Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn
tinning? The normal RoHS cheap component getting into the premium priced
aerospace/military/medical traditional-solder product stream?

"The problem was related to a cracked solder joint caused by exposure to
extreme temperatures."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-investigators

On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn
tinning? The normal RoHS cheap component getting into the premium priced
aerospace/military/medical traditional-solder product stream?

"The problem was related to a cracked solder joint caused by exposure to
extreme temperatures."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-investigators


technical report on
http://aviation-safety.net/
I've only keyword searched (solder,sn,pb) but amazingly I find no
reference to chemical testing of the solder or what type of solder in
the product manifests.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:23:11 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn

If I were to render an opinion, pure tin as a mechanical joint is a very bad idea, nor would I think that a sophisticated manufacturer would do that as a matter of intent. Pure tin is extremely brittle, and should NEVER be depended upon in any sort of situation where mechanical stresses (expansion/contraction/flexing) will take place. Add to this the whole issue of tin whiskers (which NASA, at least now understands all too painfully). If what you suggest is accurate, this is a design flaw of significant magnitude. If it is present fleet-wide, it is time to ground these beasts until the problem is addressed specifically.

I would hope that aircraft manufacturers by now would have learned that some admixture to their solders is a necessary step to reliability. And would have learned by now from the Nuclear industry if not NASA that relying on pure tin is a dangerous practice.

All-and-at-the-same-time, counterfeit parts are getting into the OEM repair stream at every level. It would not be difficult to believe where such parts may get into the OEM first-install stream as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On 01/12/2015 15:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:23:11 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn

If I were to render an opinion, pure tin as a mechanical joint is a very bad idea, nor would I think that a sophisticated manufacturer would do that as a matter of intent. Pure tin is extremely brittle, and should NEVER be depended upon in any sort of situation where mechanical stresses (expansion/contraction/flexing) will take place. Add to this the whole issue of tin whiskers (which NASA, at least now understands all too painfully). If what you suggest is accurate, this is a design flaw of significant magnitude. If it is present fleet-wide, it is time to ground these beasts until the problem is addressed specifically.

I would hope that aircraft manufacturers by now would have learned that some admixture to their solders is a necessary step to reliability. And would have learned by now from the Nuclear industry if not NASA that relying on pure tin is a dangerous practice.

All-and-at-the-same-time, counterfeit parts are getting into the OEM repair stream at every level. It would not be difficult to believe where such parts may get into the OEM first-install stream as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


I know from someone in the medical electronics field, that is extremely
difficult , if not impossible, to guarantee that PbF components do not
get into the derogated product stream, without sample chemical testing
of each batch of componnts, done themselves. The supposed accredited
documentation is easily compromised and cannot be relied on. With all
the extra markup on derogated components, plenty of motive.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 10:28:49 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:

I know from someone in the medical electronics field, that is extremely
difficult , if not impossible, to guarantee that PbF components do not
get into the derogated product stream, without sample chemical testing
of each batch of componnts, done themselves. The supposed accredited
documentation is easily compromised and cannot be relied on. With all
the extra markup on derogated components, plenty of motive.

There are multiple exemptions for medical and certain industrial devices through 2019.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:28:43 +0000, N_Cook wrote:

On 01/12/2015 15:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:23:11 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn

If I were to render an opinion, pure tin as a mechanical joint is a very bad idea, nor would I think that a sophisticated manufacturer would do that as a matter of intent. Pure tin is extremely brittle, and should NEVER be depended upon in any sort of situation where mechanical stresses (expansion/contraction/flexing) will take place. Add to this the whole issue of tin whiskers (which NASA, at least now understands all too painfully). If what you suggest is accurate, this is a design flaw of significant magnitude. If it is present fleet-wide, it is time to ground these beasts until the problem is addressed specifically.

I would hope that aircraft manufacturers by now would have learned that some admixture to their solders is a necessary step to reliability. And would have learned by now from the Nuclear industry if not NASA that relying on pure tin is a dangerous practice.

All-and-at-the-same-time, counterfeit parts are getting into the OEM repair stream at every level. It would not be difficult to believe where such parts may get into the OEM first-install stream as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


I know from someone in the medical electronics field, that is extremely
difficult , if not impossible, to guarantee that PbF components do not
get into the derogated product stream, without sample chemical testing
of each batch of componnts, done themselves. The supposed accredited
documentation is easily compromised and cannot be relied on. With all
the extra markup on derogated components, plenty of motive.
In 1990 a US fastener company, Voi-Shan, admitted to supplying
thousands of fasteners for aerospace use that were in essence
counterfeit in that they had not been tested and were of inferior
quality. They falsified inspection reports and even made up names of
the inspectors. These fasteners were used in airplanes among other
places. So even a large company will supply crap that is meant to be
used in life critical situations. If I was making medical devices, or
anything that might hurt or kill someone, I would check all the
components supplied from others.
Eric

On 12/01/2015 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:28:43 +0000, N_Cook wrote:

On 01/12/2015 15:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:23:11 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn

If I were to render an opinion, pure tin as a mechanical joint is a very bad idea, nor would I think that a sophisticated manufacturer would do that as a matter of intent. Pure tin is extremely brittle, and should NEVER be depended upon in any sort of situation where mechanical stresses (expansion/contraction/flexing) will take place. Add to this the whole issue of tin whiskers (which NASA, at least now understands all too painfully). If what you suggest is accurate, this is a design flaw of significant magnitude. If it is present fleet-wide, it is time to ground these beasts until the problem is addressed specifically.

I would hope that aircraft manufacturers by now would have learned that some admixture to their solders is a necessary step to reliability. And would have learned by now from the Nuclear industry if not NASA that relying on pure tin is a dangerous practice.

All-and-at-the-same-time, counterfeit parts are getting into the OEM repair stream at every level. It would not be difficult to believe where such parts may get into the OEM first-install stream as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


I know from someone in the medical electronics field, that is extremely
difficult , if not impossible, to guarantee that PbF components do not
get into the derogated product stream, without sample chemical testing
of each batch of componnts, done themselves. The supposed accredited
documentation is easily compromised and cannot be relied on. With all
the extra markup on derogated components, plenty of motive.
In 1990 a US fastener company, Voi-Shan, admitted to supplying
thousands of fasteners for aerospace use that were in essence
counterfeit in that they had not been tested and were of inferior
quality.

Interesting. AFAICT they weren't crappy fasteners--the tests were
faked, but the parts themselves were good (though probably not as good
as if any defective ones had been screened out, of course).

They falsified inspection reports and even made up names of
the inspectors. These fasteners were used in airplanes among other
places. So even a large company will supply crap that is meant to be
used in life critical situations. If I was making medical devices, or
anything that might hurt or kill someone, I would check all the
components supplied from others.
Eric


Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 12:38:44 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:

On 12/01/2015 12:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:28:43 +0000, N_Cook wrote:

On 01/12/2015 15:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 9:23:11 AM UTC-5, N_Cook wrote:
On 01/12/2015 14:00, N_Cook wrote:
Pure tin tinning on a component which should have had derogated Pb/Sn

If I were to render an opinion, pure tin as a mechanical joint is a very bad idea, nor would I think that a sophisticated manufacturer would do that as a matter of intent. Pure tin is extremely brittle, and should NEVER be depended upon in any sort of situation where mechanical stresses (expansion/contraction/flexing) will take place. Add to this the whole issue of tin whiskers (which NASA, at least now understands all too painfully). If what you suggest is accurate, this is a design flaw of significant magnitude. If it is present fleet-wide, it is time to ground these beasts until the problem is addressed specifically.

I would hope that aircraft manufacturers by now would have learned that some admixture to their solders is a necessary step to reliability. And would have learned by now from the Nuclear industry if not NASA that relying on pure tin is a dangerous practice.

All-and-at-the-same-time, counterfeit parts are getting into the OEM repair stream at every level. It would not be difficult to believe where such parts may get into the OEM first-install stream as well.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


I know from someone in the medical electronics field, that is extremely
difficult , if not impossible, to guarantee that PbF components do not
get into the derogated product stream, without sample chemical testing
of each batch of componnts, done themselves. The supposed accredited
documentation is easily compromised and cannot be relied on. With all
the extra markup on derogated components, plenty of motive.
In 1990 a US fastener company, Voi-Shan, admitted to supplying
thousands of fasteners for aerospace use that were in essence
counterfeit in that they had not been tested and were of inferior
quality.

Interesting. AFAICT they weren't crappy fasteners--the tests were
faked, but the parts themselves were good (though probably not as good
as if any defective ones had been screened out, of course).

They falsified inspection reports and even made up names of
the inspectors. These fasteners were used in airplanes among other
places. So even a large company will supply crap that is meant to be
used in life critical situations. If I was making medical devices, or
anything that might hurt or kill someone, I would check all the
components supplied from others.
Eric


Cheers

Phil Hobbs
I remember the big stink at the time because I was making helicopter
and turbine engine parts. Really fussy stuff. When it hapened I
remember they started checking all the VSI supplied fasteners and a
whole bunch were below the FAA requirements for strength and proper
plating. I was talking to an FAA inspector who was checking some
shafts I made and he said the FAA was REALLY ****ed off. The parts I
made were small enough quantity that they were 100% inspected and the
FAA inspectors would drop by from time to time to check our inspection
procedure and numbers. VSI made such huge quantities, hundreds of
thousands of parts, that there was no way to easily check for bad
parts intentionally supplied. I'm still ****ed off about VSI because
they risked the lives of the people flying planes with their fasteners
on board.
Eric

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:06:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I remember the big stink at the time because I was making helicopter
and turbine engine parts. Really fussy stuff. When it hapened I
remember they started checking all the VSI supplied fasteners and a
whole bunch were below the FAA requirements for strength and proper
plating. I was talking to an FAA inspector who was checking some
shafts I made and he said the FAA was REALLY ****ed off. The parts I
made were small enough quantity that they were 100% inspected and the
FAA inspectors would drop by from time to time to check our inspection
procedure and numbers. VSI made such huge quantities, hundreds of
thousands of parts, that there was no way to easily check for bad
parts intentionally supplied. I'm still ****ed off about VSI because
they risked the lives of the people flying planes with their fasteners
on board.

Back in the day, I worked for a small, family-owned machine shop in Philadelphia that made aircraft and nuclear reactor seals - including liquid sodium pump seals for the French power industry. Each day the Foreman would come onto the shop floor and yell out: "REMEMBER, you are being paid by the HOUR, not by the PIECE!" The message was "GET IT RIGHT, take your time to do so."

Each piece left the shop with the _actual initials_ of every person that handled it on the internal work-sheet. And, the actual signature of the final inspector. The company is still extant (40 years after I left), still paying good, living wages to its workers, still family owned, and still operating on the same philosophy.

It is here where I learned the specific difference between a carbon-stretcher and a sky-hook.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 2:06:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I remember the big stink at the time because I was making helicopter
and turbine engine parts. Really fussy stuff. When it hapened I
remember they started checking all the VSI supplied fasteners and a
whole bunch were below the FAA requirements for strength and proper
plating. I was talking to an FAA inspector who was checking some
shafts I made and he said the FAA was REALLY ****ed off. The parts I
made were small enough quantity that they were 100% inspected and the
FAA inspectors would drop by from time to time to check our inspection
procedure and numbers. VSI made such huge quantities, hundreds of
thousands of parts, that there was no way to easily check for bad
parts intentionally supplied. I'm still ****ed off about VSI because
they risked the lives of the people flying planes with their fasteners
on board.

Back in the day, I worked for a small, family-owned machine shop in Philadelphia that made aircraft and nuclear reactor seals - including liquid sodium pump seals for the French power industry. Each day the Foreman would come onto the shop floor and yell out: "REMEMBER, you are being paid by the HOUR, not by the PIECE!" The message was "GET IT RIGHT, take your time to do so."

Each piece left the shop with the _actual initials_ of every person that handled it on the internal work-sheet. And, the actual signature of the final inspector. The company is still extant (40 years after I left), still paying good, living wages to its workers, still family owned, and still operating on the same philosophy.

It is here where I learned the specific difference between a carbon-stretcher and a sky-hook.

carbon-stretcher?

so what happens in a well run shop when everybody was trying their best,
but the fasteners were bogus? For say liquid sodium pumps for the nuclear
industry does each critical fastener get some sort of proof test?

If I were to render an opinion (you'll probably agree) there is a difference here. THIS IS AN AIRCRAFT NOT A TV SET ! DAMMIT !

They should be using the solder used back in Tektronix scopes, lead/tin and 2 % silver, or maybe more perce3nt silver.

Lead free solder exists in consumer electronics because it gets to the landfill so fast. And stoooopid people htink it gets into the water. That kind of lead does not, I have a lead buyllet in my body and I have no lead poisoning. That comes from the salts and compounds of lead. Solder is NOT that.

They just got more planned obsolescence now. More sales in the future. You will rue the day you got rid of your old Toshiba CRT TV. You will rue the day you got rid of alot of things., Old lawnmowers that used ignition points.. They ran after a thunderstorm. (the electronic modules in the newer ones were too susceptible to mini EMPs caused by lightning strikes, until people got ****ed off and made them fix it of course, and it ain't really fixed I guarantee)

They can go **** themselves.

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:41:31 PM UTC-5, Cydrome Leader wrote:

carbon-stretcher?

We made carbon-faced seals in one part of the shop - carbon is rather an unforgiving medium in any form. Something that got too small... well, you get the picture.

so what happens in a well run shop when everybody was trying their best,
but the fasteners were bogus? For say liquid sodium pumps for the nuclear
industry does each critical fastener get some sort of proof test?

We purchased our fasteners from SPS (Standard Pressed Steel at the time). Their factory was less than 8 miles up the road in Glenside, PA. Several of the workers in our shop would go to their shop and work on the line with their people for our orders, just as I went to the heat-treat shop a few miles from SPS to supervise the heat-treatment of some of the critical parts, sometimes days at a time. Both SPS and Dreaver (now Evans) are still in operation today, and still have such intimate relationships with their customers. We took great care with the parts we made, and every part that went into them. Some parts took very nearly two (2) years in production.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

so would it be a stretch to say that the people who died on that aircraft may have been victims of RoHs.

Mark

On 02/12/2015 15:13, wrote:
so would it be a stretch to say that the people who died on that aircraft may have been victims of RoHs.

Mark


Was there political reasons behind no mention in that report about the
exact nature of the solder crack?
If I was on the analysis team I would have demanded much deeper
exploration of the fault. I assume I'm not unique, so was it done , but
the result supressed in this otherwise thorough report?

On 02/12/2015 16:29, N_Cook wrote:
On 02/12/2015 15:13, wrote:
so would it be a stretch to say that the people who died on that
aircraft may have been victims of RoHs.

Mark


Was there political reasons behind no mention in that report about the
exact nature of the solder crack?
If I was on the analysis team I would have demanded much deeper
exploration of the fault. I assume I'm not unique, so was it done , but
the result supressed in this otherwise thorough report?

This is a macro-pic of a PbF solder ring crack I took a few years ago,
when generally in repair jobs , it started becoming obvious there was a
problem with PbF and vibration or thermal-cycling, in operation, after
just a few years.
Traditional Pb/Sn solder could also get ring cracks but after more like
20 years
http://diverse.4mg.com/talk_crack.jpg
Inappropriate hole dimension wrt to the diameter of a component pin is
far more likely to end up with a ring crack than with traditional
solder, with or without plated through pcb production.

wrote:
On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:41:31 PM UTC-5, Cydrome Leader wrote:

carbon-stretcher?

We made carbon-faced seals in one part of the shop - carbon is rather an unforgiving medium in any form. Something that got too small... well, you get the picture.

I had to fuss with graphite shaft seals a couple times. Yuck.

so what happens in a well run shop when everybody was trying their best,
but the fasteners were bogus? For say liquid sodium pumps for the nuclear
industry does each critical fastener get some sort of proof test?

We purchased our fasteners from SPS (Standard Pressed Steel at the time). Their factory was less than 8 miles up the road in Glenside, PA. Several of the workers in our shop would go to their shop and work on the line with their people for our orders, just as I went to the heat-treat shop a few miles from SPS to supervise the heat-treatment of some of the critical parts, sometimes days at a time. Both SPS and Dreaver (now Evans) are still in operation today, and still have such intimate relationships with their customers. We took great care with the parts we made, and every part that went into them. Some parts took very nearly two (2) years in production.

Interesting. Sounds like you were hands-on with all parts and processes,
even external ones.

Larger companies on the other hand probably just have to trust the
initials on a test report as long as the 900 barcodes on the packaging
scan correctly. I wonder how long it would take Beoing or Digikey to pull
bad parts from the warehouse.

On 02/12/2015 17:42, N_Cook wrote:
On 02/12/2015 16:29, N_Cook wrote:
On 02/12/2015 15:13, wrote:
so would it be a stretch to say that the people who died on that
aircraft may have been victims of RoHs.

Mark


Was there political reasons behind no mention in that report about the
exact nature of the solder crack?
If I was on the analysis team I would have demanded much deeper
exploration of the fault. I assume I'm not unique, so was it done , but
the result supressed in this otherwise thorough report?

This is a macro-pic of a PbF solder ring crack I took a few years ago,
when generally in repair jobs , it started becoming obvious there was a
problem with PbF and vibration or thermal-cycling, in operation, after
just a few years.
Traditional Pb/Sn solder could also get ring cracks but after more like
20 years
http://diverse.4mg.com/talk_crack.jpg
Inappropriate hole dimension wrt to the diameter of a component pin is
far more likely to end up with a ring crack than with traditional
solder, with or without plated through pcb production.


In that pic, X, is the component pin.
I assume the crazing/furrows at different angles, is related to that
sudden freezing optical effect of PbF going solid. Traditional solder
just goes from molten to solid with no visual change to the surface
appearance.
The outer section of the solder blob does not have that crazing, so
perhaps differential stressing is built in , before any operational
stresses.