MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
CONFIRMED MINUTES
OCTOBER 20 – 23, 2014
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA
These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a
subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation
from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20 TO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23
1.0
OPENING COMMENTS
1.1
Call to Order / Quorum Check
The Measurement & Inspection (M&I) Task Group was called to order at 8:02 a.m., 20-Oct-2014.
It was verified that only SUBSCRIBER MEMBERS were in attendance during the closed portion
of the meeting.
A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:
Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)
NAME
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Randy
Al
Ronan
Lance
Greg
Benoit
Simon
Norman
Masato
Cyril
James
Graeme
Steve
Yuki
Andrew
Naoki
Darren
COMPANY NAME
Becker
Berger
Cauchy
Christie
Goldhagen
Gottie
Gough-Rundle
Gross
Katagiri
Lerebours
Mansell
Rankin
Row
Shinagawa
Smith
Sogabe
Yochum
The Boeing Company
GE Aviation
Airbus
Sikorsky Aircraft
Hamilton Sundstrand (UTAS)
SAFRAN Group
Rolls-Royce
The Boeing Company
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
SAFRAN Group
Rolls-Royce
Spirit AeroSystems
Goodrich (UTAS)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Spirit AeroSystems
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
Rolls-Royce
Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)
NAME
*
*
*
*
*
Takahito
David
John
Timothy
Gordon
Ralph
Owe
Wolfgang
Dale
Mark
Daryl
Bill
COMPANY NAME
Araki
Arnold
Arnold
Bergquist
Cameron
Capra
Carlsson
Casta
Collins
Cummings
Erickson
Erzen
IHI Corporation
Metal Tech
Hexcel Corp - Kent
Absolute Technologies Inc.
LMI Aerospace
Ducommun Incorporated
Alcoa Fastening Systems
Shellcast Foundries
Hexcel Corp - Kent
B&B Specialties & GS Aerospace
Barnes Aerospace
Pako Inc.
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Secretary
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
David
Lisa
Andy
John
Dave
Angelo
Lee
Tammi
Gary
Eshleman
Leonard
March
McFadden
Michaud
Monzo
Parsley
Schubert
Thompson
Wilfried
Weber
The Young Engineers
National Physical Laboratory
Hunting Dearborn
Chromalloy Florida
Fountain Plating Co.
Barnes Aerospace – Lansing Division
Click Bond, Inc.
LMI Aerospace Tulsa
Esterline Engineered Materials – Darchem
Engineering
PFW Aerospace GmbH
PRI Staff Present
NAME
James
Savannah
Mike
1.2
Bennett
Garland
Ploucha
Review Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct – OPEN
The Code of Ethics and Meeting Conduct were presented to the meeting attendees.
1.3
Antitrust Video – OPEN
The PRI Antitrust video was shown to all attendees.
1.4
Review Agenda – OPEN
The agenda for the meeting was presented, reviewed by the group. It was noted that some
sections of the agenda were no longer relevant due to the work on ballots of AC7130/2 and
AC7130/3 not being completed prior to the meeting. It was agreed that this time would be used
to discuss ballot comments for AC7130 and AC7130/1 as well as the requirement to modify
checklists and discuss audit duration.
A request was made for assistance to provide articles for the subsequent M&I Newsletter.
1.5
Acceptance of Meeting Minutes – OPEN
Motion made by Owe Carlsson and seconded by Randy Becker to approve the minutes from the
June 2014 meeting. Motion Passed.
The minutes from June 2014 were approved as written.
1.6
June 2014 Meeting Summary Report
M&I - TG Summary
Report
The summary report from the June 2014 Nadcap meeting was presented.
2.0
REVIEW M&I VOTING MEMBERSHIP – OPEN
See attached presentation of voting member proposals / changes.
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
M&I Proposed Voting
Members List OCT_2014.pdf
Motion made by Owe Carlsson and seconded by Lee Parsley to accept Mark Cummings as a
Supplier Voting Member for the M&I Task Group (TG). Motion Passed.
Motion made by Norman Gross and seconded by Steve Row to accept Ralph Capra, Andrew
March and Gary Thompson as Supplier Voting Members for the M&I TG. Motion Passed.
3.0
M&I MILESTONE AND FUTURE PLAN – OPEN
The M&I milestone plan (Task Group Tracker) was presented by Jim Bennett showing the
planned work on the subsequent checklists. It was noted that the work on the AC7130/2 and
AC7130/3 were progressing well, but will require a test audit location to be provided for AC7130/3
before this can be completed. Plan will need to be modified to reflect the current status as the
time lines need to be adjusted.
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to modify and publish the latest M&I Milestone Plan. (Due Date: 07Nov-2014)
4.0
STAFF REPORT – OPEN
PRI Report OCT2014.pdf
4.1
Jim Bennett presented a status on the Task Group from a PRI perspective. This showed positive
movement in auditor staffing and training, with the view that sourcing more auditors when
mandates are released as not a problem due to a number of requests made to become M&I
auditors. The intent currently will not be to source and train any more auditors past the current
number of six, until there is a need with mandates.
It was noted that the availability of facilities to conduct training audits was a bottleneck to
approving all of the current auditors. The request was again made to the Task Group to assist
with the provision of facilities for training audits on all of the different technologies, and in
particular to test the new draft AC7130/3 Articulating Arms checklist.
A short discussion was held on the number of auditors required to match the maximum perceived
number of audits. A forecast of 1000 audits per year would require approximately 50 auditors to
meet this load. A linked discussion brought up the question about scalability of the audit program
with days for completing the audit on small facilities vs. large facilities. It was suggested that this
be discussed in more detail within the closed portion of the meeting.
4.2
Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) Review
The RAIL was reviewed with items updated, closed or added as appropriate.
For specific details, please see the current M&I Rolling Action Item List posted at
www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
5.0
SUPPLIER SUPPORT COMMITTEE (SSC) INFORMATION – OPEN
MI SSC TG Report
Oct2014
Dave Michaud (on behalf of Juston Bartlett – M&I SSC rep) presented the SSC report. Dave
outlined the details of many positive work streams and activities that the SSC provides to assist
suppliers, including for example the supplier mentoring program. The SSC will become more and
more important as mandates are released and a number of suppliers new to Nadcap will join the
program for the first time.
6.0
AESQ UPDATE – OPEN
James Mansell presented an update on the Aero Engine Supplier Quality (AESQ) work on
Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA). The G-22 committee for MSA has made significant
progress to the point where the agreed AS13003 standard has currently been released on ballot.
A number of the companies involved in Nadcap are also involved in AESQ and therefore there is
a need for the approach to be combined between the two groups. This is particularly important
as the content of the AESQ standard and the Nadcap AC7130 checklist have significant
crossover. Further work will be required as the companies involved in AESQ decide how the
standard will be deployed and audited against.
The question was asked if the ballot version of the AS13003 standard can be shared with the
Task Group for information.
ACTION ITEM: Simon Gough-Rundle to check if the AS13003 standard can be shared with the
Task Group and send out if approved. (Due Date: 14-Nov-2014)
7.0
NEW BUSINESS – OPEN
James Mansell presented a brief update on the presentation made at the Coordinate Metrology
Systems Conference (CMSC) in July in North Charleston, SC. This covered a more generic topic
of standards, collaboration and audits, generating positive feedback at a well-attended
presentation, which provoked significant interest in Nadcap M&I. The same presentation pack
has been used by Rolls-Royce at the Make Measurement Matter event in Wigan, UK and will be
provided at the Large Volume Metrology Conference (LVMC) in November in Manchester, UK.
The Aerospace Quality Systems (AQS) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was put before the
Task Group, which had been previously circulated via e-mail. The proposal is that the M&I Task
Group accept and add themselves to the scope of the document which other Task Groups are
signed up to. Jim Bennett provided a description of the contents of the document, including that
the AQS group would review the M&I checklists to ensure general quality system questions are
not being duplicated. Wilfried Weber questioned Nadcap’s approach to address what happens
when a general quality system finding (possibly impacting a company’s AS9100 or AC7004
accreditation) is identified from a Nadcap audit. Wilfried indicated as a member of the IAQG he
was not aware of any notifications from Nadcap of any AS9100 systemic violations to the
Certification Boards. Jim Bennett provided an explanation of the process as set out in Nadcap
Operating Procedure NOP-006 and NOP-011. This was not considered sufficient.
Motion made by Tammi Schubert and seconded by Steve Row to not accept the AQS MoU until
there was evidence to show actions taken by Nadcap when a general quality system finding is
identified. Motion Passed.
It was decided that the process will be clarified by Steve Row at the AQS group and
communicated back to the Task Group, where a subsequent vote to accept the MoU will be
made, if appropriate.
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
ACTION ITEM: Steve Row to discuss the M&I Task Group concerns with the AQS group to clarify
the process for general quality system findings to be highlighted. (Due Date: 22-Oct-2014)
Steve Row completed the above action and presented slides provided by the AQS group
following the AQS meeting on Wednesday. This showed evidence of the correct process as per
NOP-006 being followed and recorded. A discussion about why the statistics showed a drop in
this type of finding in 2013/2014 was raised, however it was agreed that this was out of scope of
the M&I Task Group.
Motion made by Darren Yochum and seconded by Norman Gross to accept the AQS MoU.
Motion Passed.
It was discussed that most Task Groups have a checklist question where other general quality
system findings can be recorded against. It was agreed by the Task Group that this was a good
idea, providing it wasn’t used as a carte blanche opportunity for auditors to record findings
outside the intended scope of the M&I audit program.
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to identify standard verbiage from other Task Groups for a General
AQS question to be added in AC7130 to allow auditors to write up a finding if an AQS violation is
identified (and not simply be ignored). (Due Date: 21-Nov-2014)
Jim Bennett presented the other Nadcap documents pertaining to M&I, NIP 6-01 Appendix M&I –
Training and selection of auditors and NTGOP-001 Appendix M&I additional requirements for
Task Groups. The content of these documents was discussed and agreed to be in line with
requirements, with the caveat that changes may need to be incorporated as the program
progress and mandates and formal audits take place.
Tammi Schubert raised a question on the update from a previous meeting on the idea to reduce
the calibration content of the other Nadcap audit programs which will be covered in the M&I
audits. Simon Gough-Rundle was able to update that this had been raised to the Nadcap
Management Council (NMC) and Board of Directors (BoD). Currently there is unlikely to be
movement on this issue until the M&I program is fully up and running.
8.0
MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS (MSA) – OPEN
Simon Gough-Rundle presented a short slide pack outlining the current state of MSA within the
M&I Nadcap checklists; this was a response to a RAIL item from the June 2014 meeting.
The group discussed how the requirement for Measurement System Validation would be covered
with respect to the coverage and gaps proposed by Simon Gough-Rundle and the content
discussed by Lisa Leonard in the presentation provided as part of the auditor training. This also
involved a conversation on the positioning of the AESQ AS13003 standard.
The conversation suggested that there was a difference of opinion between some of the
companies present on the need for MSA to prove measurement systems ‘fit-for-purpose’. It was
agreed that the conversation on the content and positioning of MSA requirements would be
delayed until further discussions about the structure / audit duration of the checklists are
discussed.
9.0
AC7130, AC7130/1, & AC7130/2 BALLOT COMMENT REVIEW – OPEN
AC7130 and AC7130/1 Ballot Review
The first action completed by the Task Group was to review the ballot comments for AC7130 and
AC7130/1 which had closed a few weeks prior to the meeting. In preparation Jim Bennett had
made the appropriate editorial changes to the master copies of the document, this was accepted
by the Task Group. The group reviewed the few technical changes provided in the balloted,
discussed each of these in turn and the appropriate actions taken.
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to make changes to the checklist and resolve the comments in the
eAuditNet ballot for AC7130 & AC7130/1. (Due Date: 31-Oct-2014)
Audit Duration
Once the actions from the ballots had been agreed, the group discussed the issue of audit
duration which had been raised on one of the recent test audits. It was suggested that the current
duration of 3 days for a CMM accreditation audit was a barrier to mandating for a key Subscriber.
It was agreed that a reduction of audit duration would be a positive and help Subscribers with
their mandate position. It was acknowledged that the time to complete a CMM audit in the current
checklist state cannot be reduced without a reduction in scope, questions or compliance jobs. It
was agreed by the group that cutting down questions from the checklist and rearranging some of
the questions to improve the flow of the audit would help to achieve the goal of reducing a
standard audit to 2 days. The minimum number of compliance jobs was also discussed in
relation to a reduction in audit duration.
Motion made by Norman Gross and seconded by Darren Yochum to make changes to the
checklists to achieve a nominal goal of 1 audit day per checklist. Motion Passed.
Checklist Changes
In the subsequent sessions the Task Group worked on reduction of questions primarily by
reducing the number of procedural questions in favor of checking compliance to key requirements
via job audits. The group utilized scoring criteria for each question in the AC7130 checklist to
rank the time taken to complete the question and the impact of non-compliance. The overall
ranking highlighted a number of questions that the Task Group agreed could be removed from
the checklist.
The approach going forward was agreed that making changes to the checklists with a large group
in the room was not the most effective method. Therefore Jim Bennett will make the first set of
changes as agreed from the ranking and send this out to the Task Group to review before
convening a conference call in the first week of December to discuss and work out the plan going
forward.
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to make changes to AC7130 based on questions to be removed from
Task Group ranking and send this out for Task Group review. (Due Date: 14-Nov-2014)
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to arrange a teleconference for first week in December to discuss
feedback on AC7130 changes and plan going forward. (Due Date: 14-Nov-2014)
Checklist Structure
Within the discussions on checklist structure it emerged that the interpretation of scope of the
audit program, and in particular AC7130, was markedly different between companies within the
group. At the extremes some interpreted the program as only being applied to the specific
technology as audited in the applicable slash sheets, whilst others interpreted the AC7130
checklist as covering all M&I activities within a facility and then being supplemented by the
technology checklists. This included, for example, whether a piece of manual measuring
equipment found to be out of calibration would be assessed as part of an AC7130 and AC7130/1
CMM audit.
Following a lengthy debate the group devised the solution that to meet the needs of all members
the structure of the M&I program would need to be changed to include a new slash sheet, dubbed
colloquially ‘General Inspection’ which would include a component based job audit taking into
account all aspects of M&I, not just specific to one technology. This would allow Subscribers to
choose an audit program specific to one technology or covering wider aspects of M&I. It was
agreed that this be designated AC7130/0 to indicate the hierarchy within the structure and that
this would be worked on next after the current checklists.
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
Motion made by Drew Smith and seconded by Steve Row to accept proposal of a new ‘slash’
sheet for ‘General Inspection’. Motion Passed.
Motion made by Steve Row and seconded by Norman Gross to designate the new checklist
AC7130/0 and for work to be commenced following the current checklists. Motion Passed.
Within this discussion it was noted that the ranking style approach devised by the Task Group
should be used as the basis for checklist changes and creation to ensure questions with the most
important and effectiveness are included in the audit program. Also, questions that appear in
multiple ‘slash’ sheets should be indicated in some way (via, highlight or asterisk or such) to
ensure that any changes are captured for all affected checklists.
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to mark questions repeated in multiple ‘slash’ sheets to ensure a
question change in one checklist is reflected in the other checklists. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2014)
Audit Frequency
Linked to audit duration the issue of audit frequency was briefly discussed, with some Subscribers
suggesting that their current internal approval processes span for between 2 and 4 years,
typically. Currently the Nadcap model for Special Processes requires 2 x 12 month
accreditations, with the opportunity to go to 18 months for 2 accreditations, followed by 24 months
accreditation (provided criteria is achieved). This is a topic that was challenged at the meeting as
Measurement and Inspection is not necessarily considered a Special Process and is controlled by
other Organizations / Business Groups at the Subscriber (e.g. Metrology Group). It was agreed
that this was not an issue that could be addressed directly by the M&I Task Group, however if
specific companies would want to make a proposal this could be taken to the NMC.
ACTION ITEM: Norm Gross to make a proposal on audit frequency based on data and business
case justification for review by the Task Group. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2014)
Scope of Audits
A discussion on the scope of audits took place, whereby the companies involved debated
whether the accreditation would make allowance for selecting hardware for job audit from a
number of different Subscribers. Jim Bennett described the approach that auditors would use to
select job audits and the intent to cover from as many Subscribers as possible, with priority being
given to those who have mandated the program. The intent would also be to cover those
Subscribers missed out in subsequent audits as opposed to auditing the same Subscriber jobs
multiple times. It was generally understood by the Task Group that Subscribers would honor the
accreditation on their suppliers even if one of their own jobs was not part of the audit.
A linked discussion covered definition of the scope of the audit, specifically if the audit would
cover CMMs not used for production (e.g. for development or maintenance). It was agreed by the
Task Group that the intent of the program is to cover equipment which is used for production
inspection of Aerospace parts. The scope of the audit should be defined by the supplier
indicating on the equipment listing which pieces of equipment fall into that scope. It was also
discussed that where multiple pieces of equipment exist (greater than the number of job audits
possible within the audit scope) that a representative sample of equipment will be used. The
intention would also be to cover different pieces of equipment on subsequent audits, rather than
using the same ones multiple times.
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to prepare presentation slides to clarify the scope of the audits
(production inspection of Aerospace parts, compliance job hierarchy, etc), so the process is
understood by all. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2014)
10.0
SUBSCIRBER COMMITMENTS TO MANDATE – CLOSED
The closed session for Subscribers took place on the morning of Tuesday 21 st October. The
main purpose of the session was to cover an update on the position of each Subscriber to
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
mandate. Full details are not included in these minutes due to the confidential nature of
discussions.
Summarizing the main points, work is progressing towards mandates, however some barriers
exist which will need to be addressed to help the journey to mandates across the Aerospace
Supply Chain. Issues such as audit duration, audit frequency, audit cost, a combined roll out plan
and number of auditors were discussed.
Another topic of discussion was the relationship with Special Processes within each of the
Subscribers. To obtain ‘buy in’ to Nadcap M&I Mandates there are other parts of the organization
that need to be vested in the program who are not necessarily associated with Special
Processes. This has proven to be a barrier for more than one Subscriber.
11.0
AUDIT REPORT REVIEW – CLOSED
It was agreed that discussing the commitments to mandate were of higher priority at this point, as
such the session on audit report review was postponed. This will now take place over
teleconference call.
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to arrange a teleconference to cover audit report review for
Subscribers. (Due Date: 30-Oct-2014)
12.0
NEW BUSINESS – CLOSED
No new business items of a proprietary nature were raised within the closed session.
13.0
UPDATE ON SUBSCRIBERS COMMITMENT TO MANDATE – OPEN
Following the closed meeting the group fed back progress within the open session to summarize
the main points discussed, as per item 10.0 above.
14.0
AC7130/3 BALLOT COMMENT REVIEW – OPEN
As per agreement in the review of the agenda, the AC7130/3 Articulating Arms checklist was not
discussed as the ballot of the checklist has not yet taken place. As an update the checklist is in
development and follows the same general content as the CMM and Laser Tracker checklists.
Work will continue with this once the AC7130 and AC7130/1 structure has been fixed.
15.0
M&I SUPPLIER SYMPOSIUM REVIEW – OPEN
The group discussed feedback from the Supplier Symposium. Overall it was seen as a
successful session, with the content and delivery of the symposium very positive. However, it
was noted that the attendance was less than expected and that the number of attendees
completely new to the M&I program was very low. It was agreed that another supplier
symposium will not take place until the requirement is seen when mandates and formal audits
start. At this point, a similar session can take place, where the need by suppliers to understand
the program will be greater.
There were a few key issues brought out through the symposium:
The need for purchasing organizations to be made aware of Nadcap accreditation with
the aim of choosing accredited suppliers as opposed to cheaper unaccredited
alternatives.

Possible use of a generic briefing pack to inform all those involved with an audit as to
what it entails.
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
16.0

The term ‘late days’ was discussed, with the acknowledgement that this is not an M&I
specific issue and the NMC have looked into the term as been negative internally and
externally.

The possibility of supplying the offline checklist program to suppliers to help with preaudits was discussed and noted that this was something that was being worked on and
may be available in the future.
DOCUMENT CHANGE SPREADSHEET (DCS) – OPEN
No further changes to the checklists were discussed in relation to the document change
spreadsheet due to the discussions with the closure of the AC7130 and AC7130/1 ballots and the
discussions on checklist changes to support a reduction in audit duration.
17.0
M&I NEWSLETTER – OPEN
The M&I Newsletter was discussed, with feedback on the versions to date being very positive
from all parties. It was agreed that the group would continue to provide a newsletter in good time
before each face-to-face meeting. The request was made for articles and suggestions for articles
to be supplied to Jim Bennett in order to release the next version in January. The feedback
highlighted the generic NCR examples included in the latest version were very good.
Suggestions for articles included the justification photographs from the new M&I introduction
presentation and the value of the audit program. Other items suggested were; supplier
symposium presentation summary, articles on the specific technologies included, such as the
material presented by Al Berger on Airflow and Randy Becker on Laser Trackers at the Auditor
Training and the pricing structure for the audit program.
ACTION ITEM: Task Group members to supply articles for the January 2015 newsletter by the end
of November. (Due Date: 30-Nov-2014)
ACTION ITEM: Jim Bennett to co-ordinate the compilation and release of the M&I Newsletter for
January 2015. (Due Date: 31-Jan-2015)
18.0
RAIL REVIEW – OPEN
Items within the RAIL were updated within the meeting. New items raised and recorded within
these minutes will be added to the RAIL following the meeting.
For specific details, please see the current M&I Rolling Action Item List posted at
www.eAuditNet.com, under Public Documents.
As part of the conversation within the RAIL review some further items were discussed. It was
agreed that there needs to be a combined approach to addressing some of the issues which are
preventing mandates to be released currently. Also that more work needs to be done to clarify
the approach and allay the fears of suppliers. An idea was raised to try and provide auditor
training for technologies such as Articulated Arms and Laser Trackers at CMSC 2015.
19.0
DEVELOP AGENDA FOR MARCH 2015 – OPEN
It was agreed that there would be a requirement for a 4-day long meeting in Berlin, Germany 2nd 5th March 2015. This will include a 4-hour long closed session for subscribers, with the other
standard agenda items as well as most of the time dedicated to discussions about the checklists,
as appropriate at the time of the meeting.
20.0
MEETING FACILITATION FEEDBACK – OPEN
A short discussion was held over the meeting facilitation. It was noted that there is room for
improvement to maintain the meeting expectations. This is especially important as the Task
MEASUREMENT & INSPECTION
OCTOBER 2014
CONFIRMED
Group grows in size. It was suggested that the adherence to agenda could be improved with a
clear statement of what is expected to be achieved in a certain timescale or item prior to the
discussion. Also discussed was the side bar discussions.
Overall the meeting was very positive and well attended, with the whole Task Group contributing
to make some significant strides in the process. The following meetings will be in Berlin,
Germany (March 2015), Montreal, Canada (June 2015) and Pittsburgh, USA (October 2015).
ACTION ITEM: M&I Task Group Leadership to look at improvement measures to ensure a more
fluid face to face meeting is facilitated. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2014)
ADJOURNMENT – 23-Oct-2014 – Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Minutes Prepared by: James Mansell James.Mansell@Rolls-Royce.com
***** For PRI Staff use only: ******
Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select
one)
YES* ☐ NO ☒
*If yes, the following information is required:
Documents requiring revision:
Who is responsible:
Due date: