QAR: Click Here
Conditions for approval required by: Edward Ndegwa
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.
1. In QTR, connector R202, 203 show signs of damage to the insulation around the pins. This is not noted in the visual inspection with rationale why the discrepancy is acceptable
2. On page 208, regarding R202 and 203. HiRel failure and analysis report does not highlight why fail is acceptable. Only overtest as potential failure cause. Even though crack observed, no secondary failure mode is expected?
3. Page 202, wrong torque specification led to cracked flange as shown in Fig 9 and 11(page 206) , is there any reason why did the flange only crack above 2 screws. Assume wrong torque used on all screw positions.
Hello Edward,
1. The damage to the insulation around the pins was not noted in the visual inspection with rationale to the discrepancy being acceptable, rather it is stated in FA-11572 which is located on page 214.
2. On page 208, which is FA-11447 that is regarding the initial failure experienced, which at the time the failure was not determined to be acceptable, it is not until FA-11572 located on page 214, where the third failure was experienced, and it was determined that the failure mode was deemed acceptable. As for page 202, which is with respect to FA-11441, there is no concrete reasoning as to why the cracking was only experienced above 2 screws, it was determined to be caused by a combination of the nature of Random Vibration test and the use of incorrect torque values.