I put the "(if convicted)" part of my first post precisely not to do the judging myself, but to leave it for the adequate jurors.
And I still think if the guys are found guilty they do deserve the time. I hope they aren't, personally, but if it is proved that they've put innocent lives at risk for their own profit... Clink time!
It sounded so much worse in the US attorney news release.
In the news they make it seem like a spec conflict. But if the spec asked for rolled, and they served forged, under fake documentation, it is still forgery, isn't it?
The fact is that the effect of this issue is bigger than they are saying. There are dubious Ti fasteners flying nowadays in commercial airliner. Tested parts seem to be OK, but the psychosis is on.
I went and looked at the spec MIL-T-9046 that they referenced in The Sun News article. It makes no mention of rolling. Of course I'm kind of new to reading specs it may be buried and I didn't see it.
I am not an expert at reading specs either, but AMS-T-9046 (which replaced MIL-T-9046 in 1999, MIL-T-9046 was cancelled on 17 September 1999) under definitions states the definition for plate as:
"Plate: A flat rolled product of 0.188 inch and over in thickness and over 12 inches in width with the width at least five times the thickness."
I think it is reasonably clear that the current document AMS-T-9046 (not the outdated MIL-T-9046 that was reported) requires a flat rolled product.
Of course I have no way of knowing what was delivered so I cannot speak to the company's actions. But if I had been tasked to review the spec and inform mgt what we needed to deliver I would have informed them it needed to be flat rolled.
Thanks debodine. Since we don't do manufacturing here we don't have a lot of the material specs. I usually rely on the older Mil specs on the rare occasion that I need one.
I would like to say I'm not wild about the transistion from free military/government specifications to propriatary specifications. I do think that groups like AMS, SAE, ASTM and other standards groups might be better at creating and updating the specs with the most modern information. But having to pay $60 a pop for a standard is not optimal. Especially when you just want to review it for background material.
Well that's enough of my crankieness. Perhaps I should wait until after my first cup of coffee has kicked in to post.
If the QA manager at Western Titanium knowingly signed the C of C document stating that the product met the requirements of the purchase order when it did not, then that is fraud.
However, there are lots of open issues based on reading that article and the DOJ press release.
First, usually wrought bar or plate Ti stock is delivered in an annealed condition, since it is normally necessary to perform a stress relief and heat treat cycle after rough machining. Heat treat specs like MIL-H-81200, sec.3.7 require periodic specimen tests for bending and tensile properties. These tests also include 20x visual checks which would likely catch problems with grain.
Second, while there are slight differences in the ST and LT properties between bar and plate, I'm surprised that a company like Boeing would make a big issue of it. These types of situations are the reason there is a F of S required on your analysis. I'd be willing to bet that if you check Boeing's stress report on that part, you'd likely find that the section properties used were not derived based on minimum material tolerance conditions. That would make more of a difference in fatigue life than the grain property effects between bar and plate.
Sounds like some individuals at Boeing and the DOJ were looking to collect some whistleblower rewards:
Cancellation of the spec doesn't necessarily void its process or its physics.
Additionally, in many cases, there are legacy requirements that reference older specs. The OH-58D Kiowa Warrior was designed and built to the specs prevalent in the late 70s and early 80s, and unless the component was ECP'd to a new requirement, the procurement will still specify the original requirement.
You bring up a good point. In this case, since the product was actually rolled, the charge should be reduced to conspiracy to commit forgery or attempted forgery.
