QAR: Click Here
Conditions for approval required by: Julien Gauther
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Form restricted to registered, logged in users. Please return to the home page and use the Create Account option.
PFC: raw material standard indicated is AMS5662.
However, EN3236 requires the use of EN2404 raw material standard (which has been replaced by EN4376 and EN4377).
Could you please clarify?
Hopefully, CARPENTER’s raw material cert is compliant to EN2404 and FAI does mention EN2404.
Reusability test (3 cycles): batch quantity is 3071 parts or 3310 parts (we have 2 certs for lot number 2439871).
As per EN3297, clause 5.4.2.3, sample size shall be carried out according to Table 7, column B for Acceptance.
Thus, 5 parts shall be tested.
In mechanical test report, if I am not mistaken, 10 parts were tested, which is better than 5.
This is just a remark, not blocking.
In NDT report, what is the sample size for FPI?
Surface treatment certs are compliant to AMS2411 whereas EN2786 is called out by EN3236.
Which one has been applied?
NOTE: FAI does mention EN2786 and no standard reference is written in PFC for silver plating.
Many thanks in advance,
Best regards.
Dear Julien, 1) The Carpenter raw material certification does call out the EN2404 in the last line of the specification callout. 2) The reason for the two different quantities on the inspection reports is because the one with 3310 was the one used at in-process inspection and the 3071 is for the net quantity of the parts at final inspection. 3) Our quality department has required a double sample size for locking torque testing years ago. They just have not gone back to re-evaluate it. 4) According to our internal process specification the NDT requirement is 5% of the lot size but, not to exceed 50 pieces. 5) The parts were plated to AMS2411 and has been for many years. I have been working with Phillip Edwards and here is his comments on this subject. I’ve been trying to speak to SAE on this subject
“There is no document that shows that AMS2411 can be used instead on the DTD. We have been raising drawing requests to update drawings to add the AMS and I think we could do this with the Inserts… it should be a quick job
Historically we have been putting comments in the Qualification report that the AMS has been used and has always been used and is acceptable”.
I hope this answers all our questions ? Please feel free to contact me for further questions. Thanks David Satow
Dear David,
4) According to our internal process specification the NDT requirement is 5% of the lot size but, not to exceed 50 pieces.
=> As per EN3297, table 3, AQL=0,065% for discontinuities.
=> Thus, as per EN3297, table 4 and considering a mfg batch size equal to 3071 parts, 125 parts should have been FP inspected.
We can notice that there is a slight sample size difference between EN3297 table 4 and ISO2859-1, table 2-A: the last one requires a sample size equal to 200 parts.
AQL=0,065%, sample size code letter K (ISO2859-1, table 1, general inspection level II), ISO2859-1 table 2-A with code letter K and AQL 0,065% shows that there is a down-arrow marked against sample size code letter K (125 parts) to reach 200 parts (code letter L) for sampling (Acceptance number = 0 / Rejection number = 1).
According to your internal process specification, the NDT requirement is 5% of the lot size but, not to exceed 50 pieces. Thus, ‘only’ 50 parts were FP inspected instead of 125.
Are you in line with this interpretation?
Would HFS Torrance be able to or agree to apply this sampling plan?
5) The parts were plated to AMS2411 and has been for many years. I have been working with Phillip Edwards and here is his comments on this subject. I’ve been trying to speak to SAE on this subject
“There is no document that shows that AMS2411 can be used instead on the DTD. We have been raising drawing requests to update drawings to add the AMS and I think we could do this with the Inserts… it should be a quick job
Historically we have been putting comments in the Qualification report that the AMS has been used and has always been used and is acceptable”.
=> Agreed.
Many thanks again.
Have a nice day.
Julien Gauther
Dear Julien, It was my mistake of utilizing our internal specification as a reference. I spoke with our lab supervisor and NDT personnel on this subject. They say they did follow the EN3297 requirements and had tested 200 pieces. We checked their log and it was shown to have tested 200 pieces. I will upload a screen shot of the log page into the certification package.
Dear David,
Many thanks for replying so quickly, I appreciate.
I am happy with this latest answer.
Thus, approved on my side.
Best regards.
Julien