HT-STSTG
OCTOBER 2013
CONFIRMED
CONFIRMED MINUTES
MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2013
PITTSBURGH, PA, 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 21, 2013
1.0
OPENING COMMENTS
1.1
Call to Order / Quorum Check
The HT-STSTG was called to order at 4:00 p.m., 21-Oct-2013.
The HT-STSTG is a Sub-Team that meets in correspondence with the Heat Treat Task Group
(HTTG) during Nadcap meetings.
It was verified that only SUPPLIER MEMBERS were in attendance and invited Subscribers.
A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:
Supplier Members/Participants Present (* Indicates HTTG Voting Member)
*
*
*
NAME
Roy
Siobhan
Dan
Amy
Ryan
Griff
Michael
Mike
Aaron
Mark
Christopher
Donald
Laura
Arturo
Damon
Nathalie
Adkins
Alekna
Antos
Azzano
Blatt
Braddock
Brandt
Brausch
Breller
Brown
Bryant
Camus
Capretta
Chavez
Cook
Crozat-Vigier
Bob
Michelle
Deborah
Mike
Edward
Bill
Nick
Bob
Dennis
Chad
Michael
George
Tom
Lisa
Lisa
Cvetichan
Davis-Lawson
Dougherty
Eddy
Engelhard
Erzen
Fajerson
Ferry
Fried
Funderburk
Gaspers
Gieger
Glosser
Golden
Goodwin
*
*
*
*
COMPANY NAME
Specialty Steel Treating
SPS Technologies
Canton Drop Forge
Arrow Gear Company
Carpenter Technology
Braddock Metallurgical Inc.
Alcoa, Inc.
CCI Inc.
PCC Structurals
Kaman Aerospace Corp
Carpenter Technology
Talley Metals
General Metal Heat Treat
Tighitco Latinoamerica, S.A. De C.V.
Ellwood Texas Forge Houston
Kaustraut Aerospace
Paulo Products Company (American
Brazing Division)
Byron Products Inc.
General Metal Heat Treat
Wyman Gordon Co
Solar Atmospheres, Inc.
PAKO, Inc
Denison Industries
FPM Heat Treating
Carpenter Technology Corp.
MMS Thermal Processing
FPM Heat Treating
Braddock Metallurgical Inc.
Astro Aluminum Testing
Metallurgical Processing Inc
Ellwood Texas Forge Houston
HT-STSTG
OCTOBER 2013
CONFIRMED
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Justin
Darron
Brian
Steve
Scott
Kurt
Kody
John
Jeremy
John
Richard
Johanna
Grice
Harris
Hoffa
Hutchinson
Imel
Jungheim
Kottke
Kunkle
Leetz
Lehnen
Lewis
Lisa
Julie
Telly
Angelo
Julie
Iqbal
Ken
Phil
Timothy
Michael
Barry
Elena
Eduardo
Joel
Glenn
Carol
Kevin
Christopher
Jackie
Richard
Gigi
Allison
Tom
Wilfried
Keith
Joe
Brian
Tom
Mahan
Mitsis
Monzo
Motz
Muhammad
Nelson
Pacey
Paradis
Quann
Rafan
Ritoli
Rivera
Robinson
Rudd
Schmidt
Seidel
Simmons
Sternot
Strandgard
Streeter
Tackett
Valenti
Weber
Whiddon
White
Yazumbek
Zimmerman
Braddock Metallurgical Inc.
Exotic Metals Forming Company
Carpenter Technology Corp.
Braddock Metallurgical Inc.
Unison Engine Components
Modern Drop Forge
Advanced Heat Treat Corp.
Alcoa-Howmet
MMS Thermal Processing
Bodycote Thermal Processing
PCC Structurals - Carson City
Continental and Quality Heat Treating
GE Aviation - Terre Haute - Unison
Engine Components
Wyman-Gordon Company
Barnes Aerospace Lansing Division
Barnes Aeropace
Bohler Uddeholm Thermo-Tech
Continental and Quality Heat Treating
Canton Drop Forge
Metallurgical Processing Inc
Pacific Metallurgical Inc.
Universal Stainless
Metallurgical Processing Inc
Metallurgical Processing Inc
Advanced Heat Treat Corp.
Braddock Metallurgical Inc.
Ladish Forgings
Universal Stainless
Carpenter Technology
PAKO, Inc.
Avcorp Industries
Barnes Aerospace
Specialty Steel Treating Inc
Specialty Steel Treating Inc
PFW Aerospace AG
Canton Drop Forge
Vac-Met Inc
Modern Drop Forge
Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry
Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates HTTG Voting Member)
*
NAME
Arie
Robert
Ben Dov
Faticanti
*
*
*
David
Alessandro
Thomas
Jeff
Kindel
Miglio
Ruglic
Thyssen
PRI Staff Present
Jerry
Marcel
Stan
Brittany
Aston
Cuperman
Revers
McSorley
COMPANY NAME
Israel Aerospace Industries
Textron System Corp.
GE Aviation - Unison Industries Dayton
AugustaWestland
Bell Helicopter - Textron
GE Aviation
Chairperson
Secretary
HT-STSTG
OCTOBER 2013
CONFIRMED
1.2
Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes– OPEN
The minutes from June 2013 were approved as written.
2.0
PRESENTATIONS
No presentations were scheduled for this meeting.
3.0
OLD BUSINESS
3.1
Task Group Assignments
There were no Task Group Assignments.
3.2
Follow-up on suggestions/topics from previous meeting
Flow down requirement availability via champions list. No joy – still under examination.
Send any new project information requests to jlisa@continentalht.com.
4.0
NEW BUSINESS
SSC reported there will be changes to eauditnet,com response availability for auditor feedback.
Please promptly fill out the supplier feedback. There is a new process underway (in ballot) NOP012 on Auditor Consistency. This feedback is valuable and is part of the process to improve
auditor effectiveness, the auditing process and focus auditor training
HT-STSTG
OCTOBER 2013
CONFIRMED
5.0
OPEN- FORUM – DISCUSSION OF HTTG SUPPLIER ISSUES – OPEN
5.1
ITAR issues have been experienced with customers asking ITAR jobs not be audited. This is
being reviewed in the subscriber session.
5.2
U codes in checklist have shown up in the NCR. Is this correct? The U code is a reminder to the
auditor to determine if the supplier is working for the subscriber designated by the U code. If the
supplier is working for that subscriber, then additional checklist requirements or interpretations
listed in AC7102/S may apply. If an auditor should try to apply to apply incorrect U code
requirements, please let the staff engineer know so they can address this in training for the
auditor.
5.3
How are “parts” designated. If a customer PO designates raw material as a part, how do we plan
a job? What happens when a PO designates something both as a “raw material” and as a “part”?
If the PO designates it as “raw material x” to make ## of parts y, how is this treated? If it is
designated as a raw material in the PO, then use the raw material process unless otherwise
specified in the PO.
5.4
During an audit review, if there is a disagreement regarding a particular issue, may a supplier ask
the staff engineer for help in resolving the disagreement? Yes – but the staff engineers may be
limited in what they can address – and can only resolve or clarify their response. While the staff
engineers will try to respond promptly, they have been auditing more lately. If your calls/emails
aren’t answered, you may wish to copy Jerry Aston after a reasonable interval.
5.5
AC7102/5 paragraph 7.1- If conversion is used, is the conversion in accordance with ASTM E140
or EN ISO 18265; if the material is not covered, how do we proceed? See next question, 7.1.1
When alloys are not covered by ASTM E140 or EN ISO 18265, is the conversion method used
approved by the customer?
5.6
The AC7102/5 checklist uses the term “alloy” – would this be better if using the same language
as in E140 – for example, in The conversion values given in the tables, or calculated by the
equations given in the appendixes, should only be considered valid for the specific materials
indicated.
Should we change the checklist to use this instead of alloy? Yes, will add this to next checklist.
5.7
If you ask a Subscriber for help in responding to an audit NCR, do not expect the customer
response to be the definitive Staff Engineer response.
5.8
Are all changes or notifications in eAuditNet sent to everyone. Yes, but it’s your responsibility to
be registered with eAuditNet with your current email address.
5.9
re Location of TUS sensors 3.5.13.2.2 AMS2750E: … eight TUS sensors shall be located at the
corners and one shall be located in the center… For furnace work zone volumes greater than 225
cubic feet (6.4 m3), the additional TUS sensors required by Table 11 shall be uniformly distributed
to best represent the qualified work zone.
It’s been reported that an auditor had a tape measure and found the one sensor wasn’t exactly in
the middle. How close is close enough? Is 3 inches (75mm) in 3 ft (910mm) close enough or 6
inches (150mm) in 3 ft (910mm) acceptable? 8% or 20%?
In this type of case, contact the SE and discuss. The SE would rather address individual issues
quickly and directly with the auditor when possible, deleting the finding prior to the audit closing
when appropriate. Each SE has a group of primes they can contact to discuss issues and get a
consensus understanding.
HT-STSTG
OCTOBER 2013
CONFIRMED
5.10
When changing from water to glycol – may we make our own refractometer standards for
verification or are certified standards required? Check with your customer – default is AMS2770,
requiring
Refractometers may be calibrated against prepared polymer solutions of known composition. The
calibration solutions may be prepared either by a volumetric or a weight method. Calibration
points shall bracket each concentration and shall be within 2% of the tank concentration to be
measured. The tank concentration shall be determined by adjusting the refractometer reading
according to a calibration factor, curve or table resulting from the calibration.
5.11
GE is sunsetting P10TF1 and replacing it with P10TF3 over the next 18 months. If you work for
GE, make sure you are aware of the schedule and requirements for the changeover.
6.0
AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING – OPEN
Same as this meeting.
ADJOURNMENT – 21-Oct-2013 – Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.