Audit Handbook 01-Dec-09 Doc MC [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Heat Treating Task Group Audit Handbook Released: December 01, 2009

PERFORMANCE REVIEW INSTITUTE 161 THORN HILL ROAD WARRENDALE, PA 15086-7527 724-772-1616

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP ........................................................................................................................................... 1  Released:...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1  A. FOREWORD...................................................................................................................................................................... 3  B. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 4  C. AUDITING TO NADCAP AUDIT CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................... 9  C.1  SPECIFICATION ADHERENCE ..................................................................................................................................... 9  C.2  AUDITOR GENERAL GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................................. 13  C.3  SUPPLIER GUIDELINES ........................................................................................................................................... 14  C.4  GUIDELINES FOR TIME MANAGEMENT OF THE AUDIT ................................................................................................ 15  C.5  VERIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION (VCA) AUDITS ............................................................................................ 16  C.6  SNAPSHOT AUDITS DEFINITION ............................................................................................................................... 16  C.7  SATELLITE AUDITS ................................................................................................................................................. 16  C.8  SPEC CANCELLATIONS & SUPERCESSION ............................................................................................................... 18  C.9  AC7102/S ............................................................................................................................................................ 18  D. QUALITY SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................................................................... 19  D.1  TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................................... 19  D.2  ELECTRONIC PROGRAM CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION...................................................................................... 19  E.  GENERAL HEAT TREATMENT ITEMS AND STEELS (AC7102) ............................................................................... 20  E.1  TEST AND INSPECTION............................................................................................................................................ 20  E1.1  Room Temperature Tensile Testing ................................................................................................................ 20  E1.1.1  Sub – Contract Machining of RTT Test Pieces ............................................................................................... 20  E1.2  Round Robin Programs for Metallography and Microhardness ....................................................................... 21  E1.3  Surface Contamination Testing ....................................................................................................................... 22  E1.4  IGA/IGO Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 22  E1.5  Hardness Testing (AC7102/5 Rev. NA) ........................................................................................................... 22  E.2  FURNACE DOCUMENT CONTROL ............................................................................................................................. 23  E.3  CONTROL OF HEATING ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................................................... 23  E3.1  Hi-Limit Instruments ......................................................................................................................................... 23  E.4  QUENCH SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................................. 23  E.5  VACUUM CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................................................... 24  E.6  RACKING ............................................................................................................................................................... 25  E.7  RE-HEAT TREATMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 25  F.  PYROMETRY AUDIT INTERPETATION ..................................................................................................................... 25  G.  JOB AUDITS................................................................................................................................................................. 26  G.1  JOB SELECTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 26  G.2  AUDITING NOTES FOR JOB AUDITS ......................................................................................................................... 27  H.  BRAZING ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28  H.1  CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 28  I.  ALUMINUM HEAT TREATING ..................................................................................................................................... 29  I.1 CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 29  I.2  REFRIGERATION CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................................................... 29  I.3  CONDUCTIVITY TESTING ......................................................................................................................................... 29  APPENDIX A: ALUMINUM SPECIFICATIONS .................................................................................................................... 30  APPENDIX B: PRIME SPECIFICATION MATRIX ............................................................................................................. 34  APPENDIX C: AMS 2750 VS RPS 953 COMPARISON CHART ......................................................................................... 38  APPENDIX D: AMS HEAT TREATING SPECIFICATION – START OF SOAK TIME RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 39  APPENDIX E: LEAD AUDITOR HANDBOOK ..................................................................................................................... 43 

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

A. FOREWORD This Auditor/Supplier Handbook has been prepared to assist the Heat Treating Auditors and Suppliers as follows: •

Where necessary, provide clarification on the intent and rationale of the Heat Treating Task Group as it pertains to specific questions contained in the current revision of AC7102 and its corresponding slash sheets, as well as heat treat specific issues with Materials Testing Laboratories (MTL) checklists commonly used during heat treating audits.

•

Clarify the material to be reviewed in addressing audit questions

•

Standardize the audit from Auditor to Auditor

•

Standardize definitions

•

Provide general guidance on Task Group expectations as to the Supplier’s preparation for an audit and on an auditor’s execution of the audit

•

Provide general information on unique requirements of participating prime contractors to aid the Auditor in determining supplier conformance to customer requirements

This handbook was prepared to directly reference the most current audit checklist revision. Sections are divided to correspond to audit criteria slash sheets. Current Heat Treating controlled checklists are: AC7102

Nadcap Audit Criteria for Heat Treating

AC7102/S Nadcap Supplemental Audit Criteria for Heat Treating (Primes specific requirements) AC7102/1 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Brazing AC7102/2 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Aluminum Heat Treating AC7102/3 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Carburizing AC7102/4 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Gas and/or Ion Nitriding AC7102/5 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Hardness Testing for Heat Treating AC7110/1 Nadcap Audit Criteria for Brazing (Torch/Induction) Additional checklists may be required during an audit (including AQS and/or MTL Task Group checklists). This handbook will not give guidance for questions based on other task group’s checklists; however, if an interpretation conflicts between Task Groups, the Task Group that controls the given checklist will be the governing body. Note: Paragraph numbers in this document that do not begin with a letter correspond to the Audit Checklist question with the same paragraph number. Italicized text next to an audit checklist paragraph number is the text from that checklist question.

3

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

B. DEFINITIONS NOTE: Many of the detailed requirements for the items defined below are found in the applicable specification. These definitions apply only if no customer requirements are specified. Activation - A process by which the surface to be Nitrided is prepared by using various processes (chemical/mechanical) so that the Nitriding process can proceed at a higher intensity, resulting in a harder surface with greater depth. Control Thermocouple - A thermocouple installed within the furnace volume which is used to control the heat input to the working zone. Conversions from Fahrenheit [°F] into Celsius [°C] - When assessing Suppliers against customer requirements which are expressed in degrees Celsius take a special note of conversions from degrees Fahrenheit in TUS, SAT, etc. Customer and governing specifications, especially of European origin, may have temperature tolerances which are less than the similar North American (e.g. AMS) material. For example, solution treatment of aluminium alloys is typical +/- 10 °F in AMS, but +/- 5°C(±9°F) in European standards. North American standards for heat treatment may also have definitions which are not in line with the European Prime requirements (e.g. AMS-H-81200, clause 6.3.9 Metrication). Example: A European Prime requires an aluminium solution heat treat temperature of 475 °C +/- 5°C. In the case where the Supplier is working and calibrating in Fahrenheit they have to be within the +/- 5°C (±9°F) maximum allowable tolerance. If the furnace(s) are tested/certified to a uniformity of +/- 10 °F, this converts to +/- 5.6 °C and exceeds the required tolerance. This is a NCR. Correction Factor – The number of degrees, determined from the most recent calibration that must be added algebraically to, the temperature reading of a sensor, or an instrument, or a combination thereof (system) to obtain true temperature. The correction factors of sensors and instruments are usually kept separately and added together algebraically when a combination is used (from AMS2750 Rev D). Your procedures must clearly state how you calculate and use correction factors. Dead Band – The range within which the temperature input can be altered upscale and downscale without registering a change on the instrumentation (from AMS2750 Rev D). Heat Sink - A mass of material equivalent to the heat transfer characteristics of the thinnest section of the part being heat treated. A thermocouple surrounded by the heat sink is expected to represent the temperature of the limiting section thickness of the part. Heat sinks may be used during TUS per section 3.5.10.1 of AMS2750 Rev D. Intergranular Oxidation/Intergranular Attack (IGO/IGA) – Per ASTM definitions. Intermediate Temperature - A temperature that the part must be cooled to or below or heated to or above prior to continuing the next sequence stage of the heat treat process Leak Up Rate (leak rate) - A test in which the furnace chamber is evacuated, isolated from the evacuation source, and the leakage determined within the system by observing the pressure rise per unit of time. NOTE: Leak up rate expressed in microns/hours. 1 micron is approximately = 1 X 10-3 torr = 0.001 mm Hg = 133 X 10-3 Pascal. For example, when 1 micron is specified, 0.1 micron is a higher Vacuum or lower pressure. Load Sensors – Sensors that are attached to the production material or a representation of the production material, that supply temperature data of the production material to process instrumentation. Long Job Audit – Audit of multi-step heat treat process on a job which has been completed (questions 10.1 and 10.2 in checklist). Long jobs MUST be selected from history and MUST include the completed testing results for the jobs.

4

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Major Findings – The absence of, or systemic breakdown of, the Process Control and/or Quality Management system and any non-conformance where the effect impacts or has the potential to impact the integrity of the product. Heat Treating Task Group Examples - Any violation of engineering processing parameters either required by customer-invoked specification or stated in Supplier’s planning, or a lack of documentation demonstrating compliance to it. Parameters may also include ones not stated in the examples below: 1. Atmosphere/vacuum levels The Supplier's shop paper stated the use of Argon up to a pressure of 500 microns during a heat treatment. The Customer did not specify pressure, and it was not stated in other Supplier documents. The actual pressure during the heat treatment could not be determined because the chart recorder was not configured to read pressures greater than 100 microns.

• Why an NCR? Lack of documentation demonstrating compliance to the pressure stated in the Supplier’s planning.

2. Inspection and Testing – Acceptance of (signing or stamping off) a process or test before that process or test has been completed. The Supplier’s shop paper/job planning or test records indicate that a process or test has been accepted before that process or test has been fully completed. •

Why an NCR? Violation of fundamental Quality principles and Quality System requirements. Note: An isolated occurrence will result in a Major NCR. If these actions are determined to be systemic an additional Major NCR will be issued against the Supplier’s Quality System for allowing this practice or not detecting it, and a Supplier Advisory will be issued.

3. Pyrometry Testing -- Systemic violations or excessive extensions of testing intervals The Supplier had no records of System Accuracy Testing for three furnaces.

• Why an NCR? Systemic violation of customer and Nadcap-invoked requirements for periodic equipment testing. 4. Pyrometry Testing -- Incorrect application of correction factors resulting in an out-oftolerance condition The Supplier’s procedures did not clearly state the difference between error and correction factors. Evidence of incorrect application of these was found. This included a TUS test thermocouple Correction Factor at 700°C that was subtracted rather than added, incorrectly producing an acceptable result, and TUS reports that indicated that an instrument’s Correction Factors are declared and stated as being applied without being included in the calculations.

• Why an NCR? Violation of the application of correction factors resulting in an out-of-tolerance condition. 5. Quenchant media, temperature or time The Supplier’s planning did not state a quenchant oil temperature. The Customer invoked Specification required that initial quenchant oil temperature to be between 60°F and 160°F. The oil temperature at the start of quench was 150°F.

• Why an NCR? Breakdown of the flow down of Customer requirements to Supplier’s planning. 6. Repeat Findings (Non-sustaining Corrective Action) from Last 2 Audits The Supplier’s procedure required biannual evaluations of Heat Treating operators. The Supplier stated the evaluations had been done and recorded on a skill matrix, but no objective evidence of this was available. This is a Non-sustaining Corrective Action from the prior audit.

5

Nadcap December 01, 2009 HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP AUDIT HANDBOOK • Why an NCR? Lack of documentation demonstrating compliance to the periodic evaluations for Heat Treating operators required by the Supplier’s procedure.

• Major NCR because repeat finding from previous audits. 7. Temperatures and temperature tolerances. The Supplier’s shop paper stated a tolerance of +/-25°F for a 775°F heat treatment. The Customer invoked Specification required a tolerance of +/-15°F. During the treatment, some recorded load thermocouple readings remained below 760°F.

• Why an NCR? Breakdown of the flow down of Customer requirements to Supplier’s planning with a violation of the temperature requirements of the customer-invoked specification. 8. Testing Methods for Parts The Supplier performed verification using a Vickers test block as recorded on a machine verification sheet for microhardness testing, but the machine was used to perform Knoop hardness testing using 200-gram force. The Supplier's procedure did not state the required internal weekly verification of the microhardness testing machine to the hardness testing scale being used. The Customer-invoked specification required that verification be done using the hardness scale that will be used for testing. The Supplier’s verification sheet provided no objective evidence that the machine has been verified using a Knoop test block.

• Why an NCR? Lack of documentation demonstrating compliance to the testing method required by the Customer-invoked specification. 9. Times and time tolerances The Supplier’s shop paper stated an allowed set temperature between 1750°F and 1850°F, and a 25 to 50 minutes soak time. The Customer did not specify the processing time or temperature, and only specifies a hardness requirement. An 1800°F set point was selected and used. During the heat treatment, the load thermocouple was between 1750°F and 1775°F for 15 minutes.

• Why an NCR? Violation of the time requirements stated in the Supplier’s planning. Material Specification – Industry or Prime specification which defines the properties of the parts or raw material. Metal Temperature – When called out in a spec or procedure, mandates the use of load thermocouples unless otherwise specified by the Prime.

Minor Finding – A non-systemic lapse in conformance to the Process Control and/or Quality Management system Heat Treating Task Group Examples - Inadequate or non-existent procedures when supported by evidence that the processing or testing is performed correctly per the requirements. 1

Pyrometry Testing -- Procedure

6

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

The Supplier’s procedure stated a provision to suspend equipment from use and to evaluate product impact following a TUS failure, but no actions were stated for an instrument calibration failure or SAT failure. No evidence of SAT or TUS failures were found. Correct actions were evident after instrument calibration failures.

• Why an NCR? Inadequacy of a required procedure. 2

Pyrometry Testing -- Short, isolated extension of periodic testing intervals The Supplier performed a SAT test monthly for a Class 2 Type B air furnace number 17 on two separate occasions. The Customer and Nadcap-invoked requirement was biweekly. All other records were conforming.

• Why an NCR? Isolated extension of a periodic testing interval. 3

Pyrometry Testing -- Incorrect application of correction factors that does not result in an out-of-tolerance condition The Supplier applied the correction factor based on the “as found” value to the SAT test instrument. The Customer-invoked specification required the correction factor based on the “as left” value to be used. The actual Correction Factor for the instrument was within 0.2°F, and was determined not to produce any unacceptable SAT results.

• Why an NCR? Violation of the application of correction factors that does not result in an out-of tolerance condition. NCR – Non-Conformance Report, findings during an audit that require the full five part response as outlined in the Supplier’s guide. Non-Automated Processes & Recordings – If cycle is operator controlled i.e. temp and time, software control section in AC7004 is not required. AC7004 applies for those systems that only require an operator to enter a recipe number or for any part of the process from a sealed menu Nonsustaining / Repeat Findings – Non-conformances that are generated as a result of not implementing corrective actions from either of the 2 immediate previous audits or those where corrective actions may have been implemented but were determined to be ineffective. Objective Evidence – Shall include, but may not be limited to: job travelers, furnace charts, various types of logs and logbooks, training records, document change records, customer documents such as purchase orders, packing slips, etc., or a direct demonstration. Objective evidence is required to be submitted for all findings, regardless their designation. Over-temperature Instrumentation – A sensor/instrument combination installed in the furnace, which is used to monitor any over-temperature occurrence and generate an alarm and/or cut back or shut down the heat input. The purpose for this control is protect material and/or the furnace from overheating (from AMS2750 Rev D. Parts – (From AMS-H-6875, 6088, 81200, etc.) Usually identified by a part number, produced from raw material in accordance with the requirements of a drawing, and are usually tested by nondestructive techniques only. They are heat treated, by or for a fabricator; in accordance with a drawing, purchase order, fabrication order, or heat treat specification. At the time of heat treatment, they may resemble raw material. The Heat Treating Task Group further states: In the absence of other specific direction, material should be treated as a “part” if it has a specific Prime part number and if it is being supplied in either partial or full heat treatment to establish final properties (e.g., solution heat-treated).

Raw Material – (From AMS-H-6875, 6088, 81200, etc.) Usually includes, but is not limited to, such items as sheet, plate, wire, rod, bar, forgings and extrusions. It is usually identified by a heat or lot number and is usually tested destructively for acceptance. It is heat treated, by or for a material producer, in accordance with a material specification which may require, by reference, conformance to a heat treating specification. Round Robin – Heat treating requires an internal round robin. An internal round robin is an intra-laboratory

7

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

study or measure of the reproducibility of results generated by the laboratory personnel using the laboratory procedures. The intent of the internal round robin is to address the reproducibility of the results by operators and equipment. Slash Sheet – Audit criteria on a specific area that may be optional dependent on a supplier’s facilities. Slash sheets are numbered on the base checklist as “AC7102/X”. Soak Time – The amount of time required by specification, blueprint, purchase order for the furnace/parts to be at set temperature, taking into account the furnace tolerance. Short Job Audit – A single complete thermal cycle that should be in process during the audit. Stabilization – (also referred to as equalization, equilibrium, steady state or soaked condition). Furnace stabilization occurs when all control thermocouples are within the allowable TUS tolerance span and controllers are cycling and/or maintaining the desired temperature in each zone. System Accuracy Check/Test (or Probe Check) (SAC/SAT) – An on-site comparison of the instrument/leadwire/sensor readings or values, with the readings or values of a calibrated test instrument/leadwire/sensor to determine if the measured temperature deviations are within applicable requirements. Performed to assure the accuracy of the furnace control and recorder system in each control zone. (from AMS2750 Rev D). Systemic – Procedures, actions, or events that are not isolated, but found to be part of the Supplier’s system. When multiple occurrences of the same violation are observed, it is termed as being systemic. Temperature Uniformity – The temperature variation (usually expressed as +/- degrees) within the qualified work zone with respect to the set point temperature. For retort furnaces where a sensor is used to control temperature, the temperature variation is with respect to the sensor in the retort and not to the furnace set temperature (from AMS2750 Rev D). Temperature Uniformity Survey (TUS) – A test or series of tests where calibrated field test instrumentation and sensors are used to measure temperature variation within the qualified work zone prior to and after thermal stabilization (from AMS2750 Rev D). Vacuum Level – "Higher" or "better" vacuum means "lower" pressure. Required levels will usually be specified by the drawing or material specification, and unless otherwise stated are maximum pressure levels. For conversion: 1 torr= 1mm Hg = 133 Pascal = 1x103 microns. For examples, when 1 micron is specified, 0.1 micron is a higher Vacuum or lower pressure. Voided Nonconformance – A nonconformance generated as the result of a clear misunderstanding by the Auditor and struck out as a “void”. Requires rationale for voiding and may require review by the Task Group or Staff Engineer. Number assigned should not be re-used. Qualified Work Zone – The defined portion of a furnace volume where temperature variation conforms to the required uniformity tolerance. •

All parts or material must be contained in this working zone.

•

Furnaces may have more than one zone

8

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

C. AUDITING TO NADCAP AUDIT CRITERIA C.1

Specification Adherence

ƒ

While the Heat Treating Task Group identifies industry specifications for use and guidance, Suppliers are not automatically allowed to default to those requirements. They are, automatically, to adhere to whatever their Customer requires of them. As a general reference, a matrix of Nadcap Mandating Primes and the specifications they generally require their Suppliers can be found at the end of this document in the Appendix.

ƒ

Question: What is the Nadcap Auditor to do when during a job audit they find that the Supplier has a P/N frozen/ fixed planning process signed by the Prime Customer that deviates from the specification referenced in the frozen/fixed planning?

Nadcap Primes

NO - The Auditor Should Not Raise An NCR. My Company Uses the Frozen Planning Process to Authorize Deviations To The Specification Requirements. If The Frozen Process Is Approved/Signed By The Prime, No Further Investigation Is Required.

YES - The Auditor Should Raise an NCR Because My Company Only Uses Frozen Planning to Guarantee That The Referenced Specification is Properly Flowed. The Supplier and Person Approving the Frozen Planning Made An Error.

X Remark: Supplier should have a Supplier-PFA(= Permit of Alternative) ,Deviation has to be approved and accepted by customer, if not than raise NCR

Airbus SAS

Any Supplier can deviate from a specification using an approved PSD (Process Specification Deviation)

Alenia Aeronautica

9

N/A - My Company Does Not Utilize Frozen Planning or Processes.

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

BAE Systems

X

Bell Helicopter

X Boeing

"Heritage" Douglas (DPS)

X

"Heritage" Boeing (BAC)

X

"Heritage" McDonnell (PS) "Heritage" McDonnell Helicopters (HP)

X

X X - except SMPP

"Heritage" Rockwell Bombardier Aerospace "Group Specifications". Montreal - Process Specs ( MPS / BAPS ).

X

de-Havilland - Process Specs (PPS).

X

Lear Jet - Process Specs ( LES / P Specs ).

X

Shorts Process Specs (P Specs ).

X

Any Supplier can deviate from a specification using an approved SDR (Specification Deviation Request) -- Casting Suppilers can deviate if listed on an approved Foundry Control Approval -- Forging Suppliers can deviate if listed on an approved Pre-Production Forging Approval.

Cessna Aircraft

GE Aviation

X

10

X - For all other cases

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Goodrich Aerostructures

X

Hamilton Sundstrand

X

Hawker Beechcraft

X

Honeywell Aerospace

X * see comment below

Liebherr-Aerospace

Lockheed Martin

X A NCR should be written for deviations of not following the frozen planning. It is not the auditors place to assume an error was made. It is possible for the planning to contain a requirement that was approved via an approved procedure.

Any Supplier can deviate from a specification using an approved VRIC (Vendor Request for Information and Change). There should be some kind of notification or follow up action by the supplier to their customer. X Remark: Supplier should have a SAPA (=Supplier Alternative Process Approval) , if not than raise NCR

MTU Aero Engines

Northrop Grumman

X

Parker Aerospace

X

Rockwell Collins

X X - But would request that Nadcap auditor advise the Prime to permit confirmation that an error had not been made.

Rolls-Royce

SAFRAN Group

Aircelle

X - if the deviation is not formalised in a DEP Demande d'Ecart Procédé (process deviation request)

Messier-Bugatti, Microturbo, Snecma, Turboméca

X

11

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

Sikorsky Aircraft Sonaca

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

X X(1)

Spirit Aerosystems

Textron Aerospace

X(Boeing work which Spirit has delegation to freeze.)

Not for Spirit Work.

X

Textron Lycoming Engines

X United Space Alliance

Ares

X - any deviations to specs will be identified on drawing or in a USA approved Request For Information (RFI)

Orbiter - "Heritage" Rockwell

Solid Rocket Booster "Heritage" Pratt & Whitney (USBI)

X - except SMPP X - any deviations to specs will be identified on drawing or in a USA approved Request For Information (RFI)

Vought Aircraft

X

(1) Deviations are approved by Sonaca only by use of RFA form (Request For Deviation).

*Honeywell Comment: The Prime should be notified so that they can investigate. If the problem turns out to be at the Prime’s end, then the NCR can be voided.

12

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

ƒ

Suppliers certify their work to a host of different documents. The requirements of many Customer specifications are different than AMS or MIL specs. Process certifications should only be to the specs followed.

ƒ

If a checklist question requires something of a Supplier that is not in their Customer’s requirements, the Supplier must adhere to the checklist question. The checklist is considered to be the established requirements of any Prime mandating Nadcap accreditation. In other words, a checklist / Nadcap requirement is a Prime / Customer requirement.

C.2 ƒ

Auditor General Guidelines

Heat Treating Auditors shall comply with the general requirements for completion of the checklist contained in the core Nadcap Auditor Handbook. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the information in this table.

Table I Checklist Guidelines All NAs shall be explained with supporting remarks

Yes

NCRs may be voided on-site by the Auditor; Supplier need not answer

Yes

All questions must be answered

Yes

All paragraphs involving an NCR must be referenced on the NCR

Yes

Auditor to validate NCR's from the previous audit; Result of this validation is reported in the cover letter

Yes

ƒ

For Initial audits, the auditor shall visit all attended shifts when feasible.

ƒ

For Reaccreditation audits, the auditor should visit all attended shifts when feasible.

ƒ

In addition to the general Auditor requirements for completion of the checklist, Heat Treating Auditors shall comply with the following: a. Abbreviations shall not be used unless explained in the cover letter attached to the audit. b. The use of acronyms shall be limited to commonly accepted and understood acronyms (i.e., FAA, DoD, etc.)

ƒ

Writing NCRs: a. Be sure to always have checklist question and reference number. b. The finding must be a checklist nonconformance, a specification non-conformance , or a Prime requirement non conformance, not an opinion, not a best practice criticism, c. Don’t combine different findings because they appear on the same job unless RCCA are the same. d. Be aware of the requirements for classification of Major Findings, Minor Findings, and Nonsustaining/Repeat Findings. e. When an NCR is issued against a checklist question and it is determined that the NCR is a nonsustaining corrective action, DO NOT issue an extra NCR against Chapter 3 (General Quality System) in AC7102, but link the issued NCR with the correspondent question in Chapter 3 of AC7102. f. When one (1) NCR is issued against checklist questions and it is determined that the NCR is a nonsustaining corrective action, DO NOT issue an extra NCR against Chapter 3 (General Quality System) in AC7102, but link the issued NCR with the corresponding question in Chapter 3 of AC7102. g. When two (2) NCRs are issued against checklist questions and it is determined that both NCRs are nonsustaining corrective actions, ISSUE an extra Major NCR against Chapter 3 (General Quality System) in AC7102. h. Review the guidelines for acceptance of NCRs on site.

ƒ

Voiding, and Accepting On-site NCRs:

13

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

a. If an Auditor initiates a NCR and then the Supplier provides additional information that proves that the NCR in fact does not exist, then the Auditor can void the NCR. Reason for voiding the NCR must be documented by the Auditor letter. Do not assign the same NCR number. b. On-Site Acceptance of Non-conformances by Auditors: The nonconformance must meet the definition of a Minor finding, be of the nature of a paperwork oversight or administrative issue, and be properly corrected and closed out within the audit period. It must still be reported to the Task Group and include appropriate documentation of closure. Inclusion of root cause analysis is required when appropriate. Staff Engineers or Task Group members have the option to reopen the NCR and request additional information or action. ƒ

When an NCR is written and noted as having an escape and/or Supplier to Evaluate Product on hardware, the following is required: • • • •

ƒ

C.3

Need to review other jobs to determine if it is an isolated case. Need to review other jobs for potential product impact Supplier must notify the direct Customer of the discrepancy in writing. The notification must include: ƒ What the nonconformance consisted of ƒ A request of your customer to notify the Prime ƒ A request for written acknowledgement of the receipt of the Product Impact/Potential Product Impact notification

Attach a copy of supplier’s written “Notification to Customer” and the “Acknowledgement” from your customer into the applicable NCR in your audit report in eAuditNet Supplier Guidelines

ƒ

Para 1.0 of AC7102 covers specific instructions for Suppliers to be audited. While many items in this section are not requirements, it is in the best interest of the Supplier to perform all duties properly to avoid delays during or after the audit.

ƒ

It is mandatory to perform a self-audit per 1.1.1 of AC7102 and have all corrective actions implemented prior to the Nadcap audit. Auditors have been directed to write an NCR against a Supplier who does not perform a self audit to the required checklists. It is the experience of the Task Group that Suppliers who fail to perform the self-audit are more likely to fail the audit, receive a higher number of findings, and take longer to become accredited.

ƒ

If upon review of the checklist before an audit, a Supplier has difficulty interpreting the checklist question, they shall attempt to perform the following: a. Cross-reference that question with the corresponding section of this handbook for guidance b. Contact the Heat Treating Staff Engineer for clarification c. Contact a Prime representative on the task group for clarification Waiting to clarify a question with the Auditor may result in a NCR if corrective action was required. Knowingly waiting to correct a non-conformance until an audit is questionable quality practice.

ƒ

Suppliers may obtain the current failure criteria from NOP-11 and NTGOP-001 Appendix 3.. This can be downloaded from “User Documents” in eAuditNet.

ƒ

On the last day of an audit, the Auditor should direct the Supplier to Supplier’s Guide in eAuditNet as an aid for their responses to findings. The Supplier shall follow the proper response format stated in eAuditNet Supplier Guide in order to keep the review times as short as possible. The link to this guide is listed in the Supplier Response Guidelines posted in NCR 1 of their audit findings. It will also be advisable for the Supplier to review the tutorial on RCCA (Root Cause Corrective Action) on the PRI website.

14

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP C.4 ƒ

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Guidelines for Time Management of the Audit Time management of the audit is absolutely essential. The basic purpose of the Nadcap audit is four fold. a. Accurate identification of the Customer requirements b. Careful determination that the Customer requirements are flowed down to shop paperwork and any sub-tier Suppliers. c. Verification that the Heat Treater and other shop personnel (cleaning, inspection, test personnel) have correctly implemented and documented the heat treating requirements required by the Customer. d. Assure there is an effective quality assurance system functioning within the heat treating department.

ƒ

Heat Treat Task Group time management recommendations for Auditors are to ensure the purposes of an audit are maintained.

ƒ

Auditors should arrive at the facility on the first day early enough to put a strong first day in, but allow time for the company to get organized, especially on a Monday. If possible, the Auditor should arrive about one half hour after the Quality Manager or Supplier point of contact arrives. Try not to inconvenience Supplier and work within their designated work times.

ƒ

Auditor and Supplier representatives should jointly plan the audit, this point is especially important in larger facilities. It is recommended that the audit should be performed in the following order: a. Brief tour of the facility b. Job Audits c. Pyrometry d. Material Testing (Hardness, Tensile, etc.) e. Validation of Previous NCRs (reaccreditation audits only) f. Additional areas as necessary

ƒ

The Supplier and Auditor should settle issues of proprietary information, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements and intellectual property early in the audit process (preferably prior to the on-site audit).

ƒ

A brief tour is usually in order at the beginning of the audit. In captive shops only a review of the heat treating area is necessary. During the tour, the Supplier and Auditor should try to identify any parts that may qualify for an in-process job audit. All or at least half of the job audits should be selected during the first morning. Supplier supervision should assist in scheduling heat treatments while Auditors are at the facility. This is also an opportunity to review calibration stickers on the equipment.

ƒ

Perform the job audits and take the time to verify that Customer requirements are identified. Both short job and long job audits should be completed by the end of the second day or least by mid-day of third day of auditing for regular audits. Reference Appendix D, pages 33 – 37.

ƒ

It is the best practice to complete the pyrometry section of AC7102 checklist while performing the job audits. This will speed up the audit by reviewing the SAT and TUS data for the furnaces from which you are performing job audits. The balance of the pyrometry section can be completed after all of the job audits have been performed.

ƒ

Perform all Pyrometry auditing paying attention to correction factor, stabilization of the furnace, correct identification of the high and low temperatures the number of surveys per operating range and frequency of surveys. Arrange to witness a System Accuracy Test (SAT).

ƒ

Each potential NCR identified at the time of the audit shall be mentioned to the Supplier.

ƒ

A daily out-brief shall be performed at the end of each day so the Supplier knows the status of the audit on a daily basis.

ƒ

Auditors should avoid on-site NCR acceptance on the last day of the audit as there may not be sufficient time for the Supplier to conduct an adequate RCCA analysis in order to support acceptance on site..

ƒ

Auditors shall carefully review the heat treating processes that are recommended for accreditation together with the Supplier early in the audit. At that time verify all appropriate specifications are in the facility. At this point the scope of accreditation shall be discussed with the Supplier, and any required additions or deletions should be made by the Auditor. Scope changes can be made in eAuditNet as part of the “Scope

15

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Verification” process. Refer to the eAuditNet Auditors” Guide under “Public Documents”

C.5

Verification of Corrective Action (VCA) Audits

ƒ

VCA audits are required by the Task Group whenever there are significant findings is areas such as pyrometry or Customer flow down which would indicate corrective actions need on-site confirmation. The scope of the audit shall be limited to the requirements established by the Staff Engineer and Heat Treating Task Group, and any NCRs shall be answered in the same manner as a standard audit. A letter will be sent to the Auditor from PRI which details the required scope of the VCA audit. This letter is to be attached to the checklist on page 2 of the VCA audit in eAuditNet. The original audit will not be closed until the VCA audit is closed.

ƒ

A complete and thorough Cover Letter is now the official method allowed by the Task Group when documenting the review of previous NCR’s written when performing a VCA audit. Each NCR shall be listed and what actions were taken to close that NCR. If the letter is not complete and thorough, it will be rejected and the Auditor will have to rewrite the Cover Letter to the satisfaction of the Task Group. This letter is to be attached to page 2 of the audit in eAuditNet.

C.6 ƒ

C.7

Snapshot Audits Definition A Snapshot audit is an audit performed upon Task Group request, by a PRI/Nadcap Auditor, at PRI/Nadcap expense, without extended notice given to the Supplier. The purpose of Snapshot audits is to verify the implementation of corrective action responses. Snapshot audits are very focused, with the scope of the audit defined by the requesting Task Group and not to last more than two (2) days. Poor performance on a Snapshot audit could result in revocation of accreditation. Satellite Audits •

Unless specifically directed by PRI, DO NOT visit more than one Supplier location as part of the audit, even if the Supplier tells you that their facility is comprised of more than one site. Call PRI for confirmation regarding the extent of the audit.

•

When more than one location of a Supplier is authorized for inclusion under an accreditation certificate, separate checklists should be completed, for each location, per method, independently. Audits of each independent location have requirements that differ from Task Group to Task Group. eAuditNet will contain the individual checklists to be used with separate audit numbers.

•

The Main and Satellite facility audits shall be scheduled consecutively with the same Auditor(s). Staff Engineer approval of deviations shall be noted in eAuditNet.

ƒ

For Satellite(s) the following criteria apply:

ƒ

Must be within 25 miles/40 kilometers radius distance of the Main facility;

ƒ

Must have the same Quality Manual and Procedures as the Main facility;

ƒ

Must have the same Quality Manager (day-to day operational control) as the Main facility (for NDT can substitute the same Level III / for MTL can substitute the same Lab Manager/Supervisor);

ƒ

Must have onsite an individual who is part of the Quality Function and reports directly to the Quality Manager;

ƒ

Are owned by the same company.

ƒ

The Auditor shall verify during the audit that the Satellite meets the above criteria and shall immediately report any deviations to Scheduling. The Auditor shall document that the above criteria was met or not met in the audit report cover letter.

ƒ

Facilities currently classified as Satellites may retain this classification at the discretion of PRI Scheduling, even though they may deviate from the criteria outlined above. When Auditors report deviations to the above criteria, Scheduling shall determine if this was an existing condition on the Supplier’s previous Main/Satellite and document the exemption to the criteria in eAuditNet

16

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP ƒ

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

If you have a question regarding a satellite facility, contact PRI Scheduling immediately.

17

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP C.8

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Spec Cancellations & Supercession •

Suppliers and Auditor must not assume that the latest revision of a specification is the one to be used. Many Primes, for certification and qualification reasons, are required to continue to use prior revisions or even to continue to follow superseded or cancelled documents. Most Primes provide a flowdown to at least their first tier. When in doubt, consult the Prime. All active Task Group member Primes have committed to supplying this information if help is needed.

For ASTM, AMS and other national standards specification revisions, the Heat Treating Task Group has agreed that the Supplier shall, within 90 days, have the latest revision of the specification on site in the absence of other direction from Prime or customer specifications. C.9

AC7102/S • General and specific requirements for application of AC7102/S: •

DO NOT respond to any question in AC7102/S where the cited Prime specification has NOT been flowed down. Enter “N/A” instead.

•

DO respond to those questions where the cited Prime specification has been flowed down.

•

The GE-Aviation (U10) questions are rated as follows for the purpose of categorizing an NCR: Minor: 11.2.1 (Vacuum leak rate test’s starting pressure) 11.2.1 (Dew point measurement frequency) Major: 9.1.2 (Cooling Rate) 10.2 (Load Sensor Accuracy) 11.1.4 (Type D + 2 recording load sensors) 11.2.1 (Vacuum system calibration interval) 11.2.1 (Dew point instrument calibration frequency) 11.2.4 (Vacuum level above 1000F)

•

Rolls-Royce PLC (U3) questions are rated as Minor for the purpose of categorizing an NCR. No questions should be answered “N/A” or partially answered questions.

• GE Aviation specifications that flows down P10TF1: o o o o o o

C50TF8 C50TF22 C50TF26 C50TF113 C50TF119 P11TF18

18

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

D. QUALITY SYSTEMS • The Supplier should maintain a Process Control Matrix that lists all of the specifications that they process hardware to, the applicable process control requirements, and the Suppliers schedule for meeting them. • The Supplier must have a documented and effective internal audit system. Evidence of these audits including schedule, audit criteria, and results including associated corrective actions must be available for review by the Auditor. • The heat treating job planning must include the specific time and temperature requirements for the specific job. This information can be directly on the shop paper or on other instructional media traceable to the job planning. It is not acceptable to reference by specification and have the operator look up the time and temperature requirements in the specification. • For fixed process planning, the Supplier must be able to document to the Auditor that they are processing to the latest Customer approved revision of the fixed process planning. • The Boeing Company requires for BAC heat treating specification that each furnace chart is stamped to indicate acceptance for temperature and time at temperature. If this inspection is delegated to shop production personnel by QA, then the operators must receive documented training and QA must perform oversight audits on sampling frequency of the jobs accepted by the operator. A record must be kept to document this oversight. • Sampling Plans - Personnel utilizing sampling inspections must be trained and tested to document that they know how to properly perform sampling inspection. D.1

Training • The Supplier must have a documented personnel training program. The Supplier can use ARP1962 for a guide, or develop their own training program. The program must include documented training to an established outline and initial and periodic evaluation of the competency. The AMEC committee is concerned about the quality of the training programs at heat treaters and feels that we have not been putting enough emphasis in this area. This is an area that we need to highlight. • Where written testing is not permitted (for example, in certain union shops), "Observational" testing is acceptable. In this kind of test management observes an operator during the performance of their job duties. Management fills in the questions and the result is graded. The results of the observation should be reviewed with the operator. Records of the observations and review must be retained.

D.2

Electronic Program Control and Data Acquisition • These requirements pertain to computerized furnace programming, paperless recording equipment, and any other electronic media used by a heat treater that historically was performed in a hard copy format. The Heat Treating Task Group does not want to discourage the use of this type of equipment (in fact would rather encourage it), only to ensure the proper steps are taken to control software and data to be as reliable and auditable as the hard copies they replace. For more specific information, refer to AMS2750 Rev D and the Pyrometry Reference Guide.

D.3

Contract Review Where the Customers instructions are ambiguous with regards to thermal processing and mechanical testing requirements, e.g. 17-4PH, Heat Treat to Condition H1025 per AMS5643, it could imply that Customer requires testing with heat treatment; heat treaters shall contact Customer for further clarification of all requirements, which may include verification of delivery condition.

19

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP E.

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

GENERAL HEAT TREATMENT ITEMS AND STEELS (AC7102) •

Refrigeration of Steels - If the specification requires a refrigeration time at temperature process, it must be recorded to document compliance. This includes dry ice/alcohol baths. Refer to AMS2750 Rev D and the Pyrometry Reference Guide for further information.

•

If the Supplier is performing in-house testing covered by one of the MTL checklists, e.g. Hardness Testing, Tensile testing, etc., they will need to consult the MTL Supplier/Auditor Handbooks for guidance to those checklists.

E.1

Test and Inspection •

E1.1

Supplemental Material Testing Laboratory Checklists - As part of Nadcap Heat Treating audit, Suppliers may be audited to checklists that are to standard operations in a heat treating facility, but out of the Heat Treating Task Group’s control. For instance, checklists handled by Materials Testing Laboratories (MTL) Task Group for such testing like Mechanical Testing (AC7101/3) and Metallography and Microhardness (AC7101/4) are common. Interpretation and guidance on these checklists are available from the MTL Task Group. Room Temperature Tensile Testing

•

Round Robin testing is required when the Supplier performs RTT per AC7101/3 Table 1. (Guidelines to follow when available.)

•

When the Supplier only performs RTT, calibration and monitoring of temperature and humidity is NOT required, do not write an NCR, the question is N/A.

•

The following are the only areas in AC7101/3 & 4 the Heat Treating Auditors are allowed to verify for approval.

•

The only allowed category of testing in AC7101/3 is RTT.

•

The only allowed categories of testing in AC7101/4 for approval are the following: L, L5, L6, L7, L8 and L9.

E1.1.1 Sub – Contract Machining of RTT Test Pieces These are the minimum requirements for the control of machining of RT Tensile test pieces against the clause in AC7101/3 Para 9.4. The machining source does not need to be listed on AC7101/1 Figure 3. Machining source The source must be listed on the Supplier’s approved vendor listing. They must be able to demonstrate a quality review of the source. Control of RT Tensile Test Piece Manufacture: 1) Are procedures written which establish specific values for each process variable for each test piece and material combination, i.e. machining speeds, feed, grinding wheel, etc? 2) Does the preparation of the test piece eliminate any adverse effects on the properties resulting from the test? Example: a) Test piece distortion b) Physical damage c) Residual stresses d) Metallurgical damage (from local overheating etc)

20

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

3) Are the test pieces inspected for the following? a) Visual inspection for surface damage b) Finished surface exhibiting an uniform texture 4) Is dimensional inspection controlled by one of the following methods? a) b) c) d)

Statistical Process Control (SPC) Inspection of characteristics prior to shipment 100% inspection of all characteristics Sample inspection of characteristics.

5) Are the packaging and shipping requirements defined? Are each of the specimens packaged and labeled in a manner to protect its integrity and unique identity? E1.2

Round Robin Programs for Metallography and Microhardness Internal round robins are required for accredited Heat Treating Suppliers for their microhardness testing equipment and other measurable metallographic evaluations. External round robins are not required. The internal round robin test should include: a. Operators who use the same tester: using the same specimen, with none of the operators aware of the hardness block value, at least five readings are taken for each operator and compared statistically. b. If there are two microhardness testing machines using the same scale (ex. Knoop) one individual should test both machines with the same block to determine if there is a statistical difference between the two machines? c.

For both machine and operator, the results shall be analyzed quantitatively. Any valid statistical method that compares the data with 95% confidence is acceptable. For example, individual test averages should fall between two standard deviations of the total test data. ƒ

Round robin testing shall be performed on each microhardness tester used to verify or certify material regardless of the type of tester. This includes digital microhardness testers.

ƒ

The Krautkramer Microdur microhardness tester requires the use of a separate material standard test block that corresponds to each alloy system to be tested.

For the purposes of the Heat Treating Task Group (this is not a true Gage R&R): A statistical comparison of microhardness test machine operator results on a given microhardness test machine (including digital machines) and hardness test block. Operators should be “blind” to the test block value being used. Readings should not be rounded. An individual’s mean shall be within +/-2 sigma of the group mean. If more than one machine is to be used, each machine must be checked. Have one “standard” microhardness test machine operator check each machine and compare other microhardness test machine operators against the “standard operator”. Round Robins are also required for IGA/IGO and diffusion coatings and RTT, grain size, alpha case. (Review MTL data) The following may be considered to assist in Round Robin calculations: Round Robin testing is a comparison between two or more operators or between same scale microhardness testers to assure there is no significant statistical difference in the testing methods used between operators or between the functioning of hardness testers. For operators, the same microhardness tester and same certified test block (test value of the test block is obscured to prevent bias - production material is not recommended, as this material is often not consistent in hardness and the test will be confounded) is used and a number of test readings (five or more) is taken by each operator. The test results of each operator are compared statistically to each other. If there are more than two operators, one is always used as the standard of comparison. The same method is applied to microhardness test machines when there is more than one microhardness tester. Recommended

21

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

statistical methods are” t” test, 2 sigma average comparison (individual average does not exceed two

sigma of total average) When comparisons are made where only one measurement is made (depth of IGO, depth of alpha case, grain size, etc), the same sample is measured by different individuals using the same equipment. A recommended statistical comparison is a “Z” test, Z=(x-X)/s, where Z (the number of standard deviations the value of “x” lies above or below “X”), “s” is the measured standard deviation of the average of the readings to obtain “X” , “x” is the participant’s result, “X” is the determined value from a number of acceptable readings. For IZI less than or equal to 2, the test is satisfactory; for 2 less than IZI which is less than 3, the test is questionable; for IZI greater than or equal to 3 the test is unsatisfactory (reference ISO/IEC Guide 43-1:1997, ASTM E 1301 E1.3

Surface Contamination Testing Some Primes require or allow the use of ARP1820 for the testing of surface contamination/decarburization. The following specifications reference surface contamination requirements in Section 3.5 of each specification and ARP1820 is referenced in all AMS 2759/#’s. ƒ AMS 2759/1(ARP 1820 is referenced, but not required) ƒ AMS 2759/2(ARP 1820 is required) ƒ AMS 2759/4(ARP 1820 is referenced, but not required) ƒ AMS 2759/5(Requires ARP 1820 or equivalent that provide 3X magnification)

NOTE: AMS-H-6875 requires etching the IGA sample in boiling acid. AMS 2759 specifies that samples should be evaluated unetched. E1.4

IGA/IGO Evaluation IGO is an oxidation of the grain boundaries, leaving the grain intact. IGA is a corrosion attack in the grain boundaries that usually results in the grain(s) being removed or damaged. All alloys exposed to thermal treatments are susceptible to IGA/IGO, with the exception of single crystal castings. Always refer to controlling specifications for requirements. Refer to ASTM E 3 for preparation of sample or indicated specification. Individual Prime requirements may differ. • •

E1.5

Do procedures reference compliance to ASTM E 3 or indicated specification? Do records show compliance to ASTM E 3 for specimen preparation or indicated specification?

Hardness Testing (AC7102/5 Rev. NA) Question 13.4.1 was intended only as a reminder that the requirements of ASTM E18-08b Paragraph 6.4 apply, where it states "When testing on convex cylindrical surfaces, the result may not accurately indicate the true Rockwell hardness; therefore, the corrections given in Annex A6 shall be applied." Whenever a Supplier certifies that they have performed hardness testing per ASTM E18, they are certifying that corrections were applied to hardness values taken from convex cylindrical surfaces. The question 13.4.1 from AC7102/5 Rev. NA will be removed from the checklist at the next revision.

ƒ

It is assumed that the Conductivity and Hardness testing specification flowed down in AMS 2770 is AMS 2658 and it is the only testing specification mentioned in AMS 2770. AMS 2770H, Section 4.3, does not directly flow down any Conductivity and Hardness testing specification except for 4.3.1.2 for 6XXXX alloys and 4.3.3 under Failures. It is apparent that this was an oversight and will be corrected at the next revision of AMS 2770. In the interim, AMS 2658 will be considered the Conductivity and Hardness testing specification flowed down by AMS 2770, in the absence of any other direction by customer purchase order

22

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

or contract.

E.2

Furnace Document Control Do records on the furnace chart or log indicate that the procedure is followed? When looking for furnace logs, follow the specification governing the job of concern. Some require actual logs with specific information on them be kept, others require only written traceable records.

E.3

Control of Heating Environment Do procedures specify how atmosphere from each generator/blender is to be controlled? Refers to generated atmospheres (endothermic for example), not for blended cryogenic atmospheres E3.1

Hi-Limit Instruments

While out on the shop floor be sure to check the Hi-Limit Instruments and to verify they are properly being set. There are several different specifications that require them to be set at a specific range above the set temperature. If the specifications do not call out such a requirement, the Supplier needs to define in a procedure what the hi-limit instruments need to be set at. E.4

Quench Systems

There are three types of delays to be considered in heat treating, dependent on the Customer specification: a. b.

c.

Quench delay: from the time which the furnace door starts to open (i.e the furnace seal is broken) until the parts are completely under the water, polymer, salt or oil. As Quenched Retention Delay: The times from removal from the quench bath until the parts are put in refrigeration / sub-zero treatment (usually 45 minutes maximum for steels and 1 hr. for aluminum, but frequently less depending on alloy and specification). Age/Temper Delay: the time the parts must remain at room temperature after removal from the refrigerator prior to placement (usually some minimum time) into the aging/tempering furnace.

When these requirements are imposed by specification, records of time in/time out need to be kept by the heat treaters. Are the quench mechanisms operational and capable of meeting maximum quench delay provisions of specifications? Quench delay measurement should be verified to assure specification compliance. Measurement begins with movement of the door. Tabulated maximum delays may be exceeded if allowed by specification i.e. AMS2770G states that the specified maximum quench delay may be exceed if tests made within the last year demonstrate that the part temperatures do not fall below 775 °F (900 °F for 2219) before immersion. In addition, there should be documentation of how the temperature of the parts is validated when using this provision. The measurement of quench delays should be done with a stopwatch. Too many new furnaces measure from the initiation of ram movement or from the time the door is fully open, and not door movement. Lengthy delays can cause defective parts. Do procedures specify how quenchant temperature is to be controlled and documented? There should be a document describing how the temperature in the quench bath is measured at the start and end of the quench. Do records on or traceable to, the traveler demonstrate that quenchants have been at the specified temperatures before and after the parts were quenched? Supplier should be checking the quenchant temperature rise with a full load. Load sizes should be controlled to ensure that quench media does not exceed the maximum quenchant temperature allowed by specification or the maximum allowable increase in quenchant temperature allowed by the specification.

23

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

ƒ Control of glycol quenching solutions. The current industry/Customer specs have rigid controls with respect to glycol concentrations, salt content in the quenchants, and require approved products. Checking of quenchants approval is essential. The adequacy of the quench in aluminum heat treating operations is dependent upon the use of specific products, and the continued control of those quenchants. Do records indicate that quenchant effectiveness is consistent and meets specification requirements? Quench effectivity testing may include (either separately or in combination) comparative cooling curve analysis, analysis of mechanical property test results, chemical, physical & thermal analysis of the quench media, and hardness of cross-section analysis against harden ability curves. See the governing heat teat specifications for details.

E.5

Vacuum Considerations Do procedures control the following: a. Leak-up Rate Leak-up rate test should be run at normal operating pressures. Allow vacuum system to equilibrate for 15 minutes minimum then check leak-up rate. The typical leak up rate is expressed in microns/hour and the arithmetic should be performed accordingly. Example if the test is run for 15 minutes, the pressure difference during the time period multiplied by 4 equals total leak up rate per hour. b. Quench Gas Purity and Dew Point (Does gas certification meet specification requirements)? Quench Gas Purity: This relates to the purity and dew point requirements of the quench gas. For example, GE Specification, P101TF1, requires inert gas purity of 99.995% and dew point of -60 degrees F or colder . Boeing BAC specification requirement is Compressed Gas Association (CGA) specification G–11.1, Grade E (dew point –76 F or colder, oxygen 5 ppm or less). The following table will assist in interpreting certifications from gas suppliers:

24

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

Dew Point (°F) -100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75 -70 -65 -60 -55 c.

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Table II Moisture Conversion Data Dew Point (°C) Moisture Content [ppm (v/v)] -73.3 1.5 -70.5 2.3 -67.8 3.5 -65.0 5.3 -62.2 7.8 -59.4 11.4 -56.7 16.2 -53.9 23.0 -51.1 32.0 -48.3 45.0

Moisture Content (mg/L) 0.0011 0.0017 0.0026 0.0040 0.0058 0.0085 0.012 0.017 0.024 0.034

Gas Quench System Integrity/Dew point

When dew point testing of inlet gases to a line of furnaces; take the gas sample just past the farthest furnace in the line. Look for periodic calibration of dew point tester. E.6

E.7

Racking •

Racking spacing should be conveyed by planning callout, set up cards, or in the general procedure depending applicable specifications/Customer requirements.

•

Heat treatment of fasteners frequently requires specific qualification of containers to insure that that the soak time is adequate for a given thickness of charge and that the charge is not too thick for adequate quenching. Various specifications have specific requirements in this area.

Re-Heat Treatment All re-heat treatments must be documented on the Suppliers manufacturing and nonconformance system, even if re-heat treatment is allowed by specification. If re-heat treatment is not specifically allowed by specification, Customer approval in writing is required.

F.

PYROMETRY AUDIT INTERPETATION

PLEASE REFER TO THE “PYROMETRY REFERENCE GUIDE” FOR GUIDENCE ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF AMS2750.

25

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP G.

JOB AUDITS

G.1

Job Selection

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

ƒ

Job audits shall be selected to provide a representative appraisal of the type of work to be accredited. Job audits are a good test for the effectiveness of the Supplier’s contract review procedures, process planning and manufacturing controls. Be careful of customer specific flowdown requirements that may preclude the use of “generic” or “industry-specification” based process plans or cycles. Survey the facility early in the audit to find enough in-process jobs for a minimum of 4 in-process job audits. Make Supplier aware that other completed job audits will be required if all materials/processes cannot be covered in-process.

ƒ

If a Supplier wants approval for any of the following materials/processes listed in Table III, then an audit must be conducted on that materials/process. It is essential that the Supplier be contacted prior to the audit to ensure he has material in process to cover the scope of approval If the Supplier does not have current orders in house, he may run “dummy” jobs to the requirements which he wishes to include in the scope of his audit. This needs to be agreed to prior to the start of the audit. The job audits can be either long or short. If an in-process job is not available, then the auditor can select a Supplier's completed job. As many job audits as necessary to completely document a Supplier's capability should be performed. This applies to both initial and reaccreditation audits.. Table III Job Audit Selection Titanium solution treatment

Furnace Brazing

Aluminum solution treatment

Carburizing and heat treatment

Austenitize and quench

Nitriding

Superalloy solution with controlled cooling requirements or aging with controlled cooling requirement

Induction Brazing

Induction hardening

Ion Nitriding

Dip Brazing

ƒ

Tempering and/or Stress Relieving alone can’t be used as a job audit unless that is the only process the Supplier performs. Solution treating and aging of same part number should be considered as one long job audit.

ƒ

Preference should be given in selecting jobs to Subscribing Prime members of the Heat Treating Task Group. Should avoid “breakout” job, i.e. direct government buy of Prime part numbers.

ƒ

Preference should also be given to non-proprietary jobs and/or non-ITAR/EAR when choosing to do an audit. If there is no choice and a proprietary job has to be chosen, a record of specification requirements, set values, and actual values should not be placed in the audit report unless agreed to by the Supplier. Instead, the Auditor shall verify the specification requirements versus the shop paper requirements versus the actuals and make a statement that the condition found was acceptable. If an NCR exists, it is acceptable to record the variance from requirements. Please refer to NIP 7-07 for additional information on ITAR/EAR.

ƒ

Long job audits shall be performed on completed aerospace jobs. Long job audits should be performed on jobs completed within the last four months. Only if there is no other work available should a completed job be more than 6 months old. If it is older than 6 months: o Make a specific note o Make an assessment of the Supplier's capability to perform the process of H/T the material o When looking at an "old" job do not write up an NCR if the current procedures would have addressed the problem

26

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

ƒ

At least four short job audits should be performed on in-process jobs if eight in-processes are not available. If it is impossible to witness a minimum of four in process jobs, a Staff Engineer must be contacted. The Staff Engineer will give direction to the Auditor in proceeding with the audit and proper documentation in the cover letter. The remaining jobs must be selected from the completed jobs since last certification was issued.

ƒ

A minimum of at least one in-process job needs to be witnessed to observed racking details, placement of load t/c (if used), placement in furnace, quenching and unloading. The balance of the in-process jobs may be in soak, in cool down cycle or just completed.

G.2

Auditing Notes for Job Audits

ƒ

Identify alloys/materials specifically-not just by specification number.

ƒ

Ensure that material is heat treated in furnaces that meet the uniformity requirements of that material (i.e. material requiring ±5 F ovens are not aged in ovens that only meet ±10 F limits).

ƒ

Solution heat treating and aging of the same aluminum part number may be treated as two separate short job audits, especially since two different furnaces will likely be used. There are some that are used for both solution treat and age but this is not common.

ƒ

Each question in each job audit must be answered. For example, Pre Heat Treat Requirements; Pre Heat Treat Requirements on shop paper, Pre Heat Treatment actually performed, must be answered. If there are no requirements, write "NONE" or "NONE SPECIFIED".

ƒ

If the customer requirements are not specified, the heat treaters must provide objective evidence of the origin of the requirements imposed.

ƒ

When recording the “Actual Temperature Data”, it is best to record the stabilized temperature and not the temperature as the thermocouple crosses the lower uniformity requirement.

ƒ

Specification, B/P and/or P.O. calls out a minimum time only, it is permissible but NOT required that the Supplier specify a maximum. The Supplier may simply flow down the minimum time requirement to the shop paperwork. If Specification, B/P and/or P.O. calls out a single time only and does NOT state Minimum/Maximum, the Supplier Shall have a default in their procedure. Either a (+/-) tolerance or a statement that time at temperature shall be considered as Minimum or Maximum. This also applies to a “Fixed Process”. The only exception is for a fully automated process outside the control of the operator. A single time may be specified in such cases.

ƒ

During all job audits where quench delay requirement exists, the Auditor needs to verify that the requirement was met.

ƒ

The preferred practice is to list the date & time of day on the recorder chart. Additionally, there needs to be traceability from the chart to the heat treat log, for example, by using a job number and date or unique job number.

27

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP H.

BRAZING

H.1

Considerations

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

ƒ

Because there are a number of requirements unique to brazing, the Heat Treating Task Group has developed a separate slash sheet (AC7102/1). Suppliers wishing to be approved for furnace brazing, dip brazing or vacuum brazing shall be audited to this slash sheet.

ƒ

Suppliers wishing to be approved for torch brazing or induction brazing shall be audited using AC7110/1 checklist.

ƒ

Adjusting of temperature during the hi-temperature portion of braze cycles, based on load t/c data is allowed in order to avoid adverse affects of exposure at elevated temperatures.

ƒ

NOTE: This is not considered ‘Offsetting” as it is used during temperature uniformity surveys.

ƒ

Not all Primes require a separate enclosed preparation/assembly area, but area used for this must be reasonably free of shop dirt and potential sources of contamination.

ƒ

Fit is critical to a strong braze joint make a special point of reviewing the Suppliers data and assembly procedures to assure B/P or specification requirements for gap are met.

ƒ

Post braze cleaning instructions shall include residual flux test if flux is used.

28

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP I.

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

ALUMINUM HEAT TREATING

I.1 Considerations ƒ

Because there are a number of requirements unique to aluminum heat treating, the Heat Treating Task Group developed AC7102/2 to cover those unique requirements. This checklist shall be completed for Suppliers performing aluminum heat treating.

ƒ

MIL-H-6088 & AMS-H-6088 are obsolete specifications and, unless Primes have directed otherwise, are replaced with AMS 2770, AMS 2771, & AMS 2772. If not covered by the applicable Prime specification the following shall apply: a. AMS 2770 covers heat treatment of parts. b. AMS 2771 covers heat treatment of castings. c. AMS 2772 covers wrought raw materials only.

I.2

Refrigeration Consideration

ƒ

Following quench, many solution heat treated aluminum alloys (specifically 2XXX series) require refrigeration. This process is to retain the parts in an as-quenched (W) condition, rather than allowing natural aging to occur. It is typical for parts that will be worked (sheet metal forming) as the W condition is softer and more ductile.

ƒ

Documentation shall exist to show time parts took to get from the furnace to the refrigerator, and how long they have been kept in the refrigerator. The temperature at which to refrigerate will define the maximum time the parts can be retained in the refrigerator. Non-conformances should be written if parts are not in refrigerators in the required time and if they are retained in refrigerators beyond their maximum allowable time; however, the effect on the product is not metallurgical (only affects manufacturability) and should not be considered as potential product impact. AQ retention of sheet aluminum is for the purpose of formability only.

ƒ

It is typical for a refrigeration unit to go through periodic defrost cycles. During these cycles, temperatures can exceed a refrigerator’s temperature tolerance. These departures are typically short enough to not allow parts to not lose their as-quenched condition. Unless Customer specifications specifically state otherwise, these temperature deviations are allowed and a non-conformance should not be written.

I.3

Conductivity Testing

ƒ

AC7102/2 includes questions specific to conductivity testing; however, no separate approval for conductivity testing will be listed on supplier Nadcap certifications.

ƒ

If Customer specifications do not give guidance, Supplier procedures shall specify allowable tolerance of acceptance for calibrations. It is not expected that calibration on shop floor standards will exactly meet values on the block; however, the allowed deviation must be proceduralized and the operator shall be aware of the allowance.

ƒ

Do procedures reference compliance to ASTM E 1004 or MIL-STD-1537?

ƒ

Do procedures reference that the conductivity test equipment shall require a periodic standardization every hour of continuous operation?

ƒ

Do procedures state that equipment which does not provide accurate or repeatable results shall be corrected and recalibrated?

ƒ

Does the inspection source report show the actual minimum and maximum values obtained?

ƒ

It is assumed that the Conductivity and Hardness testing specification flowed down in AMS 2770 is AMS 2658 and it is the only testing specification mentioned in AMS 2770. AMS 2770H, Section 4.3, does not directly flow down any Conductivity and Hardness testing specification except for 4.3.1.2 for 6XXXX alloys and 4.3.3 under Failures. It is apparent that this was an oversight and will be corrected at the next revision of AMS 2770. In the interim, AMS 2658 will be considered the Conductivity and Hardness testing specification flowed down by AMS 2770, in the absence of any other direction by customer purchase order or contract.

29

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

APPENDIX A: ALUMINUM SPECIFICATIONS

Commodity: Prime:

Aluminum Alenia Aeronautica SpA

Governing Specification:

NTA 71250 (parts) NTA 71251 & NTA 71252 (rivets)

Allowable Specifications: AMS 2770, AMS 2771 (as applicable to the most current revision). Requirements: Pyrometry: Process Control Tests:

Load T/C: Load Verification: Hardness Testing:

Conductivity Testing: Tensile Testing:

NTA 98252 Monthly - HTO, IGC, Eutectic Melting, Clad Diffusion & Tensile: • tensile (9 specimens symmetrically distributed within the working zone), • susceptibility to intergranular corrosion (1 test carried out on the specimen with the lowest tensile yield strength), • eutectic melting and high temperature oxidation (1 test carried out on the specimen with the lowest % elongation), • diffusion of alloying elements in the cladding Not required Hardness and conductivity inspection Required on at least 10% of parts for every load (to be performed on parts with minimum and maximum value of conductivity) or 100% if conductivity testing is not carried out (6xxx alloys)., Test per NTA 95051 Required at 100% with registration of minimum and maximum values for each work order. Test per NTA 94551 Required for 7050-T74 forgings, extrusions and plates; 7075-T76xx sheets, extrusions and plates; 7475-T76xx sheets Test per ASTM B 557

Commodity: Prime:

Aluminum Bell Helicopter Textron

Governing Specification:

BPS 4139

Allowable Specifications:

none

Requirements: Pyrometry: Purging compounds: Polymer Quenchants: Salt Bath Salts: Quenchability Tests: Load T/C: Load Verification: Hardness Testing: Tensile Testing: Conductivity Testing:

Note:

AMS 2750 2000 and 7000 series, ammonium fluoborate, BPS 4139, par 2.2.1.2 composition IAW AMS 3025, Type I, no mixing of glycol manufacturers, maximum salt contamination, par 2.3.7 and Table 8. MIL-S-10699, Class 2 with slight modifications, par 2.2.2 Monthly on all solution heat treat furnaces, par 5.1.6 Not required Alloy dependent, par 6.2.3 Conditional on all parts as a substitute for tensile testing except for alloys listed below. Test per BPS 4467 All 7XXX series. Test per ASTM B557 Conditional on all parts as a substitute for tensile testing except for alloys listed above. Test per BPS 4453

When auditing jobs to Bell Helicopter Specifications, they allow Pyrometry to AMS2750 requirements InHouse ONLY, not for Outside Supplier’s. Bell has granted specific deviations (in writing) allowing AMS 2750.

30

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Commodity: Prime:

Aluminum Cessna Aircraft Company

Governing Specification:

CSMP003 – Heat Treatment of Aluminum CSMP004 – Heat Treatment & Surface Enhancement of Steels (Includes Stainless Steels and Carburizing) CSMP010 – Heat Treatment of Nickel-Based Alloys CSMP047 – Heat Treatment of Titanium and Titanium Alloys

Allowable Specifications:

SEE BELOW

Requirements: If the Auditor sees a Cessna drawing or parts where Cessna is identified as the Prime; the Auditor can assume that the above four specs will apply. How that conclusion is reached is very complicated. We may flow down the above specs on outside process specification sheets (OPSS) that state the processes we know have to be performed, but just because OPSS does not cover a heat treat spec doesn’t mean it’s not required. All Cessna designed parts have a note on the drawing in the tolerance block that says “Process per CSPS004”. That spec defines all processes that if performed are required to be performed per a Cessna spec. To our engineers, they don’t care if you use a process or not when they design a part, but if you do and its one we want controlled we want you to control it to our spec. It’s confusing, that’s why its safe to assume that if it is a Cessna part, Cessna heat treat specs apply. The other key issue is our limitations on industry heat treating specs. We do allow suppliers to use either our heat treating spec or industry specs in-part or in-full within a series of exceptions. For example, a heat treater working to CSMP003 can use the times and temperatures from AMS 2770. There are limitations on the extent a Supplier can use the industry spec. For all four of the Cessna specs listed above, the exceptions to industry standards are listed in Paragraph 9.0 (found on the last page of each document). While each alloy group has their own exceptions, the key exceptions are: • Quality and Testing must be per the Cessna Spec (all items covered in Para 7.0) including all periodic testing listed • Pyrometry is our spec, which states per AMS2750 with minor exceptions (e.g. aluminum solution treat must recover to low end of tolerance within 30 minutes) We bring this issue up as some Suppliers are stating that they can run completely to industry specs if we call out CSMP003, which has more testing required.

31

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Commodity: Prime:

Aluminum Goodrich Aerostructures

Governing Specification:

RPS 12.31

Requirements: Pyrometry: Protective Compounds: Polymer Quenchants: Salt Bath Salts: Quenchability Tests:

Load T/C: Load Verification: Refrigeration Control: Hardness Testing:

AMS 2750 Ammonium or sodium fluoborate per RPS 12.31 par 3.2.3. Compliant with AMS 3025, no mixing of Types I & II allowed. Compliant with Mil-S-10699, Class 2, test for Mg conc. if Al-Mg alloys used; test quench/rinse media for salt/TDS as applicable per RPS 12.31 par 3.6. Glycol concentration – test per RPS 12.31 par 4.7.7 & 4.7.8. Quenchant temperature - maintain per RPS 12.31 par 3.15.1. Monthly – HTO, Eutectic Melting, IGA/Corrosion, Clad Diffusion and Mechanical Properties per RPS 12.31 par 4.7.6. Not required. Hardness and conductivity inspection per RPS 18.11, tensile test as noted, per ASTM B557. Required per RPS 14.05.

Tensile Testing: Conductivity Testing:

Required on 100% of parts on 7000 series heat treated to T7XXXX tempers; required on 10% of parts on other aluminum alloys; except not required on perforated skin. Required on each lot of alloy 7050 (also for monthly controls, as above). Required on 100% of parts on all alloys.

Commodity: Prime:

Aluminum Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.

Governing Specification:

208-2-7 Rev. E

Allowable Specifications: 208-2-7 allows suppliers to use AMS 2770, AMS 2771, & AMS 2772 (as applicable to the most current revision). Requirements: Pyrometry:

AMS 2750

Polymer Quenchants:

Compliant with AMS 3025

Salt Bath Salts:

Compliant with MIL-S-10699

Quenchability Tests:

Weekly – Glycol viscosity – Test per ASTM D 445 Monthly - HTO, IGC, Eutectic Melting, Clad Diffusion & Tensile

Load T/C: Load Verification: Hardness Testing:

Tensile Testing:

Conductivity Testing:

Not required Hardness and conductivity inspection Required on at least 10% of parts for every load or 100% if conductivity testing is 10%, except for 7000 series in T7XXX.. For 7000 series in T7XXX – 100% hardness inspection. Test per 208-14-16. Each load of 7050T7XX & 7075 forgings quenched in glycol only– Test per ASTM B 557 Required on all Al alloys 100% for every load or 10% if hardness testing is 100%– Test per 208-14-14

32

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Aluminum Specifications Commodity: Prime:

Aluminum SONACA

Governing Prime Specification:

PS 6.4001

Allowable industry Specifications: None Requirements: Pyrometry: Polymer Quenchants: Salt Bath Salts: Quenchability Tests:

Load T/C: Load Verification: Hardness Testing: Tensile Testing: Conductivity Testing:

AMS 2750 Compliant with AMS 3025 Not accepted Weekly and quarterly – Glycol concentration – test per PS 6.4001 par 3.4 Monthly – HTO, IGC, Eutectic Melting, Clad diffusion and Tensile – Test per PS 6.4001 par 6.1 Not required Hardness and conductivity inspection per PS 6.8003 Not required except for 6000 series - 100 % hardness inspection – Test per PS 6.8002 Not required on parts (only for monthly controls per ASTM B557) Required on all alloys on 100 % of parts - Test per PS 6.8001

33

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP APPENDIX B:

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

PRIME SPECIFICATION MATRIX Alloy Specific Heat Treat Specifications

Prime

Aluminum HT

Steel HT

Nickel-Based HT

Titanium HT

Magnesium HT

Pyrometry

Airbus (UK)

ABP3-1119

ABP3-1116 ABP3-1115

ABP3-1115

ABP3-1117

N/A

BS M54

Airbus (Germany)

80-T-36-1010

80-T-36-1020 80-T36-3300

N/A

80-T-36-1015 80-T-36-3400

N/A

QVA-Z-09-10-00 QVA-Z-09-13-00 QVA-Z-09-14-00

Airbus (France)

IPDA61-01

IPDA61-03

IPDA61-03

IPDA61-03

N/A

IGC 04.63.100 IGC 04.63.105

Airbus (Spain)

I+DP-220

I+DP-225 I+DP-226

N/A

I+DP-222

N/A

CASA-1036

Alenia Aeronautica

NTA 71250 NTA 71251 NTA 71252

NTA 71151 NTA 71152 NTA 71153

NA

NTA 71351

NA

NTA 98251 NTA 98252

Bell Helicopter

BPS 4139

BPS 4140

N/A

BPS 4212

MIL-M-6857

BPS 4416

Cessna Aircraft Co.

CSMP003

CSMP004

CSMP010

CSMP049

MIL-M-6857

AMS 2750 & Process Spec

WE43: ECS 2133

IGC 04.63.100 IGC 04.63.105

MP 61.41.01 IGC 04.63.111

ASNA 6100 ASNA 6017

MP61.31.01 IGC 04.63.110

IFMa 247-50

MP 61.48.10 MP 61.41.10 MP 61.41.11 IGC 04.24.103

MP 61.31.02 IGC 04.63.122

EI 070-09-001

EI 070-09-001

EI 070-09-001 Eurocopter France

Eurocopter Germany

General Electric Aircraft Engines

Goodrich Aerostructures

N/A

EI 070-09-006 IGC 04.63.130

EI 070-09-006 IGC 04.63.130

ASNA written on the drawing

ASNA written on the drawing

EI045 36-1010

P10TF1 (when vacuum ) AMS 2770 AMS 2771 AMS 2772 GE Part Drawings RPS 12.31 RPS 14.05 (Forming/ Icebox Ctrl)

EI045 80-E-36-1020 EI045 80-E-36-3300 SAE AMS-H-6875

EI 070-09-006 IGC 04.63.130

ASNA written on the drawing

N/A

EI045 80-E36-1015

P10TF1 (when vacuum ) AMS 2759

P10TF1 (when vacuum ) AMS 2773 AMS 2774 GE Part Drawings

P10TF1 (when vacuum ) AMS 2801 GE Part Drawings

RPS 12.01 RPS 12.02

RPS 12.01

RPS 14.02

34

N/A

N/A

n/a

N/A

P10TF1 (vac) and AMS 2750

AMS 2750

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP PRIME SPECIFICATION MATRIX-continued Prime

Aluminum HT

Steel HT

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Nickel-Based HT

Titanium HT

Magnesium HT

Pyrometry

Northrop Grumman

AMS 2770 H-101 HT-1 MIL-H-6088 SAE-AMS-2770

CVA 1-372 GSS 5100 GSS 5102 GSS 5103 GSS 5104 MIL-H-6875 H-105 H-106 H-110 H-109 H-108 HT-21 HT-15 HT-22 HT-19 HT-17 HT-18 HT-14

H-111 HT-13 208-16-1

MIL-H-81200B HT-10 H-102 GSS 5150 208-4-6

MIL-M-6857

AMS2750 QC-14 SC-301

Rolls-Royce Plc

RPS953, RPS654

RPS953, RPS258, RPS356, RPS360, RPS394, RPS765

RPS953, RPS574

RPS953, RPS323

N/A

RPS953

Rolls-Royce Corporation

EPS 285 EPS 290

EPS 242 EPS 253 EPS 260 EPS 484

EPS 415 EPS 416 EPS 423 EPS 433 EPS 435

N/A

N/A

AMS 2750

Sikorsky Aircraft

AMS 2770 AMS 2771 AMS 2772 SS8013 (7075-T73)

MIL-H-6875H(1) AMS 2759 SS8049 (4340 260ksi and above)

N/A

MIL-H-81200B AMS 2801 SS8445 SS8450 SS8452

AMS M 6857

AMS 2750

SONACA

PS 6.4001

PS 6.4101 PS 6.4.201

N/A

PS 6.4203

N/A

AMS2750

208-16-1

208-4-6 VSS 5150

N/A

N/A

AMS2774 HT5086 HT5088 P6000 91547-P6000

MIL-H-81200 AMS2801 HT5061 P6000 91547 P-6000

AMS-M6857 P6000 91547-P6000

AMS2750

Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. Honeywell E, S, &S

208-2-7

AMS2770, AMS2771, AMS2772 P6000 91547P6000

EPS 251 EPS 259 EPS 499 EPS 486

CVA 1-372 VSS 5100 VSS 5102 VSS 5103 VSS 5104 AMS2759 series HT5027 HT5045 HT5089 HT5100 HT5105 HT5106 P6000 91547-P6000

35

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Other Specifications Prime

Brazing

Carburizing

Nitriding

Hardness

Tensile

Conductivity

Airbus (UK)

N/A

ABP3-1111

ABP3-1113

ABP6-5226

BS4A4 ASTME8

ABP6-5226

Airbus (Germany)

N/A

80-T-36-3001

80-T-36-3201 80-T-36-3350 (Gas)

QVA-Z-10-41-00 QVA-Z-10-42-00 QVA-Z-10-43-00

QVA-Z-10-37-00

QVA-Z-10-50-01

Airbus (France)

N/A

N/A

N/A

IGC 04.29.100

IGC 04.21.11

IGC 04.25.120

Airbus (Spain)

N/A

I+DP-217

I+DP-218

ASTM E18

ASTM E8

I+DP-140

Alenia Aeronautica

NA

NA

NA

NTA 95051

ASTM E8 ASTM B557

NTA 94551

Bell Helicopter

BPS 4098

BPS 4420

BPS 4304

BPS 4467

ASTM E 8

BPS 4453

Cessna Aircraft Co.

CSMP008 CSMP009

CSMP004

CSMP004

CSTI028

ASTM E8 or ASTM B557 as applicable

CSTI008

IFMa 516 IGC 04.63.120 ASN 412.05

EI 070-09-001 Eurocopter France

N/A EI 070-09-006 IGC 04.63.130 Copper plating : MP 62.31.16 IGC 04.73.112 IFMa 232

IFMa 372 IFMa 510 MP 61.31.11 ASN 412.04 HS 5008.010 EI 070-09-001 Phosphate conversion : MP 62.31.30 IGC 04.72.100

IGC 04.21.100 L070-007 IGC 04.14.100

IGC 04.21.111 IGC 04.21.112

IGC 04.25.120 EI 070-09-012 L070-007

EI 070-09-006 IGC 04.63.130 Copper plating : MP 62.31.16 IGC 04.73.112 IFMa 232 Ion nitriding : HS 5008-040

Eurocopter Germany

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/ADIN EN ISO 6507

DIN EN 10002

EI075 10-029 DIN EN 2004-1

General Electric Aircraft Engines

P9TF1 P29TF6 P10TF1 S-405 M50T1 GE Part Drawings

C50TF50 C50T16 C50T1506

C50TF5 C50TF14 P11TF2 P11TF10 P11TF1

S-400

S-400

AMS 2658

Goodrich Aerostructures

RPS 11.76 RPS 11.72 RPS 11.73 RPS 11.79 RPS 12.33 WBS5027

AMS 2759/7 RPS 12.06

RPS 12.03

RPS 18.11

ASTM B557 ASTM E8

RPS 18.11

HT5042 91547-P6030

HT5040 91547-P6031

ASTM E 10 ASTM E 18 ASTM E 384

ASTEM E 8 ASTM E 21

AMS2658

Honeywell E, S, & S

36

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

Other Specifications - continued Prime

Northrop Grumman

Brazing

W-26 W-25 W-27

Rolls-Royce Plc

Carburizing

Nitriding

Hardness

Tensile

Conductivity

H-107 H-113 HT-4 MIL-N-22061 SAE-AMS-S-6090

H-107 H-113 HT-4 MIL-N-22061 SAE-AMS-S6090

N/A

FED-STD-151

N/A

RPS371

RPS135

MSRR9969

MSRR9968 MSRR9922

BS L100 EN2004-1

EPS 227 EPS 270 EPS 271 EPS 272 EPS 292

N/A

N/A

N/A

ASTM E 8

MIL-STD-1537B(1) AMS 2658

Rolls-Royce Corporation

RPS 194 & RPS 953

EPS 200 EPS 206 EPS 214 EPS 215 EPS 216 EPS 222

Sikorsky Aircraft

AWS C3.4 AWS C3.5 AWS C3.6 AWS C3.7

SS8015

ASTM E 18

ASTM E 18 ASTM E 384

SONACA

N/A

PS 6.4150

N/A

PS 6.8002

Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.

N/A

N/A

N/A

208-14-26

37

ASTM B557 ASTM A370 ASTM E8

N/A

PS 6.8001

208-14-14

Nadcap HEAT TREATING TASK GROUP

December 01, 2009 AUDIT HANDBOOK

APPENDIX C: AMS 2750 VS RPS 953 Comparison Chart Requirement ELECTRONIC RECORDS RECORD RETENTION WIRE ROLL CALIBRATION OVERTEMPERATURE SENSORS (Load Protect) a. aluminum/ magnesium materials b. others TEMPERATURE UNIFORMITY TEST FREQUENCY

AMS 2750 Rev D

RPS 953 Issue 12

Clause 3.2.7

As AMS clause 3.2.7 with the addition that back up records are made and retained in a separate location, ref. RPS953 2.3.3.1.

Clause 3.7.1 (5 years minimum)

As AMS clause 3.7.1 modified by RPS900, ref. RPS953 2.3.1

Clause 3.1.1.6

As AMS clause 3.1.1.6 except that rolls