Nadcap - Tooling Control - Major Audit Finding (Question)

[Eloy Gomez]

We just performed our Nadcap audit for composites:

Here is the finding:

Requirement: 7.1 - Is tooling identified and referenced in the work instructions for traceability?

Finding: Reference Part 141N8631Y103, Job 120665ANX, Op 260. A clear, plastic template was used to locate a stiffener in the center of the metal bond lay-up. The template had no identification of any kind. Because there is no evidence the template was ever inspected it cannot be determined if the stiffener is properly located. An audit of the final inspection operation for the part revealed that the location of the stiffener is not verified.

Is a composites/metal bond scope to AC7118. The thing is that the auditor made this a major finding. The item not identified is used as a shop aid.

Our question is: Should this have been a major finding?
Although we agree that there is room for improvement here it does not justify a complete breakdown of the product or impact to product?

We are thinking about getting PRI to change this finding to a minor but we are new at this. Any help or ideas will be appreciated. Thanks

 

[Stijloor]

A Quick Bump!

Can someone help?

Thank you very much!!

 

[Ninja]

Because there is no evidence the template was ever inspected it cannot be determined if the stiffener is properly located.

An audit of the final inspection operation for the part revealed that the location of the stiffener is not verified.


Although we agree that there is room for improvement here it does not justify a complete breakdown of the product or impact to product?

Hello Eloy,
I do not work in aerospace...

That being said, I just have one question area for clarification:
1. If you don't control the location jig...
2. And don't verify stiffener placement in further inspection (you said final inspection so this is an assumption)...
3. And location is important to the final part...

How do you know it doesn't impact the product? Maybe it does impact the product...or COULD impact the product?

There are a few assumptions implicit in my question, so please shed some light on the needs/requirements vs. controls around the finding.

 

[dsanabria]

We just performed our Nadcap audit for composites:

Here is the finding:

Requirement: 7.1 - Is tooling identified and referenced in the work instructions for traceability?

Finding: Reference Part 141N8631Y103, Job 120665ANX, Op 260. A clear, plastic template was used to locate a stiffener in the center of the metal bond lay-up. The template had no identification of any kind. Because there is no evidence the template was ever inspected it cannot be determined if the stiffener is properly located. An audit of the final inspection operation for the part revealed that the location of the stiffener is not verified.

Is a composites/metal bond scope to AC7118. The thing is that the auditor made this a major finding. The item not identified is used as a shop aid.

Our question is: Should this have been a major finding?
Although we agree that there is room for improvement here it does not justify a complete breakdown of the product or impact to product?

We are thinking about getting PRI to change this finding to a minor but we are new at this. Any help or ideas will be appreciated. Thanks

Time to call the technical adviser and challenge the level of the finding which does not meet the criteria of major finding.

 

[andygr]

From the finding stated above I have underlined the key items below
Finding: Reference Part 141N8631Y103, Job 120665ANX, Op 260. A clear, plastic template was used to locate a stiffener in the center of the metal bond lay-up. The template had no identification of any kind. Because there is no evidence the template was ever inspected it cannot be determined if the stiffener is properly located. An audit of the final inspection operation for the part revealed that the location of the stiffener is not verified.

From what the auditor stated the location of the stiffener is not verified durring or after fabrication. I am sure that there is a design requirement for its location. This elevates it to a major finding since there is no verification of conformance to design that could be seen by the auditor.

 

[dsanabria]

From the finding stated above I have underlined the key items below
Finding: Reference Part 141N8631Y103, Job 120665ANX, Op 260. A clear, plastic template was used to locate a stiffener in the center of the metal bond lay-up. The template had no identification of any kind. Because there is no evidence the template was ever inspected it cannot be determined if the stiffener is properly located. An audit of the final inspection operation for the part revealed that the location of the stiffener is not verified.

From what the auditor stated the location of the stiffener is not verified durring or after fabrication. I am sure that there is a design requirement for its location. This elevates it to a major finding since there is no verification of conformance to design that could be seen by the auditor.

Base on the following statement - a FAIR was performed and product was not affected - no complaint from customer - I presume life is good - time to challenge the auditor and your process.

"Is a composites/metal bond scope to AC7118. The thing is that the auditor made this a major finding. The item not identified is used as a shop aid.

Our question is: Should this have been a major finding?
Although we agree that there is room for improvement here it does not justify a complete breakdown of the product or impact to product?

We are thinking about getting PRI to change this finding to a minor but we are new at this. Any help or ideas will be appreciated. Thanks

 

[andygr]

NIP -07-02 para 5.7 coveres why this was clasified as a major
You can log in to eauditnet and see this document.

The finding is against the question and since the tool was not identified then it does not comply with "Requirement: 7.1 - Is tooling identified and referenced in the work instructions for traceability?" since it is stated that the tool is not identified.

Now as part of the review of the condition noted the auditor added additional detail on the situation. You might get the identification issue against 7.1 changed to a minor finding but the added information addressing if the part does or does not meet design will just be moved to another question by the staff engineer ( which he has the right to add finding based on supplied information)such as 8.1.1 or 11.3.2 or 11.3.15
Then you will have 2 findings instead of one to address with the staff engineer and one of them will still be a major.
I would go with one finding over two any day of the week with Nadcap since the work to close them is the same for major vrs minor. The only time it realy makes a differance is if it would impact the criteria for failure.