AAQG RMC Surveillance Team Report Prepared by: Tim Lee The Boeing Company June 7, 2005

Topics 2005 RMC Oversight Activities Process Improvements Corrective Action Workshop Summary

Team Members Tim Lee, Lead The Boeing Company Randy Dougherty ANAB Lori Scheid ANAB Reg Blake BSI Americas Guy Johansen UTC Jay Park Northrop David Stevens Rolls Royce Luiz Brandao Embraer

2005 Oversight Activity Oversight Participants 3 Accreditation Bodies (RAB, SCC, INMETRO) 17 AAQG Member Companies 36 CRB’s were on the oversight schedule (35 ANAB, 1 INMETRO) Assessments Completed CRB Office Assessments = 16 Witness Audits = 16 Joint Team Assessments (ANAB/AAQG Member) were not conducted on: 2 CRB Office Audits 4 Witness Audits Note: 2 additional witness audits will be conducted by ANAB due to poor CB performance during witness audit.

2005 Oversight Activity Oversight Scheduling ANAB has all CB office and witness audits scheduled for 2005 50 % remain to be completed Feedback from ANAB Account Managers Assessment Activity is set once the protocol/notification email is delivered Could be 60 – 90 days before activity. Need support from AAQG RMC Member Contact Make sure Assessors are aware of assignments Track Oversight Schedule Any changes to the schedule will be communicated as soon as possible. Schedule The schedule is posted on the AAQG website and communicated routinely to the AAQG Member contacts.

Process Improvements RMC 102 Rev 4 AS9104 requirements added to CB and AB checklists. Updated Witness Audit Tool to include AB Updated Witness Audit Tool to include more than just auditor observation. (ISO19011) Updated draft will be routed to RMC Voting Members for approval. AAQG Member Oversight Participation RMC Action - Answer the Question: Should an AAQG Member not be able support the schedule and they cannot find a replacement, the action to be taken is_____. Proposed Answer

RMC Corrective Action Workshop (June 6, 2005) Workshop Attendees 38 Attendees AB’s, CB’s & AAQG Members Purpose to recognize the requirement and the need for a corrective action process to recognize the many valuable corrective action processes that exist to show how one approach compares to other methods and guidance documents for developing an effective corrective action process Feedback Good Presentation (THANKS Susan!) Good tools for our Auditors Need to make this available to our Clients Opportunities Better planning & facilities Additional workshops Nonconformance Identification/Communication, Customer Satisfaction Data (OEM Supplier Performance)

Summary Updates to our process are ongoing. Aligning with other global sectors. Supporting the development of a harmonized global standard for oversight This process encourages involvement by all stakeholders. “Industry Controlled Other Party” not “3rd Party” “Working Together” we will continue to improve.