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.