8 findings :) But then again, I've gone trough about 20 Nadcap audits now with various employers. We also had wonderful auditors, couldn't ask for anyone better :)

For those who boast with their 100% AS9011 scores... the auditor quality in that area varies immensly. I am shocked what we get away with company called Orion versus the BSI we had at my previous employer. Glad I'm not responsible for quality system any more !

My company specializes in Nadcap consulting so I can give you many examples of how my clients have done. There are many potential pitfalls that can be avoided with just a little guideance. PRI is the only company allowed to give certifications. A lot of good practices are in Nadcap requirements, but it is very heavy on documentation and the audits are typically very deep. Nadcap is much more prescriptive than most other quality related standards with very little room for interpretation. David Johnson

My company specializes in Nadcap consulting

I don't envy your job!

While I understand and agree with the purpose they are trying to meet, I don't care for the method chosen.

Having gone through a few audits and having audited to the "checklists", I have come to a new realization.

While the checklists contain info and requirements of the Primes, they are mainly written to try and give standardization to the auditors. To weed out the auditor interpretation. (Still don't understand how an open air dryer not capable of going over 160 degrees F is considered thermal treatment). However, in doing so they have painted the suppliers into the corner.
In many instances it reminds me of the US legal system. Books upon books have been written interpreting the "law" and everyday we see it bent one way or another.
Checklist upon checklist have been written trying to nail down exactly what is required, but every audit the "letter of the law" is just a little different.
However, I will say this. This past weekend I flew down to Charleston SC and during the flight I slept soundly. No worries about a crash. But, I was shocked when I was asked for a credit card, just to get a bottle of water!:mg:
I understand that a lot of different factors go into the price of a ticket and cost of operation.
But if Nadcaps emphasis was on process improvement, lean manufacturing, etc. instead of compliance to the dictated P's & Q's, wouldn't that assist a bit in offsetting the price increases?
Just an example; I agree that TAM panels are an important piece of equipment, however, what good is the baseline picture that I have to compare them to? And if this picture is so important to the operation of my PT process then why isn't it regulated?
There is no call out to what the picture is suppose to be - approximately a 1:1 ratio but not the resolution of the printer, nothing about the quality of the paper, etc.
As long as it's a 1:1 ratio (who can say what approximate is) I could print it on a paper towel according to the requirments. :nope:
And what kind of comparison would that be.
I'll give someone else the soapbox.:2cents:

Randy Stewart,

I understand your frustrations and for the most part agree with them. Nadcap is more about Quality Assurance (consistancy in implementing best practices known as requirements) rather than Quality Management (implementing continuous improvements ie. Lean Practices). Some companies will immediately improve with the requirements, but continued ROI years after is not nearly as high as a continuous improvement system such as Lean Mfg. Nadcap is very heavy in documented proof of following the requirements. Many requirements are open ended and have lots of room for interpretation and wide-reaching company-wide implications. Others can be very prescriptive and sometimes considered overkill for a small company. Some of our clients have less than 5 employees. Today I talked with two companies each of only one employee. But last Friday I talked with a company of over 900 employees... each of them appling the same deep level of requirements. We specialize in EACH area of Nadcap, so our stable of consultants has to be quite large to cover all of these specifications, let alone their revisions and interpretations, etc. But we are able to keep on top of it all with hundreds of successful clients all passing their first attempt. I would recommend Lean Mfg. principles to any company, and a QMS like AS9100 to most aerospace companies, but only recommend Nadcap for those who have to do it.

This looks like a good place to ask this. If it isn't please direct me.

I'm a contractor with a heat treat facility. Doing several jobs.

They had a Nadcap audit earlier this year, and it was pointed out that they needed to have their SAT & TUS procedures documented. I got the job.

The SAT was no problem.
Looking at the TUS material, I've found that the TUS recipes ALL have temperature steps in them. AMS2750 says "you test the way you run" (which makes sense), and none of the production recipes have steps.
When I pointed this out, the QA folks pointed fingers at Engineering: "They do that because it overshoots otherwise."

Well, duh.

They haven't been burned on this yet, but I suspect that after I document the procedure, the first auditor who sees this will jump all over them.

I don't think that what they're doing is kosher. Is it?

Yes, it is not Kosher. Nadcap will expect each step to be documented. "Steps" must include requirements from Nadcap and any unique operating steps used at the company. They'll also want to see evidence in the quality record that all steps are followed. If testing steps, that the test passed must be documented... not just that the test was performed. If two specs conflict, use the more ridged of the two. If they overlap and one is not more ridged than the other, than ask for a letter of clarification from Nadcap or from the prime aerospace customer. Take this all as "general" guidelines. Sometimes the answer may vary a bit from this based on a certain spec. If you'd like supplemental Nadcap Heat Treating consulting assistance, you can find my contact info in my elsmar profile. We've never failed an audit. David

Haven't visited for a while, but I can see lots of frustration out there concerning Nadcap. :truce:

I personally think the principle is good. It is a driver to define and tighten process. If I / you are honest, is there not a sense of achievement in obtaining accreditation? Analyzing the thread comments, it seems to be a challenge against the administration, rather than the special process. I view it that we must attempt to educate PRI, technically.

I am interested in electronics group. I think PRI would benefit if they brought on board more technical experts, if they want to be more respected and effective. Is this the same for other special processes? With respect to NCs raised - they do appear to be "pedantic" - Now, if the audit, (AC7119), detected a fundamental problem, (and only experts would realise this), e.g. insufficient plating in a plated through hole, or a cracked via due to non-ductile copper, i.e. 'dig deep', then the audit would really be worth respect. In the distant past, there was a need to subcontract some commercial work to more than one PCB manufacturers - couldn't believe it, when PTH Cu was less than 13 microns - How do they survive? I am obviously not saying that this is reflective of all non-accreditated manufacturers. The worry is that there are primes who must be sourcing PCBs, for example, in UK. Apart from Honeywell, I am not aware of others to be active in use of Nadcap accredited circuit manufacturers, at least not from UK? I believed this was a mandate of the primes? Any AC7119s have a view point on this? If primes don't insist, insist, insist, on Nadcap, then what is the point? :frust:

Fundamentally, the basic concern about Nadcap is the fact that it is a monopolistic approach. There is no alternative, if the supplier is mandated to attain accreditation. And we all know what happens when you don't have to compete in the marketplace.

Fundamentally, the basic concern about Nadcap is the fact that it is a monopolistic approach. There is no alternative, if the supplier is mandated to attain accreditation. And we all know what happens when you don't have to compete in the marketplace.

I raised this same issue with 2 different NADCAP guys in the past 4 weeks. Welding guy said that PRI just do what our customers ask of them. PFD/Etch guy said it is a load of rubbish he only does it for the money :-)

It's really tough. We MUST have NADCAP etch for Airbus Boeing and Goodrich, we have now found it is cheaper to sub-con the PFD due to running cost and accreditation costs.... spanner in the works though, we do an in house PFD check pre-HT NADCAP now trying to say this must also be etched....

With NADCAP and 100% aerospace companies like mine you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Can't say NO to NADCAP, yet it increases our over heads therefore the RC to the primes....

Still REALLY bugs me when the primes then insist of special process audits year on year, again can't say no... AS9100 lol

Sorry, rant over just had 2 audits and felt like I was banging my head against a wall at times, still only got 3 findings :applause: