SAPA Falsifying Certs to NASA - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 63
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    1,749
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1165
    Likes (Received)
    1007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by memphisjed View Post
    I wonder who is liable in similar situations. We get certs from Nucor or CG on steel; we build product, if product fails due to faulty material who is responsible - financially and ethically?
    A satellite fails and it is only dollars, a bridge fails and it is life and limb.
    Big companies would never do such things as falsify testing, that is what subsidiaries are for.
    That's nice to know, I can sleep easy tonight.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    332
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    163
    Likes (Received)
    183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by triumph406 View Post
    That's nice to know, I can sleep easy tonight.
    Yeah, the best/worst part is usually the parent company arranges the whole supply chain so that they can join the end user on the "plaintiff" side of the lawsuit if it gets really bad. Subsidiary crashes and burns, bankrupts under the fines, etc. and once it is all said and done, the public satisfied that the wrongdoers have been punished, the parent company can quietly merge everything left into one of their other divisions and move on.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    45
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    8

    Default

    Impol was banned from selling for a number of years. Try buying 2024 sheet or plate that's not from China or Russia. SAPA has been on our banned list for some time. I threw out an awful amount of finished inventory that was made with SAPA material not to mention the time it took to go through our records to identify where it was used. I would believe most if not all of us buy through distribution centers and rely on them to be monitoring. All we can do is verify the matrial certs when we receive them. How many of you actually compare the chemical or physical properties for conformance?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    217
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Default

    in here it´s been mandatory in aerospace work to use third party material testing lab for each material lot we use at least last couple years. If you do not comply, your parts are not accepted.
    Its either you or your supplier must make this testing.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1862
    Likes (Received)
    3431

  6. Likes BoxcarPete liked this post
  7. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Default

    I'd like to clarify if I may, that Impol is not banned from selling in the US. If you tested any material, it would meet the requirements/specs. The issue was the type of methosd/type/location of heat treatment of material, did not meet requirements set out by AMS2772 spec, but the certs still listed AMS.

    Material met ALL other tables and requirements, including secondary properties (elevated temp tensile, fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, etc) according to FAA tables. What was found though, is that fatigue is greatly improved using the heat treat process used by Impol.

    Quote Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
    Impol was banned from selling for a number of years. Try buying 2024 sheet or plate that's not from China or Russia. SAPA has been on our banned list for some time. I threw out an awful amount of finished inventory that was made with SAPA material not to mention the time it took to go through our records to identify where it was used. I would believe most if not all of us buy through distribution centers and rely on them to be monitoring. All we can do is verify the matrial certs when we receive them. How many of you actually compare the chemical or physical properties for conformance?

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    16,044
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by impol View Post
    I'd like to clarify if I may, that Impol was not banned from selling in the US. There was no deviation found in chemistry or mechanicals from the certs. The issue was the type of heat treatment material was subject to, did not meet requirements set out by AMS2772 spec, but AMS was listed on the certs.

    Material met ALL other tables and requirements, including secondary properties (elevated temp tensile, fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, etc) according to FAA tables. What was found though, is that fatigue is greatly improved using the heat treat process used by Impol.
    Kenny is that you ?

    Kenny Tarmac the salesman from "the Bob & Tom show"

    Good to finally meet you.....

    Looks like you've moved up from "sales" to "Lawyering" eh ?

    You can claim all kinds of technicalities, but I think this crowd still won't be buying from you.

  9. Likes jancollc liked this post
  10. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Default

    Wow? Digging much Doug?
    There was nothing wrong with the material. The 3 distributors that stopped buying got scared, and rightfully so. The material sold didn't meet the AMS standards on the certs. The mechanicals and chemicals were never a question. AMS was concerned about secondary properties, which were proven by labs to be fine, hence no action/fines.

    See AMS4117L for 6061 coming out shortly. We're going to be doing the same with other specs too.

    Impol is a 195 year old company, not some new company trying to make a quick buck. We've been present in the states since 1960.

  11. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1828
    Likes (Received)
    5509

    Default

    Parent company is Eastern European? Hopefully better and more consistant quality that CN...

    To better introduce yourself and build a little "goodwill" on the forum, why don't you give us an idea of why the curious disparity between scrap Al value and new stock cost in the USA. It would be helpful to understand this from an insiders view. Also, what alloys and forms do you stock in the USA?

  12. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    16,044
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by impol View Post
    Wow? Digging much Doug?
    There was nothing wrong with the material. The 3 distributors that stopped buying got scared, and rightfully so. The material sold didn't meet the AMS standards on the certs. The mechanicals and chemicals were never a question. AMS was concerned about secondary properties, which were proven by labs to be fine, hence no action/fines.

    See AMS4117L for 6061 coming out shortly. We're going to be doing the same with other specs too.

    Impol is a 195 year old company, not some new company trying to make a quick buck. We've been present in the states since 1960.
    Falsified documents is the accusation.

    Did you falsify documents ?
    A simple yes or no.
    -------------------next question ------------------
    Did you make it right with your customers that lost money/work/material ?
    A simple yes or no.

  13. Likes jancollc liked this post
  14. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Default

    The company IS from Eastern Europe, which DOES mean there are production substantial delays every 2 years on average, but quality has NEVER been the issue. If you've used Impol products, you can attest to the quality. There's a reason why Impol has had presence and sold products in the states for the last continuous 60 years. How many other foreign mills can say that?

    Regarding scrap, I'm noticing the same thing. The scrap value has gone to the dumpster. I've got some 2024 we have to scrap and got a quote of 30c/lb and 37c/lb for 8000# WTF? I've heard that MN pays higher for 2024/7075 than 6061, where its usually the other way around everywhere else.
    China initiated scrap tariffs in retaliation to US tariffs on aluminum and steel, so there's excess scrap here, and garbage too if you just check the internet. All the companies that are remelting scrap into ingot, are making a killing with metal at $1800/mt + $165/mt for metal premium, OR 89.1c/lb.

  15. Likes Milland, camscan liked this post
  16. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New York
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    5

    Default

    The documents were not intentionally falsified, as found in the investigation. They really were interpreted incorrectly starting with oversight in 2002 when the AMS change to specs appeared. I AM NOT BSing YOU. All mechanicals and chemicals as stated on cert were always actuals. There was no falsification of mechanicals or chemical properties.

    DO you know when the original AMS specs were created?. Do you realize the technological advances made in the last 20 years with regards to production. There's new better processes available, but AMS is slow to adopt, naturally.


    How many mills do you work with that give you actual physicals on the cert? From what I've seen (been in industry for 17 years), most state the range and confirm that it meets the specs, no actual physical or chemical properties. Am I wrong? Let me know.



    Impol took material back from customers that wished to return the material at original cost. Only 3 of its distributors elected to do so. OEM aerospace worked with Impol, once they got the full lab testing results.

    BTW the 2024 and 7075 alloys, we have customers in Europe that have PPAPed the material, and require us to use the new processes (which still does not meet AMS), due to the safety critical application of the products. They buy tens of millions of lbs of this product. I'll let that speak for itself.

    I am writing this on my own accord to clear up the name. I do not have authorization from corporate to post any of this information.

  17. Likes CBlair, barbter, Oldwrench liked this post
  18. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Lawrenceville GA USA
    Posts
    6,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    845
    Likes (Received)
    1369

    Default

    There are always two sides to a story, most news outlets and many industry people are just lazy about the details. They have no responsibility for the story so the details are rarely seen as important. It takes months for both parties to get to the center of the problem anyway. And by that time most news has moved on.

    Thanks for taking the time to add to our knowledge on this issue.

    Charles

  19. Likes Ox, barbter liked this post
  20. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1828
    Likes (Received)
    5509

    Default

    I worked with Orbital years ago when the lab I worked at was making a small satellite. If they (or whatever company they've morphed into) didn't do testing of the materials that were to be used as a frangible joint for fairing separation to ensure they behaved as planned, then I think a large portion of the blame would be on their heads.

    If that's the way it happened, there should be little blame put on the supplier. Only if a melt was done to special requirements to achieve the fracture performance that was needed, and that failed, would I consider it a majority supplier fault.

    Back in the "old days" major manufacturers had their own metallurgy labs. Still not a bad idea for any significant aerospace vendor...

  21. Likes CBlair liked this post
  22. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    485
    Likes (Received)
    1957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milland View Post
    I worked with Orbital years ago when the lab I worked at was making a small satellite. If they (or whatever company they've morphed into) didn't do testing of the materials that were to be used as a frangible joint for fairing separation to ensure they behaved as planned, then I think a large portion of the blame would be on their heads.

    If that's the way it happened, there should be little blame put on the supplier. Only if a melt was done to special requirements to achieve the fracture performance that was needed, and that failed, would I consider it a majority supplier fault.

    Back in the "old days" major manufacturers had their own metallurgy labs. Still not a bad idea for any significant aerospace vendor...
    The certification they falsified was a process (part of the heat treat} specification. It was not something that is going to show up in a lab test. The lab will tell you what you have, but it cannot tell you how you got there.

    They claimed to follow a process specification that exists for a reason. But they weren't following the process, and they knew damn well. For 10 years...

    So no- they don't get a pass. Impol says they made their distributors whole, but what about the thousands of aerospace parts that were already made and in service? The suppliers have to go through years of paperwork to identify the affected parts.

    These victims aren't made whole. You have thousands of flying parts that are instantly MRB'd. Every one has to be looked at, planes get grounded, etc.

    It's a BIG deal- not some minor infraction. Falsifying one part of the cert invalidates all the rest of it.

    I take the paperwork requirements seriously on aerospace parts, and I want the certs to be credible.

  23. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    16,044
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by impol View Post
    The documents were not intentionally falsified, as found in the investigation. They really were interpreted incorrectly starting with oversight in 2002 when the AMS change to specs appeared. I AM NOT BSing YOU. All mechanicals and chemicals as stated on cert were always actuals. There was no falsification of mechanicals or chemical properties.

    DO you know when the original AMS specs were created?. Do you realize the technological advances made in the last 20 years with regards to production. There's new better processes available, but AMS is slow to adopt, naturally.


    How many mills do you work with that give you actual physicals on the cert? From what I've seen (been in industry for 17 years), most state the range and confirm that it meets the specs, no actual physical or chemical properties. Am I wrong? Let me know.



    Impol took material back from customers that wished to return the material at original cost. Only 3 of its distributors elected to do so. OEM aerospace worked with Impol, once they got the full lab testing results.

    BTW the 2024 and 7075 alloys, we have customers in Europe that have PPAPed the material, and require us to use the new processes (which still does not meet AMS), due to the safety critical application of the products. They buy tens of millions of lbs of this product. I'll let that speak for itself.

    I am writing this on my own accord to clear up the name. I do not have authorization from corporate to post any of this information.
    Yes or no only.

    Only guilty people answer with paragraphs..
    "Better than the spec" ?

    Do you know that your customers must purchase "to the spec".

    They paid YOU, and added labor (more money) to the material, and then the final customer said NO.
    They are the losers, and didn't get paid.

    YOU got paid, did you "make it right" with your customers ?

    One last time, simple yes or no.

  24. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    West Unity, Ohio
    Posts
    25,547
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5788
    Likes (Received)
    8172

    Default

    OK, I for one and quite cornfused....

    Who is Impol, and how did they get drug into this thread.

    No mention of them before post #43.


    ???


    ---------------------

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox

  25. Likes bryan_machine liked this post
  26. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    7,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1828
    Likes (Received)
    5509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    I take the paperwork requirements seriously on aerospace parts, and I want the certs to be credible.
    By all means take the paperwork seriously. It'll keep you warm if the building gets cold.

    As I said in #17, if material properties testing wasn't done on flight-critical incoming stock, then part of the blame goes to the mechanical fab team and management. Especially when you're using a material in an uncommon way, depending on a characterization of fracture failure that has to be controlled closely to function as a frangible joint.

    If the material was not tested for this application with ground simulations and at the correct environmental temperature, then it's not just on the metals supplier, poor or even fraudulent paperwork aside.

    Bad management, bad engineering to not test. Flame on, bro, it doesn't change that reality.

  27. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Aberdeen, UK
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1262
    Likes (Received)
    1428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by impol View Post
    How many mills do you work with that give you actual physicals on the cert? From what I've seen (been in industry for 17 years), most state the range and confirm that it meets the specs, no actual physical or chemical properties. Am I wrong? Let me know.
    WTAF is this?

    We buy a lot of different material from a lot of different sources and the certs ALWAYS state actual measured mechanicals and chemicals.

    We buy material from all over the world, but never any that originated from America to my knowledge. Is this not the norm over there??

  28. Likes barbter liked this post
  29. #60
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4041
    Likes (Received)
    12638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ox View Post
    OK, I for one and quite cornfused....

    Who is Impol, and how did they get drug into this thread.

    No mention of them before post #43.


    ???


    ---------------------

    Think Snow Eh!
    Ox
    As to who they are.

    Impol

    "East European" but some are better than others. By that I mean the country (not to be confused with Slovakia) as I don't know the company.

    Slovenia - Wikitravel

    Melania Trump comes from Slovenia.

    Slovakia - Wikitravel
    Last edited by Gordon B. Clarke; 01-19-2020 at 10:03 AM.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •