Curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
The authoritative public forum
for Metal Finishing 1989-2025
-----
AS9100 Aluminium Anodising - "Special Processes"
Q. Is anyone familiar with EATON Aerospace's Anodising specification TS-112 and its internally referenced TS-130 and TS-131?
We anodise to AMS 03-25 and MIL-PRF-8625F(2) Type II (as best we can, as these specifications do not mention any processes for "Selectively Dyeing" Aluminium sheet via screen print processes.
After a recent "Special Process" audit they have raised NC's against our Coating testing methods by use of Eddy Current Meter, as this is not as described in their TS-131 specification.
I am questioning the validity of the testing requirements of TS-131 (Coating Weight Determination) as the document is not only 20 years old, it does not appear to have gone through their own Document Control Process, as the document is not Signed or dated for approval or issue as a requirement of AS9100.
Any thoughts on this?
SP Quality Rep. - UK
March 11, 2025
Hi T Malby,
If Eaton is your customer, you will need to question them directly about validity.
Coating weight is considered a valid method of coating thickness determination and is detailed in MIL-PRF-8625. Eddy current is also a valid method of thickness determination, but if you want to use it in lieu of the coating thickness then you need to ask your customer for a deviation, using whatever their official deviation application method is.
Unfortunately, it does not matter what other people's opinions are, if your customer says that is the way to do it, that is the method you are stuck with...sorry...
Aerospace - Yeovil, Somerset, UK
Q. It's not the "Coating Weight" requirement that I am questioning, but the validity of the specification, as it's not Signed/Dated for Approval or issue.
If you are stating this does not matter and you have to do it to the Specification, then technically this cannot be done, as the specification actually tells you where to get the Sodium Chloride, from "C & W Ltd." -- this company went out of business in May 2021.
Do you think Eaton may need to review the Specification?
- UK
Hi T malby. It is a very frustrating situation when you receive NCs for requirements which are not only beyond your control but actually impossible to comply with. But your closing question is rhetorical so let's just thank our generous helper Brian for his efforts rather than expecting hm to answer it 🙂
Luck & Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
Q. Hi Ted,
I was not trying to be obtuse and I do thank Brian for his opinion.
It is indeed frustrating when customer specifications state things that, when viewed under AS9100 processes, cannot be done, and/or the validity of the specification comes into question.
I have hit a brick wall in regards to the customers NC(s) and I am only trying to find a way forward without the need for any NOE (if NOE is applicable as this is purely "testing of process" related).
Any thoughts?
SP Quality Rep. - UK
March 26, 2025
A. Hi Tmalby. I have some experience with metal finishing contract disputes back in the past, having been retained as an expert/arbitrator; but no experience with process audits, NCs, and NOEs ... so my opinion is of no value.
We certainly encourage any readers with such experience to chime in!
Luck & Regards,
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Striving to live Aloha
finishing.com - Pine Beach, New Jersey
A. Hi T Malby,
I do have experience with NCs, both trying to answer them as the auditee and raising them as the auditor.
It can be a real pain when you sent in circles by an out-of-date specification where you cannot comply with it. However, as an auditor, I would expect to see some form of written agreement between your company and your customer that allows you to deviate from their specification, even if it is to use another source for consumable products. Each OEM has a slightly different method of managing deviation requests, so you may need to ask your customer for the relevant form to complete.
Now, this isn't going to help you answer your NC, but is one of your mitigating actions to become compliant to the specification. If you run through the usual quality tools for the finding (5Y, 8D), you will probably have to go down the route of determining why you are not working to the specification, ultimately ending in something like why you didn't ask the customer for a deviation (not trying to teach you your job, but get a feeling it is how you get out of a circular argument). I can't imagine any need for a NOE, especially as it would normally be classified as a minor finding in my mind, but you will probably need to inform your customer of failure to meet specification requirements, when approximately the problem began and why you consider it not affecting end product (essentially, if you are buying certified materials that meet the specification requirements other than the source).
Hopefully, armed with this information, you will be able to move the NC onto the next stage (for my company, there are 4 levels the NC has to go through before being fully closed out, some companies will have less steps, some even more).
Aerospace - Yeovil, Somerset, UK
March 31, 2025
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your comments.
I would agree that the CA will most definitely result in us not requesting for deviation.
It's their insistence on NOE for the items supplied previously. It's just frustrating since we have been supplying them for more than 30 years with yearly audits and only now are they raising these issues.
I especially disagree with their NOE requirement as this is purely procedural and they have not supplied us with any evidence of product failure. With this in mind i would argue the items are still meeting Fit, Form, Function and Performance.
I would be willing to offer concessions for the deviations for orders since we have been AS9100 Accredited (12 months) and RCCA to show we are now adhering to the testing requirements of their specification.
SP Quality Rep. - UK
April 2, 2025
Ed. note: Apologies for the delay in posting.
Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread