Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cara Report
Cara Report
Cara Report
NC No
Auditor
IATF Clause
Process
NC Type
NC Statement
Clause Requirement
To be completed
by the CB auditor Objective Evidence
Justification of Minor NC
Correction (Containment) action, including
timing and responsible person:
Date : 7 days from Closing meeting
Evidence of implementation
Evidence of implementation
Reviewer comments
To be completed by
the CB
To be fill by
Evidence
Supplier
Management CARA
RKS01
Min
The Process of development of PFMEA is not partially effective in the sample aud
Development of -
Part: Muff.Assy.1
Part no.: BGP1-E4710-10
FMEA for the above does not include Process step – BGP1-500 – CATALYST 1
SUB Assy.-TIG TAG Manual welding
In PFMEA – failure modes due to gas flow rate, weld wire stick out not found
considered.
1. Why: BGP1 model FMEA Not Captured all welding failure modes
2. Why: Major Welding failure mode only Captured in the FMEA
3. Why: All Welding failure modes are not defined in FMEA PROCEDURE
4. Why:
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the FMEA PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Prabhu Balaji
8.6.2
Quality Assurance
Min
During audit trial it is observed as single isolated lapse ,all the drawing
requirements are captured except mentioned above. However the
mentioned requirements are captured in the control plan and inspected on
daily basis. PDI inspection report Dated:09.05.2023,Lot name : 556,21 check
points evident visual and Oiled GARDOROL DW 3601 Captured and checked
ok .So there is no chance of affecting the product quality and no risk to
customer .Hence it is categorized as minor non conformity .
The Layout Inspection report has been established and updated for the
changes for Drawing no: RLX00558 Rev g
Document No: SAPI/QA/F/07
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
Date: 16th May'2023
1. Why: J model Ext pipe Assy Layout inspection report not Captured all
drawing notes checkpoints.
2. Why: The layout inspection report only captured Critical inspection
checkpoints.
3. Why: The layout inspection report is not defined properly in the Quality
Assurance PROCEDURE
4. Why :
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the Quality Assurance PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Prabhu Balaji
8.4.2.4
Purchase, Outsourced Sheet Metal
Min
The process of monitoring supplier performance in purchase process found
partially in effective
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the Purchase PROCEDURE
YES
NA
Vivekanand Kangralkar
10.2.4
Production Planning, Production
Min
The Production process is not effective for the identification of the part
master ( Golden part).
10.2.4 Error-proofing
In the Welding process one of the Part No:: B7J-E4710-10, Part Name:
MUFF.ASSY.,1. Customer: IYM, as per control plan SAPI :QA: DO 011Catalyst
2 direction confirmation master sample needs to confirm during the
assembly process, but the master sample is not available at work station
However, the muffler assembly part is 100% checked in the final inspection
and some of the golden samples are identified with tag, hence it is not
effecting to final customer.
The Master sample report has been established and updated for all
processes.
Part No:: B7J-E4710-10
Part Name: MUFF.ASSY.,1.
Document No: SAPI/QA/DO/023
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
Date: 15th May'2023
Root Cause:
Inadequate information for capturing in the Quality Assurance PROCEDURE
YES
NA
VivekanandKangralkar
9.1.1.1
Production Planning, Production
Min
The Production process is not effective for adherence process parameters as
per control plan.
In the production pipe drilling process the process parameters like Hydraulic air
pressure: as per the control plan it is to be maintained at 25 to 40 Kgs/cm2 but
actually maintained is 10 kg/cm2, adherence to the control plan is not
evidenced.Part No: B7J-E4710-10, Part Name: MUFF.ASSY.,1. Customer: IYM
However, during FML approval the product parameters are being verified,
hence it is not affecting to the final product
On Job training has been established and updated for all Operators.
Part No:: B7J-E4710-10,
Part Name: MUFF.ASSY.,1. Document
No: SAPI:PR:RE:021
Responsible Name: Mr.Surender
Date: 17th May'2023
1. Why: The drilling Process Hydraulic pressure Control plan and the actual
parameter are a mismatch
2. Why: Operatorr Wrongly set the Hydraulic oil pressure
3. Why: Oprator not followed the Process standard
4. Why:
5. Why:
Root Cause:
Inadequate knowledge about Process std follow
YES
NA