Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lamanated

Alternative To Mastinox

Recommended Posts

Just to ask if anyone has info on the mil spec 'd alternative to Mastinox,

I've read where the Coast Guard in the states use a product called Cor ban 27. thanks

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't got any mil spec info but, mastinox is a non hardening strontium chromate compound used to isolate dissimilar metals and prevent corrosion. One could use something slightly less toxic but it would be less effective, say a non hardening epoxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the OEM Standard Practices Manual for alternate or call OEM product support? Even as an alternate it has to be OEM approved...MSA states that the AMO follow's manufacture's recommendations.

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

 

HBD...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the OEM Standard Practices Manual for alternate or call OEM product support? Even as an alternate it has to be OEM approved...MSA states that the AMO follow's manufacture's recommendations.

 

Just my 2 cents...

 

 

HBD...

 

Not quite accurate.

 

Refer to AMM 0100 C "EQUIVALENT MATERIALS" for this quote:

 

"NOTE

 

Equivalent materials of other manufacturers may be used as alternate selections to those listed here. The equivalence of those materials is to be confirmed by the operators."

 

You do not require Airbus approval to substitute a consumable material, the ownus is on you however to ensure it will perform the same function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite accurate Whirleygig...

 

" Equivalent materials of the manufacturers may be used as an alternative".

 

But...

 

CARs 571.02 states

 

"Where the manufacture has not made specific recommendations, standard industry practices are to be used".

 

An organizations MPM should also define what industry standard practices, and as a former DoM and QAM I would certainly want to know if the ACA holders maintaining company aircraft would consult me prior to a deviation from the OEM Maintenance Manual and why.

 

So if the Manufacture makes specific recommendations to use Mastinox then the maintainer requires to use it unless it states otherwise in the OEM manuals or alternate.

 

Note;

 

I have 40 years of rotary plus (M1/M2) and heavy aircraft experience (B757) and the maintenance standards and requirements are no different than that of a Bell 206/AS 350 or a Bell 212 - the CARs under 573/571 are the same.

 

Not saying you are incorrect...just saying there is more to it than equivalence to be confirmed by operator.

 

HBD

M1/M2(Structures)

FAA A&P

ISO 9001:2008/AS9110 AMO Lead Quality Auditor

TCCA Audit Qualified

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I missed your reply HBD,

 

You didn't exacly cut and paste my quote did you, it chages the meaning the way you wrote it, I do believe it was unintentional.

 


Equivalent materials of other manufacturers may be used as alternate selections to those listed here. The equivalence of those materials is to be confirmed by the operators."

 

 

" Equivalent materials of the manufacturers may be used as an alternative".

 

 

 

Everything I quoted was entirely accurate, that is what's so wonderful about a direct quote.

 

Your 571.02 reference is not suitable.

 

CARs: Where the manufacturer has not made specific recommendations, standard industry practices are to be used.........Similar requirements apply to the selection of parts, materials, tools and test apparatus.

 

The Manufacturer HAS made very specific recommendations in this context, right down to trade names, i.e: Mastinox, so that standard does not apply. In addition to that, the Manufacturer HAS told you in plain english (remarkable, considering the context) to go ahead and make substitutions for any product specified. CARS does not factor in becuase if you make a substitution, you are directly following the Aircraft Manufacturers approved maintenance procedures.

 

I have to agree with you about your other point, I would not want our guys making substitutions on their own, and there probably should be a MPM policy in place for that. Could not agree more. But that was not what the discussion was about, I very speicifcally pointed out that in no circumstance do you need approval from Airbus Helicopters.

 

I do not associate the quality of one's answer, such as yours, based on their past/ present titles. Everyone knows something, regardless of their position, and everyone has something to contribute.

 

Having said that.....

 

- Current DOM

- Current QAM

- Currently in the TC Airworthiness Branch pool of qualified inspectors ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...