UNCONFIRMED MINUTES - Performance Review...

eQuaLified MANAGEMENT COUNCILMARCH 2015

UNCONFIRMED

UNCONFIRMED MINUTESMARCH 06, 2015

BERLIN, GERMANY

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the eQuaLified Management Council in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the eQuaLified Management Council and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

FRIDAY, MARCH 06, 2015

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS 1.1 Call to Order

The eQuaLified Management Council (eQMC) was called to order at 9:00 a.m.

eQMC Members Present

NAME COMPANY NAME

Hal Abel Raytheon Missile SystemsMark Binfield Goodrich UTASPhillip Brockman TechmetalsMartin Day Honeywell AerospaceRichard Freeman TWIEric Jacklin F.M. Callaghan & SonCarol Jeffcoate Honeywell AerospaceBob Koukol Honeywell AerospaceJohn Massie Paradigm PrecisionJean-Philippe Mathevet SAFRANAngelina Mendoza Goodrich UTASMichael Noettl MIL IncBrad Richwine RaytheonSteve Row Goodrich UTASSteve Starr Honeywell AerospaceLaurie Strom Honeywell Aerospace ChairpersonYuhui Sun Shanghai Aircraft CompanyJeff Thyssen GE AviationJeff Tumezak TechmetalsZia Usmani BAE (MAI) UKDoug Webb Honeywell Aerospace

PRI Staff Present

Joanna LeighJoseph PintoDavid Sanchez

The Chair, Laurie Strom, opened the meeting with introductions and a brief overview of the conflict of interest and anti-trust information (see embedded presentation below).

1


UNCONFIRMED

Introductions were made and the minutes from the October 2014 meeting in Pittsburgh were approved as written.

The agenda was reviewed and a proposal made, and approved, to move Implementation Sub-Team Update to the beginning of the eQMC agenda.

2.0 IMPLEMENTATION SUB-TEAM UPDATE

Mark Binfield reviewed the information (see embedded presentation below), including the Introduction to eQuaLified presentation included within it. The draft whitepaper was also mentioned briefly, with attendees invited to provide feedback to Mark Binfield.

The attendees requested that the Introduction to eQuaLified presentation be made available on the website. It was confirmed that it would be uploaded.

Mark additionally explained that case studies will be valuable to develop in due course, as well as other activities to promote awareness, as many people are not aware that the Bodies of Knowledge are publicly available on the PRI website for free, and may be used for training etc without the eQuaLified exams if appropriate. Awareness is key.

Laurie Strom explained that AS9100 already requires that applicable staff be appropriately trained and qualified. Most companies handle this internally. But there is concern in the industry about the demographics and the loss of the people capable of training the operators. There was a general open discussion with regards to how the day to day process may run well, but if that operator experiences a problem at some point, they may not know what to do. Consequently, ensuring they have a good understanding of the theory of “why” processes run the way they do is important as well as hands-on, practical training. As a result, the people involved in eQuaLified determined that while training and qualification of operators is important, it is more important to assure the complete understanding of the planner level staff, the people who decide what the operator is trained on. The planner is someone with enough general and some specific knowledge to make the necessary connections within the company’s processes.

Laurie further clarified that the Bodies of Knowledge (BoK) are public documents that are fully available on the PRI website and that there is no cost to participate in the BoK development or to access them on the PRI website. eQuaLified procedures are on eAuditNet. To date, the exam questions are developed by consultants and reviewed by eQuaLified subscribers as companies with enough vested interest to participate in that activity. The subscription fee is $3000 per commodity. As it is required by AS9100 anyway, and the requirements are similar from company to company (similar to auditing) eQuaLified reduces the time and energy investment for an individual company to ensure personnel knowledge of special process validation and verification by working together. More input is always required for this effort as greater participation will ensure a more robust system. A question was raised about how companies can determine the value of subscription, if they can’t see the exam questions until they subscribe; the pending subscriber option was explained as effectively allowing subscriber access to eQuaLified for a limited period of time, in order for companies to make an informed decision about subscribing.

2


UNCONFIRMEDJeff Thyssen noted that the Heat Treating suppliers have asked the Nadcap Heat Treating Task Group three times for a way to identify competent pyrometry service providers and asked whether those suppliers could require pyrometry service providers to take the applicable eQuaLified exam to demonstrate competency. Laurie explained that the preferred approach is not to require eQuaLified, but to encourage proactivity, further noting that during the exam beta-testing phase, external parts of both Honeywell and UTC that conduct metrology was included and that their feedback was excellent.

Eric Jacklin proposed to put some eQuaLified specific questions together for the Supplier Survey. Joe Pinto cautioned that it is a Nadcap Supplier Survey so, while the idea may be feasible, it would have to be agreed by the SSC Leadership Team. Eric then stated that the SSC have always supported and promoted the eQuaLearn program and will continue to do so, and that this should be no different. Eric further suggested approaching the SSC LT Chair Tom Newton to see whether the SSC could host a SSC general meeting panel discussion and/or a sponsored session about eQuaLified at a future meeting.

It was clarified that eQuaLearn is a completely separate program to eQuaLified and that within eQuaLified there is a fee to take the exams because PRI has to pay a fee to WebAssessor, the exam software provider. WebAssessor offers a number of optional security measures, such as proctoring by their staff, and embedded security measures, such as exam question randomization from a bank of questions larger than the exam itself. Exam takers are not notified of the exact questions that they got wrong, but rather told the topic in which further study is needed, similar to ASQ and ASNT.

It was clarified that eQuaLified subscription is open to all – OEMs, suppliers, airlines, training organizations etc and is separate to a Nadcap subscription. The term “subscriber” may be confusing as it applies to both Nadcap and eQuaLified. Eric suggested including eQuaLified terminology in the PRI Aerospace Dictionary to help people understand what an eQuaLified subscriber is. Alternatively, a term other than subscriber may be an option. PRI will investigate options.

The mission statement may also need to be reviewed to ensure it is clear as to the intent of eQuaLified so that, if such a time arises, where the current participants are no longer involved, there is continuity and clarity.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to upload the Introduction to eQuaLified presentation on the PRI website. (Due Date: 6-Apr-2015)

ACTION ITEM: Eric Jacklin to approach the SSC LT Chair Tom Newton to see whether the SSC could host a SSC general meeting panel discussion and/or a sponsored session about eQuaLified at a future meeting. (Due Date: 6-Apr-2015)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to include draft eQuaLified Implementation whitepaper in the minutes. (Due Date: 20-Mar-2015)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to check whether PD1000 requires the term “subscriber” or whether eQMC can choose their own terminology, to avoid confusion with Nadcap

ACTION ITEM: eQMC Chair and Secretary to review the eQuaLified Mission Statement. (Due Date 30-Apr-2015)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to review the PRI Aerospace Dictionary and include eQuaLified references as appropriate. (Due Date 30-Apr-2015)

3.0 REVIEW BOARD UPDATES

3


UNCONFIRMED

Joanna Leigh presented the Chemical Processing, Composite Repair and Heat Treating Review Board updates (see embedded presentation).

A question was asked if the participants had to be from Nadcap subscribers and the answer was received that support could come from anyone who meets the requirements in PD6000, not just Nadcap subscribers. For the Chemical Processing Review Board the following attendees expressed their interest to become participants: Michael Noettl, Hal Abel, Eric Jacklin and Zia Usmani.

Richard Freeman presented the WLD Review Board including the WLD Matrix. It was proposed that the WLD Matrix would be added to the minutes. There was discussion around the value in having every commodity’s technical qualification information available to capture any gaps.

Richard further noted that the Nadcap Welding Task Group Vice Chair Holger Krueger from Airbus had requested that Richard keep the Task Group updated regarding eQuaLified activity. Hal Abel and Mike Noettl expressed a desire to do likewise at the Nadcap Chemical Processing Task Group, now that they understand the program. Joe Pinto agreed that, as long as the Task Groups want updates, PRI has no objection. However, the focus of the Task Groups is Nadcap and PRI does not want any distraction from that, nor to be perceived as using Task Group time for out-of-scope activities so it has to come from industry. Hal Abel wants to give a presentation in Montreal to share what was learned today, with Mike Noettl adding that they had been naysayers but that this meeting had provided a different impression of the program and that there is a value to chemical processors and others in eQuaLified. They will pass the information to the Chemical Processing Task Group. Mike is the Chair of the mentoring program and sees awareness of this activity as important. Eric agreed with Hal and Mike that there is value in eQuaLified and that it was good that the intent is to pull people into the program through awareness, rather than pushing it out through mandates. This means that supplier knowledge of the program is key and the BoKs can be used for training.

It was clarified that the SAE Aerospace Council is kept updated as to eQuaLified activities and that, for example, the eQuaLified Composite Repair Review Board closely tracks activity on the SAE CACRC committee. The SAE Aerospace Council includes representatives from the FAA, EASA, Airlines, Airframers, Manufacturers and other industry organizations but that flowdown from that group may not reach working groups within SAE or Nadcap.

In the Bodies of Knowledge, the use of the term “Standards” was questioned and it was agreed to change it to “Reference Documents”.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to include the WLD Matrix in the minutes. (Due Date 20-Mar-15)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to contact those who expressed interest in participating in the Chemical Processing Review Board. (Due Date 20-Mar-15)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to make editorial change to all BoKs to change “Standards” to “Reference Documents”. (Due Date 20-Mar-15)

4.0 PROGRAM STATUS

4


UNCONFIRMED

Due to the extensive earlier discussions, this was not reviewed in the meeting (see embedded presentation above).

ACTION ITEM: PRI to include the Program Status presentation in the minutes. (Due Date: 20-Mar-2015)

5.0 FMEA UPDATE

Carol Jeffcoate presented the FMEA sub-team update (see embedded presentation above) and stated that more participation is needed and to contact her if anyone is interested.

There was a discussion on proctoring exams via the WebAssessor software, with Laurie noting that in some cases there may be software issues. Consequently, as part of the beta-testing phase, Honeywell conducted manual proctoring at a number of sites including UK, US and Czech Republic. In at least one instance, the proctor also acted as translator when this was required. Taking the exams was straightforward, but the proctoring is more problematic and raised questions over the two-hour time limit. Laurie confirmed that two hours is a guide and that the beta-testing has suggested in some cases that 2 ½ hours would be more appropriate. The beta-testing analysis is ongoing, also considering questions such as: how many times was each question asked/answered/skipped? etc. Visibility of this information is restricted to eQuaLified subscribers.

It was clarified that exams are open book with no calculations and an 80% pass rate, except as approved by eQMC. Concern was expressed by a Chemical Processor that a candidate would need access to AMS2750 to pass the exam as compared to closed book; other attendees explained that pyrometry is a difficult process and there is not time to look up everything regardless; without a good understanding of pyrometry in the first place, access to AMS2750 would not help.

ACTION ITEM: Anyone interested in FMEA participation to contact Carol Jeffcoate or PRI (Due Date: ONGOING)

6.0 PENDING SUBSCRIBER / SUBSCRIBER ELIGIBILITY

Due to the extensive earlier discussions, this was not reviewed in the meeting (see embedded presentation above). Joanna explained that PD6000 will be balloted soon to include reference to pending subscribers and to clarify subscriber eligibility and that this presentation was just a heads-up to the attendees of the details of the imminent ballot.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to include the presentation in the minutes. (Due Date: 20-Mar-2015)

7.0 EXAMS

5


UNCONFIRMED

Joanna Leigh presented the Exams update (see embedded presentation).

There was a discussion about the different exam formats. It was determined that the preferred approach is to use option 4, unless PRI identifies any barriers to that approach that cannot be resolved.

Eric expressed concern that the exams may become mandatory, perhaps not now but in the future. Joe explained that this is not PRI’s intent but that it is not in PRI’s control and reiterated Laurie’s earlier comment about encouraging proactivity. Laurie added that there is an eQuaLified procedure about exam equivalence to prevent redundancy/duplication and that the participation of organizations such as TWI and Abaris also helps to ensure this. eQuaLified was discussed as a standardization opportunity – one attendee noted that it could save money and time; instead of having to travel to different Prime facilities to take tests, this could be one test accepted by many of them, perhaps with a supplement per Prime if necessary. Then, with a validity of five years, approval would be done, rather than having to go from Prime to Prime for approval. Joe reiterated that the goal of eQuaLified is to identify gaps; if a topic is already covered, there is no point addressing it. Laurie added that using the eQuaLified BoK provides a consistent, standardized means of demonstrating compliance to AS9100 requirement, but that it is just one tool; companies may choose to use it or not. Hal noted that practical assessments will also be needed, at least in some processes. Laurie explained that if there is that need, that can be considered, but theoretical knowledge is the first step and Hal agreed. Mike added that eQuaLified is a supplement to internal programs, not a replacement for them.

ACTION ITEM: PRI to investigate feasibility of option four and provide an update at the next eQMC telecon (Due Date: 7-Apr-15)

8.0 NEW BUSINESS / WRAP UP / RAIL REVIEW

Eric asked whether eQuaLified was discussed at NMC; Joe advised that it was not, but that NMC members are free to bring it up if they want.

Next eQMC telecon Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Next eQMC face-to-face meetings: Thursday 25 June 2015 – Montreal, Quebec, Canada Thursday 22 October 2015 – Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

ADJOURNMENT – 06-Mar-2015 – Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by: David Sanchez – ([email protected])

6

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES - Performance Review...

Documents

Transcript of UNCONFIRMED MINUTES - Performance Review...