QAR: Click Here
Conditions for approval required by: Jonathan Paget
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Certification of Aerospace Products to international quality Standards
Form restricted to registered, logged in users. Please return to the home page and use the Create Account option.
Renewal by analogy to other nut part numbers is not acceptable, regardless of utilising the same technical specification.
Please submit the last batch acceptance data for EN3538-050 as evidence of continued compliance.
All other data is acceptable.
Hello Jonathan.
I have a comment regarding your comment on ACP006 qualification #1700, EN3538-050.
You write in your comment: “Renewal by analogy to other nut part numbers is not acceptable, regardless of utilizing the same technical specification”
When I look at point 8.1 of AS9133, Rev A, Issued 2002-07 point 8.1, I get a distinctly different idea than what you write.
In addition, the last ACP006 Renewal qualification of this Nut took place on 15 December 2020, see date PQ569.
If we now read St-Cosme statement: “Statement of no customers claim” with date 03-July 2024, we see that it covers the period 01-03-2021 to 01-03-2024. In the mentioned period, no customer complaints and/or deviations were reported and/or found.
If we also look at SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1-1 we see on page 1 / 4 that it was signed on 04 / 07 / 2024. The indicated tests were carried out on this batch of 822 products on various dates but were mentioned in the intended test.
The arrangement and content of SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1-1 and QTR 7761, EN3538-050 shows that all points for Acceptance mentioned in the ISO5858 have been mentioned and that the remark by analogy Point 8.1) is mentioned in the report, but that it has not actually been used.
Hope to have answered your comments the way you would like to
Regards
Kees
Hello Jonathan.
I have a comment regarding your comment on ACP006 qualification #1700, EN3538-050.
You write in your comment: “Renewal by analogy to other nut part numbers is not acceptable, regardless of utilizing the same technical specification”
When I look at point 8.1 of AS9133, Rev A, Issued 2002-07 point 8.1, I get a distinctly different idea than what you write.
In addition, the last ACP006 Renewal qualification of this Nut took place on 15 December 2020, see date PQ569.
If we now read St-Cosme statement: “Statement of no customers claim” with date 03-July 2024, we see that it covers the period 01-03-2021 to 01-03-2024. In the mentioned period, no customer complaints and/or deviations were reported and/or found.
If we also look at SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1-1 we see on page 1 / 4 that it was signed on 04 / 07 / 2024. The indicated tests were carried out on this batch of 822 products on various dates but were mentioned in the intended test.
The arrangement and content of SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1-1 and QTR 7761, EN3538-050 shows that all points for Acceptance mentioned in the ISO5858 have been mentioned and that the remark by analogy Point 8.1) is mentioned in the report, but that it has not actually been used.
Hope to have answered your comments the way you would like to
Regards
Kees
Hello Jonathan.
I have a comment regarding your comment on ACP006 qualification #1700, EN3538-050.
You write in your comment: “Renewal by analogy to other nut part numbers is not acceptable, regardless of utilizing the same technical specification”
When I look at point 8.1 of AS9133, Rev A, Issued 2002-07 point 8.1, I get a distinctly different idea than what you write.
In addition, the last ACP006 Renewal qualification of this Nut took place on 15 December 2020, see date PQ569.
If we now read St-Cosme statement: “Statement of no customers claim” with date 03-July 2024, we see that it covers the period 01-03-2021 to 01-03-2024. In the mentioned period, no customer complaints and/or deviations were reported and/or found.
If we also look at SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1-1 we see on page 1 / 4 that it was signed on 04 / 07 / 2024. The indicated tests were carried out on this batch of 822 products on various dates but were mentioned in the intended test.
The arrangement and content of SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1-1 and QTR 7761, EN3538-050 shows that all points for Acceptance mentioned in the ISO5858 have been mentioned and that the remark by analogy Point 8.1) is mentioned in the report, but that it has not actually been used.
Hope to have answered your comments the way you would like to
Regards
Kees
Good afternoon Jonathan.
The mistake you discovered and we discussed has now been corrected.
The “SD-TR-B605-16328060-Rev 1” (was SD-TR-B605-16403576-Rev-1) is the test report for the intended lot number. Not only was the part number in the upper left corner incorrect, but the lot quantity was also incorrect. As a result, the sample sizes also had to be adjusted.
If you have any questions and/or comments, don’t hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Kees