Heat Treat Radio #130: AMS2750 Pyrometry Best Practices

February 26, 2026 / HEAT TREAT RADIO

Heat Treat Radio host Heather Falcone is joined by Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry, for a deep dive into AMS2750 and best practices for managing pyrometry compliance. Drawing on more than 35 years of hands-on experience and his role on the AMS2750 writing team, Bassett explains how the specification has evolved and why pyrometry continues to drive a majority of audit findings. The conversation explores common compliance pitfalls, practical system-level solutions, and how heat treaters can better prepare for audits without over testing. Falcone and Bassett also discuss the value of industry involvement in shaping standards that directly impact daily heat treating operations.

Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.

Heat Treat Today · Heat Treat Radio #130: AMS 2750 Pyrometry Best Practices

The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.

Introduction (00:04)

Heather Falcone: Hi, I’m Heather Falcone, and welcome to Heat Treat Radio. Today we are talking about AMS2750, and the best practice to manage pyrometry compliance. Joining me today is Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry. Andrew has more than 35 years of experience working alongside manufacturers, captives, and commercial heat treaters to ensure their testing calibration and pyrometry programs meet the demands of industry specifications like AMS2750 without losing sight of how shops actually operate.

Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry (ATP) provides accredited testing, calibration, and pyrometry services nationwide that support heat treaters and aerospace manufacturers across compliance, audit readiness, and ongoing system integrity. The company also developed the Aerospace Compliance System (ACS), a software platform designed to support compliance and documentation requirements tied to testing and pyrometry programs.

Andrew is deeply involved in the aerospace, metals, and engineering committee responsible for writing AMS2750 specification and is an active contributor within the Nadcap Heat Treat Task Group. He brings practical systems level views of quality that go beyond checklists and audits.

Tell us a little bit about yourself, other than my delightful intro. There’s more about you, your industry involvement, and about ATP.

Andrew Bassett: I’ve been involved with pyrometry for 35 years now. My involvement with pyrometry started with a family-owned business. About the time when the Nadcap process was coming to fruition, some of my mentors, who are still my mentors today, dragged me to my first Nadcap meeting and said, “Well, if you’re going to do this pyrometry stuff, then you better learn it.”

Off I went to Hartford, Connecticut for my first understanding of Nadcap and how much pyrometry is a big part of the thermal processing industry. From that point forward, I dove into the specifications and wanted to be a part of a solution rather than contributing to the problem.

I got involved with AMS2750 and AMEC. When I showed up to my first meeting, the chairman at the time wanted to know who I was and what I was doing there. After explaining what I do and my desire to join the 2750 team, he said absolutely, because at that point, I was the only person in the sub-team that had hands-on experience in pyrometry and was writing the standard. I’m the one that actually picks up the thermocouple, sticks it inside a furnace, and knows what the real world is. Thankfully the chairman saw that and said, “You need to be a part of this.”

I started Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry (ATP) in 2007. When I first started the company, I wanted to dedicate my focus on helping our clients succeed, and make sure that we are the industry experts, providing the customer service that they deserve. I wanted to look at what the specification allows for frequency reductions and stop over testing the equipment, while staying within the compliance requirements of the standards.

AMS2750 is not the only pyrometry specification out there. We then got involved with the other aerospace prime specifications, ensuring our customers maintained compliance to those as well.

We have branched out since those early days of 2007, which consisted of me running around the country, taking care of pyrometry. Now we have 28 people in the business and multiple offices coast to coast with a great team behind us that shares the same vision, ensuring pyrometry service is our ultimate focus for our clients.

Heather Falcone: What is really important about that is that, as a former heat treater actively helping the heat treat industry now, there is not one system that puts all of these standards and specifications together. Companies have their records, data collection, and everything is all separate.

What is ACS? (5:37)

Heather Falcone: Tell us a little bit about ACS and how this software helps with this issue.

Andrew Bassett: The dream of the aerospace compliance software came out of us doing things the old-fashioned way, entering calibration data into an Excel spreadsheet, which enables the human factor and leads to human errors. When it comes to compliance audits, human errors cannot happen. So we tightened up our processes in the Excel world, but I knew there had to be a better way.

That is how we started down the road of developing aerospace compliance software. The idea was that it was going to be strictly an ATP tool to use for my technicians and the team to use the software. But the industry is small enough that people started hearing about what we were doing. Clients began requesting to be able to use the software. That is how the system has grown to where it is today.

Back in my early days in pyrometry when I started ATP, I would literally build pyrometry compliance notebooks, old fashioned binders. When we would get a new client, I would go buy a bunch of notebooks from Staples and put in their little dividers of a pyrometry program together. We would have information and specifications about their furnace, calibration reports, SAT reports, TUS reports, thermocouple control logs, etc. That’s where ACS has now been built, replacing my old notebooks.

Now we have a system that’s 100% not just a pyrometry tool — it’s also a compliance tool. New features we have added have a focus on compliance, just not pyrometry-related tools. We now have tools for preventive maintenance leak rate testing checks that are required and controlling your thermocouple replacement schedule. It’s bigger than a pyrometry tool now.

This software has now expanded across multiple industries, not just in heat treating and thermal processing, but also chemical processing, NDT, composites, etc. It is a fully compliant software for multiple industries.

Heather Falcone: It’s meant to be that holistic, wraparound software for your quality folks to have someplace safe that all their data can get stored, aggregated, and usable.

Andrew Bassett: It’s also and most importantly a self-checking software to not only the industry specifications, but client internal specifications. It doesn’t have to be solely what AMS2750 says. It could be 2750 or GEs requirements, or Boeing’s requirement, or an internal spec. It will parse all that information to make sure it’s compliant to those standards, and it’s completed faster than you can blink your eye.

AMS2750 (9:20)

Click the image to get a deep dive into AMS2750F fundamentals, as Andrew breaks down the core requirements of AMS2750F.

Heather Falcone: Can you talk about AMS2750, how it has evolved beyond I think what many of us ever thought it would be, and some best practices on how you can best get your arms around that standard and manage that day to day?

Andrew Bassett: When I got into the industry, we were at Rev C, AMS2750C, and those who’ve been around long enough to know that revision of the spec was the Bible. You gave it to a hundred different people and you got a hundred different interpretations.

It was very unclear on the spec. The iterations from there have gotten better, with 2750D and then the major changes going into E, then all the way up to our current state of Rev H. It’s now more clear, though there are still some confusing parts. My goal personally is to make sure that document is clear and understandable. Even if it’s 300 pages and we use stick figures and crayons to explain what the intent is — I’m okay with that. So it shouldn’t be a document that is hard to understand. The aerospace standards for heat treating are fairly clear on the intent of the spec, but for some reason, pyrometry has always been this scary black hole that you have to try to figure it out. I’m looking forward to the day where that is not the case.

Click on the image above to check out Heat Treat Radio #91 where Andrew demystifies one of AMS2750’s most critical yet often misunderstood specs: the ±0.1°F requirement.

Coming to a understanding of that specification is not easy to do. Understanding what the intent and the requirements are takes some good studying, as well as getting the intimate training of that specification.

We do provide pyrometry training, and when I first started doing it, it was a 6- to 8-hour day class, the 30,000-foot level. Over the last several years, I’ve broken it now into a two-day class. My PowerPoint presentation has expanded to 168 slides when the spec is only 57 pages. But now I’m doing more of a crop-dusting training level so everybody can understand it. That is extremely helpful for suppliers that need to meet that standard.

Heather Falcone: Interpretation is key for suppliers, understanding how the standard applies to their shop, their floor — that’s a real challenge.

Andrew Bassett: The specification is just not a North American spec. It’s a global specification, and it’s not even just an aerospace standard anymore. It’s gone into the commercial world, the FDA. Now, if you’re doing heat treatment of dental drill bits or knee replacement parts, anything that’s metal, the FDA now requires compliance to AMS2750. Having someone walk you through the standard and reaching out, there are many ways to figure out the intent of the spec and how it applies to each organization.

Best Practices in Managing the Beast (14:40)

Heather Falcone: What are some best practices in managing this if you have to integrate AS, ISO, Nadcap? You have your whole QMS, and then you have 2750, P10TF3, etc. How do you do it?

Andrew Bassett: That’s a huge undertaking. My experience over the years is diving in with our clients and finding out what types of heat treating they are doing. I like to find out who they are heat treating parts for, who are the clients, where are the parts ending up? There could be POs coming in for the clients to heat treat “X” part, and maybe they are not doing their due diligence and the part is actually going to GE Aviation. Well, GE Aviation has their own pyrometry requirements that are offset from AMS2750 or Saffron or any of the other aerospace primes that may have a requirements from a pyrometry standpoint.

So first gathering that information altogether and making sure you are constantly up to date of what you’re processing is critical. From there, with the aerospace compliance software, now that tool can be utilized to manage all your requirements, from your calibrations, your TUS, your SATs, everything can be managed in one location.

For instance, if you’re doing work for GE, and you have to follow their requirements of P10TF3. GE does not have anything in their specification that talks about the alternate SAT that’s specified in AMS2750, but GE also do work that needs to comply with that standard. So this tool is going to keep you on track. This kind of management tool is cabale of managing that for you, so nothing gets missed.

Once that knowledge base is put together and we have a clear path of what needs to be done from the heat treater or the captive shops standpoint of who they are processing work for, then you can use something like ACS that can manage that whole aspect for you.

How Does ACS Work with Other Systems? (17:06)

Heather Falcone: From what I understand, ACS is plug and play. It comes on-site, ready to go as a standalone tool. But how does it also work with other systems that you might have?

Andrew Bassett: ACS is a standalone system. People have access to it; we have a tiered subscription for it depending on what level of the ACS you want. We have also been working with a few industry giants out there to integrate ACS software with certain systems that help manage heat treat processes. There will be an integration point there where ACS will be able to make sure that jobs don’t get processed if TUS or calibration or SATs are past due for heat treat equipment. They won’t be able to enter a job into that piece of equipment. It will stop them from putting something that shouldn’t be going into a furnace. These are some of the features that we will be integrating in 2026 where we’ll be able to work with other software solution providers out there in the heat treating realm to make sure everybody is looking at the same thing.

Heather Falcone: The reason that we want those lockouts in place is because we are trying to avoid NCRs during our audits. We’re trying to get NCRs that will be value-add, not something that we knew we should have been doing and were not. The whole point is to better the company so that we do not have a bunch of pyrometry NCRs during our audits.

Common NCRs for Pyrometry (19:08)

Heather Falcone: What are the top NCRs that you’re seeing for pyrometry currently?

Andrew Bassett: It has been well documented through the Nadcap process that 80% of NCRs actually do come from pyrometry. That has always baffled me, especially being a member of AMS2750 sub-team that writes the standard. What have we done as a team to fail the suppliers out there by not writing clear consistency?

Over the last two revisions, I think many requirements have been clarified. But there are still some pyrometry-related issues that I still see. For example, you may have your preventive maintenance or unscheduled maintenance that is being completed to a piece of equipment. You have a requirement to have that maintenance documented and then approved by a by someone from quality to make sure that no further pyrometry testing is required. Sometimes those logs are missed, or possibly a maintenance manager verifies a door seal was replaced, but then quality does not sign off and date that log.

That is an example of an issue that we identified and put into ACS. Now you can keep that preventive maintenance program in ACS for that particular piece of equipment. With unscheduled maintenance, when the maintenance is completed, it automatically shoots an email to the quality team to have them review and ensure no pyrometry requirements are missed.

That’s an example of one of those top NCRs that you always see with Nadcap. We saw the need and created a solution to that with ACS.

Benefits of Getting Involved (21:11)

Heather Falcone: We want to make sure that everybody can get more involved in shaping the face of compliance so that they do not become a victim of it. How can everybody, including captives, get more involved, and why is that valuable to their bottom line?

Andrew Bassett: This is something I preach constantly with our client base. If you’re Nadcap accredited, firstly, go to a meeting. Learn, be present. You have a say. I’ve been going to Nadcap meetings for 30+ years now, and even though I’m not a supplier, I’m not an aerospace prime, I’m a guest that that shows up. But I keep going and I raise my voice and share my concerns with the group at Nadcap and with the suppliers. Having that voice is important. I know that suppliers need to get more involved. I know it’s an expense to send several people from a company out to a Nadcap meeting, but it’s money well spent when you get involved with AMEC and with creating the specifications.

I had this myth early on in my career that this golden group of aerospace gods were creating standards. When I showed up to the meeting, there were more suppliers there writing the standards than there were the primes. It was amazing to see that we have people that are in the industry that do the heat treating or in the metallurgist or for these organizations that are in charge of the specs. It’s the everyday heat treater, the people with boots on the ground, so to speak, that get involved. So getting involved with AMEC, getting involved with Nadcap, that’s key to any success when it comes to compliance and having that say in writing standards that you know what you’re going to have to comply with.

Heather Falcone: Absolutely. They give us so many opportunities to get involved. There’s four AMECs a year and three Nadcap meetings.

Andrew Bassett: To me it’s well worth it. At least go to the Nadcap meeting that’s always once a year in Pittsburgh. It is the most well attended meeting typically out of all of them. That one is really going to get your feet wet and get that whole experience of Nadcap.

Heather Falcone: That’s usually where they’re making major decisions, like finalizing checklist changes. Being able to get out in front of that and not just wait to get the email from the automated PRI.

Andrew Bassett: I will move mountains to make sure that I am at every Nadcap meeting. For us, I can take that information for those meetings for my clients that don’t end up going and be able to disseminate that information. It doesn’t matter if it’s pyrometry or heat treating or whatever that’s coming out and say, this is coming down the pike. Where do we need to tighten some things up?

Developing Compliance Software For Complex Specifications (25:46)

Heather Falcone: Most of the time I’ve seen when I’m going in to see a heat treater that their compliance program is great at a base level, but there’s too many pieces. So what has that been like trying to develop a compliance software for literally one of the most technically complex and arguably important specifications in our industry?

Andrew Bassett: It’s been a challenge for sure. With AMS2750, at one point it was starting to be updated every two years. Thankfully, we have four developers on our software team, so all the developing for us is in-house. Being on the forefront of changes by attending Nadcap meetings and being a part of AMEC, we can jump right into development and be ready for the update.

Future Specifications and Revisions (27:30)

Heather Falcone: We are on Rev H — what’s next? Is there another spec change on the horizon?

Andrew Bassett: Letter J is on the horizon. We did start working on it. Once the spec is released, the team keeps a parking lot of issues that come up. Then we just basically put it on a storyboard, and when we’re ready to start working on them again, we start working on it. The changes over the last two revisions on G and H, have been minor. It was the first time in the history of the specification, back at Rev G, that there were change bars for the first time.

A change bar is on the left-hand side of the document, indicating where we changed something in the spec. Prior to that, we rewrote the spec and people had to read the whole thing to know what had changed.

I don’t see a time where we’re ever going to have a complete overhaul rewrite of the spec in the future. So yes, we are working on Rev J. These updates will be more clarifications that have sprung up over the last several years. We were trying to put one out every two years to keep up to date. The aerospace community, Nadcap, and AMEC, they were getting a little antsy that we were writing it so quickly, so we put a little pause on that.

We did jump back into it a couple weeks ago. We had our team meeting and worked out a few more issues that are out there. Not a big major overhaul, more clarifications and trying to get more intention of what the requirements that we’re writing.

From a Nadcap standpoint, with any changes to industry specifications, there will be updates on new checklist revisions. That’s always a grinding process to get a checklist that everyone’s going to be happy with. I did not yet look at the agenda for the next meeting in February in San Francisco, but it seems like every time we do have a meeting, there’s a checklist that we’re working on.

Heather Falcone: That is a great takeaway — get involved, right? Go to the meetings, take your opportunities, get involved with people like Andrew that have been in the industry. It’s a wealth of knowledge, and if we’re not taking advantage of your expertise, your experience, then we’re really missing out on taking knowledge back to our own shops.

Is there anything that you want to leave us with before we close out?

Andrew Bassett: You’re spot on with that. That’s that actually what brings me the most joy of what I do is being able to part the knowledge that I have to my clients. Anytime I meet somebody and we talk pyrometry, my business card comes out and I have my cell phone number on there. I tell them, go ahead and call me, text me, smoke signals, whatever you want to do. If there’s a question you have, I’m more than happy to answer it to the best of my abilities. I mean, I’m only one of 12 people on the team. It’s about parting that knowledge and assisting our clients to be successful and have a great understanding of what the requirements are and really make sure that they understand it.

About the Guest

Andrew Bassett
President
Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry

Andrew Bassett has more than 35 years of experience working alongside manufacturers, captives, and commercial heat treaters to ensure their testing, calibration, and pyrometry programs meet the demands of industry specifications like AMS2750 without losing sight of how shops operate. Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry provides accredited testing, calibration, and pyrometry services that support heat treaters and aerospace manufacturers across compliance, audit readiness, and ongoing system integrity. The company also developed the Aerospace Compliance System, a software platform designed to support compliance and documentation requirements tied to testing and pyrometry programs. Andrew is deeply involved in the Aerospace Metals and Engineering Committee responsible for writing the AMS2750 specification and is an active contributor within the Nadcap Heat Treat Task Group. He brings a practical, systems-level view of quality that goes beyond checklists and audits.

For more information: Contact Andrew at abassett@atp-cal.com

Heat Treat Radio #130: AMS2750 Pyrometry Best Practices Read More »

Furnaces North America (FNA) Registration Announced

January 23, 2024 / UNCATEGORIZED

Renowned for its dynamic trade show environment, FNA 2024 brings together the foremost experts, suppliers, decision makers, and buyers from around the globe. This year’s event is set to continue the tradition of offering an engaging technical conference alongside the bustling trade show floor.

The excitement takes off on the first day of the trade show with a unique gaming opportunity. During the Day 1 Trade Show Floor Reception, one lucky attendee will be selected to participate in a thrilling game at the heart of the expo, standing a chance to win $500, $1,000, or a staggering $100,000!

With exhibit booths in high demand and an anticipated sellout, prospective exhibitors are urged not to hesitate in securing their spots. Registration for attendees will open on May 1, 2024.

Mark your calendars and prepare to be a part of the industry’s most awaited event. Stay tuned for more details and visit www.FurnacesNorthAmerica.com for the latest updates.

Furnaces North America 2024 is excited to unveil its lineup of Title Sponsors for the upcoming trade show and technical conference, scheduled for October 14-16, 2024. Produced by the Metal Treating Institute in collaboration with Heat Treat Today, the event will be hosted in Columbus, OH — a hub of manufacturing innovation.

The roster of Title Sponsors includes:

Can-Eng Furnaces
McLaughlin Furnace Group
Super Systems
Surface Combustion
Wirco
GeoCorp
Gasbarre Thermal Processing Systems
RoMan Manufacturing

Corporate Sponsors are:

Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry
Honeywell
Williams Industrial Service

Furnaces North America (FNA) Registration Announced Read More »

Heat Treat Radio #91: Understanding the ±0.1°F Requirement in AMS2750, with Andrew Bassett

March 9, 2023 / CONTROLS TECHNICAL CONTENT, FEATURED NEWS, HEAT TREAT RADIO, INSTRUMENTATION TECHNICAL CONTENT, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT, THERMOCOUPLES TECHNICAL CONTENT

Where did the ±0.1°F AMS2750 requirement come from and how should heat treaters approach this specification, an important change that entails major buy-in? Andrew Bassett, president and owner of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry, was at the AMS2750F meeting. He shares the inside scoop on this topic with Heat Treat Today and what he expects for the future of this standard.

Heat Treat Radio podcast host and Heat Treat Today publisher, Doug Glenn, has written a column on the topic, which you can find here; read it to understand some of the background, questions, and concerns that cloud this issue.

Below, you can watch the video, listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button, or read an edited transcript.

HTT · Heat Treat Radio #91: Understanding the ±.1°F Requirement in AMS2750, with Andrew Bassett

The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.

Doug Glenn: Andrew Bassett, president and owner of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry, Inc., somewhere in eastern Pennsylvania. We don’t know because you’re on the move! What is your new address, now, by the way?

Andrew Bassett: We are in Easton, Pennsylvania at 2020 Dayton Drive.

Doug Glenn: Andrew, we want to talk a bit about this ±0.1°F debate that is going on. It was actually precipitated by the column that I wrote that is in the February issue.

I just wanted to talk about that debate, and I know that you’ve been somewhat involved with it. So, if you don’t mind, could you give our listeners a quick background on what we are talking about, this ±0.1°F debate.

Andrew Bassett: To be honest with you, being part of the AMS2750 sub team, one of the questions came up for us during the Rev F rewrite was this 0.1°F readability — wanting to kind of fix this flaw that’s been in the standard ever since the day that AMS2750 came out. With instrumentation, for instance, you have ±2°F (the equivalent would be 1.1°C). At 1.1°C, the question became, If your instrumentation does not show this 0.1 of a degree readability, how can you show compliance to the standards?

Andrew Bassett
President
Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry
Source: DELTA H

Then, it morphed into other issues that we’ve had in the previous revisions where we talk about precise temperature requirements, like for system accuracy testing: You’re allowed a hard number ±3° per Class 2 furnace or 0.3% of reading, whichever is greater. Now, we have this percentage. With anything over 1000°F, you're going to be able to use the percentage of reading to help bring your test into tolerance. In that example, 1100°F, you’re about 3.3 degrees. If your instrumentation doesn’t show this readability, how are you going to prove compliance?

That’s what it all morphed into. Originally, the first draft that we proposed in AMS2750F was that all instrumentation had to have 0.1°F readability. We got some feedback (I don’t know if I want to say “feedback” or "pitchforks and hammers") that this would be cost-prohibitive; most instrumentation doesn't have that readability, and it would be really costly to go out and try to do this. We understood that. But, at the end of the day, we said: The recording device is your permanent record, and so that’s what we’re going to lean on. But we still had a lot of pushback.

We ended up putting a poll out to AMEC and the heat treating industry to see what their opinions were. We said that with the 0.1 readability (when it came to a percentage reading), recording devices would read hard tolerances. So, for instance, an SAT read at 3° would be just that, not "or .3% of reading."

There was a third option that we had put out to the community at large, and it came back as the 0.1° readability for digital recorders, so that’s where we ran with the 0.1° readability.

When it was that big of an issue, we didn’t make the decisions ourselves; we wanted to put it out to the rest of the community. My guess is not everyone really thought the whole thing through yet. Now people are like, ok, well now I need to get this 0.1° readability.

Again, during the meetings, we heard the issues. Is 0.1° going to really make a difference to metal? If you have a load thermocouple that goes in your furnace and it reads 0.1° over the tolerance, does it fail the load? Well, no, metallurgically, we all know that’s not going to happen, but there’s got to be a line in the sand somewhere, so it was drawn at that.

"...that hard line in the sand had to be drawn somewhere..."
Source: Unsplash.com/Willian Justen de Vasconcellos

That’s a little bit of the background of the 0.1° readability.

Doug Glenn: So, basically, we’re in a situation, now, where people are, in fact (and correct me if I’m wrong here), potentially going to fail SATs or tests on their system because of a 0.1° reading, correct? I mean, it is possible, correct?

Andrew Bassett: Yes. So, when the 0.1° readability came out in Rev F, we gave it a two-year moratorium that with that requirement, you still had two more years. Then, when Rev G came out, exactly two years to the date, we still had a lot of customers coming to us, or a lot of suppliers coming back to us, and saying, “Hey, look, there’s a supply shortage on these types of recorders. We need to buy some time on this.” It ranged from another year to 10 years, and we’re like — whoa, whoa, whoa! You told us, coming down the pike before, maybe you pushed it down the road, whatever, probably Covid put a damper on a lot of people, so we added another year.

So, as of June 30^th of 2023, that requirement is going to come into full play now. Like it or not, that’s where the standard sits.

Doug Glenn: So, you’re saying June 30^th, 2023?

Andrew Bassett: Yes.

Doug Glenn Alright, that’s good background.

I guess there were several issues that I raised. First off, you’ve already hit on one. I understand the ability to be precise, but in most heat treatment applications, one degree is not going to make a difference, right? So, why do we push for a 0.1° when 1° isn’t even going to make a difference?

Andrew Bassett: We know that, and it’s been discussed that way. But, again, that hard line in the sand had to be drawn somewhere, and that was the direction the community wanted to go with, so we went with that. Yes, we understand that in some metals, 10 degrees is not going to make a difference, but we need to have some sort of line in the sand and that's what was drawn.

Doug Glenn: So, a Class 1. I was thinking the lower number was a tighter furnace. So, a Class 1 (±5), and you’re saying, that’s all the furnace is classified for, right, ±5? So, if you get a reading of 1000°, it could be 1005° or it could be 995°. Then, you’re putting on top of that the whole idea that your temperature reading has got to be down to 0.1°. There just seems to be some disconnect there.

So, that was the first one. You also mentioned the instrumentation. It’s been pointed out to me, by some of the instrumentation people, that their instruments are actually only reading four digits. So up to 99.9 you actually have a point, but if it goes to 1000°, you’re out of digits; you can’t even read that. I mean, they can’t even read that down to a point.

"So, if you get a reading of 1000°, it could be 1005° or it could be 995°."
Source: Unsplash.com/Getty Images

Andrew Bassett: Correct. On the recording side of things, we went away from analog instrumentation. The old chart papers, that’s all gone, and we required the digital recorders with that 0.1° readability, as of June 30^th of this year.

Again, the first draft was all instrumentation. That would be your controllers, your overtemps, and we know that limitation. But everyone does have to be aware of it. We still allow for this calibration of ±2 or 0.2%. If you’re doing a calibration, let’s say, on a temperature control on a calibration point at 1600° and the instrument only reads whole numbers, you can use the percentage, but you would have to round it inward. Let’s use 1800°, that would be an easier way to do it. So, I’m allowed ±2 or 3.6° if I’m using the percentage of reading, but if the instrument does not read in decimal points for a controller or overtemp, you would have to round that down to ±3°.

Doug Glenn: ±3, right; the 0.6° is out the window.

Andrew Bassett: Correct. I shouldn’t say we like to bury things in footnotes, but this was an afterthought. In one of the footnotes, in one of the tables, it talks about instrumentation calibration that people need to be aware of.

Doug Glenn: Let’s just do this because I think we’ve got a good sense of what the situation is, currently. Would you care to prognosticate about the future? Do you think this is going to stand? Do you think it will be changed? What do you think? I realize you’re speaking for yourself, here.

Andrew Bassett: I’m conflicted on both sides. I want to help the supply base with this issue but I’m also on the standards committee that writes the standard. I think because we’re so far down the road, right now — this requirement has been out there since June 2022 — I don’t see anything being rolled back on it, at this point. I think if we did roll it back, we have to look at it both ways.

If we did roll this back and say alright, let’s just do away with this 0.1° readability issue, we still have to worry about the people processing in Celsius. Remember, we’re pretty much the only country in the world that processes in Fahrenheit. The rest of the world has been, probably, following these lines all along. If we rolled this back, just think about all the people that made that investment and moved forward on the 0.1° readability and they come back and say, “Wait a minute. We just spent a $100,000 on upgrading our systems and now you’re rolling it back, that’s not fair to us.”

At this point, with the ball already rolling, it would be very interesting to see when Nadcap starts publishing out the audit findings when it comes to the pyrometry and this 0.1° readability to see how many suppliers are being hit on this requirement and that would give us a good indication. If there are a lot of yeses on it then, obviously, a lot of suppliers haven’t gone down this road. My guess is, for the most part, anybody that’s Nadcap accredited in heat treating — and this goes across chemical processing, coatings, and a few other commodities — I think has caught up to this.

Personally, I don’t think this is going to go away; it’s not going to disappear. It’s going to keep going down this road. Maybe, if people are still struggling with getting the types of devices that can have that 0.1° readability, then maybe another year extension on it, but I don’t know where that is right now. I haven’t gotten enough feedback from aerospace customers that say, "Hey, I can’t get the recorder." I mean,

Doug Glenn: I just don’t understand, Andrew, how it’s even physically possible that companies can record something as accurately as 0.1° if the assembly or thermocouple wire is rated at ±2°? How is that even possible that you can want somebody to be accurate down to ±0.1° when the thing is only accurate up to ±2°?

Andrew Bassett: Right, I get that. We can even go a lot further with that and start talking about budgets of uncertainty. If you look at any reputable thermocouple manufacturer or instrument calibration reports that are ISO 17025, they have to list out their measurements of uncertainty, and that gives you only the 98% competence you’re going to be within that accuracy statement.

Yes, I get the whole issue of this .1° readability. There were good intentions were to fix a flaw, and it spiraled. We’ve seen where PLCs and some of these high logic controllers now can show the .1° readability, but they automatically round up at .5°. Are you now violating the other requirements of rounding to E29? Now, I think we’ve closed out the poll in the standard, but you’re right. We were trying to do the right thing. Personally, I don’t think we gave it all that much further thought on that except hey, let’s just make recorders this way and this should be okay.

Doug Glenn: Right. No, that’s good. Let me be clear, and I think most everybody that was involved with the standards are excellent people and they’re trying to do the right thing. There is no dissing on anybody that was doing it. I’m not a furnace guy, right, I’m a publisher — but when I look at it, I’m going: okay, you’re asking somebody to be as accurate as 0.1° on equipment that can only do ±2°. That’s a 4° swing and you’re asking them to be within 0.1°, basically.

Andrew, this has been helpful. It’s been good hearing from you because you’re on the frontline here. You’ve got one foot firmly planted in both camps.

Andrew Bassett: I’m doing my best to stay neutral with it all.

Doug Glenn: Anyhow, I appreciate it, Andrew. You’re a gentleman. Thanks for taking some time with us.

Andrew Bassett: Thanks, Doug. Appreciate it.

About the expert: Andrew Bassett has more than 25 years of experience in the field of calibrations, temperature uniformity surveys, system accuracy testing, as well an expertise in pressure, humidity, and vacuum measurement calibration. Prior to founding Aerospace Testing & Pyrometry, Andrew previously held positions as Vice President of Pyrometry Services and Director of Pyrometry Services for a large commercial heat treater and Vice President and Quality Control Manager for a small family owned business.

For more information: Andrew Bassett at abassett@atp-cal.com or visit http://www.atp-cal.com/

Doug Glenn at Doug@heattreattoday.com

Doug Glenn
Publisher
Heat Treat Today

To find other Heat Treat Radio episodes, go to www.heattreattoday.com/radio .

Search heat treat equipment and service providers on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.com

Heat Treat Radio #91: Understanding the ±0.1°F Requirement in AMS2750, with Andrew Bassett Read More »

Heat Treating System Delivered to Tinker Airforce Base in Oklahoma

November 14, 2022 / AEROSPACE HEAT TREAT, ATMOSPHERE AIR FURNACES NEWS, FEATURED NEWS

A heat treat system for use in the aerospace and defense industry was recently delivered to Tinker AFB, OK - USAF. The system is certified to AMS2750G and will be used to heat treat aluminum as well as other metals for use on military aircraft.

Richard B. Conway
Founder/Director/ CTO
DELTA H® Technologies, LLC
Source: DELTA H

DELTA H® and Phillips Federal delivered the furnace to Tinker AFB, which will be used for for heat treating aviation grade aluminum for military purposes. Third party services for calibration and qualification were performed by Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry. The certifications for instrumentation, temperature uniformity surveys, and system accuracy testing were completed through ATP’s new Aerospace Compliance Software (ASC) to AMS2750G.

The Dual Chamber Aerospace Heat Treat (DCAHT^®) system has a certified TUS volume of 24” wide, 16" high, 72" long. In addition to aluminum, the system can be used for PH stainless steel aging, as well as titanium and ferrous alloy processes. Training was provided to several operators, QC personnel, and two “Trainers” qualified to train other operators.

“As an USAF veteran," commented Richard B. Conway, founder, director, and CTO of DELTA H. "[I]t is a deep honor to do all we possibly can to assure that our Warfighters have the finest heat treating equipment available for defending our nation."

Find heat treating products and services when you search on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.com

Heat Treating System Delivered to Tinker Airforce Base in Oklahoma Read More »

4 Heat Treat Radio Episodes To Boost Your Confidence in Compliance

July 8, 2022 / CONTROLS TECHNICAL CONTENT, FEATURED NEWS, MANUFACTURING HEAT TREAT

Twice a month, Heat Treat Today publishes an episode of Heat Treat Radio, a unique-to-the-industry podcast. Whether it’s AMS2750 or CQI-9, these episodes will boost your knowledge about all things heat treat. Listen to these four episodes to gain confidence in compliance. Enjoy this original content, and happy listening!

Justin Rydzewski
Director of Sales & Market Development
Controls Service, Inc.

Heat Treat Radio: Justin Rydzewski on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 1 of 4) – Pyrometry

In this episode of Heat Treat Radio, hear directly from a committee member involved in updating CQI-9. Justin Rydzewski, director of Sales and Marketing at Controls Service, Inc. sheds some light on the automotive equivalent to AMS2750: CQI-9. From translation issues and formatting to new process tables and caveats regarding thermocouples, this episode of Heat Treat Radio provides all the necessary information heat treaters need to use the new revision. It's about more than just pyrometry; it's also about heat treat system assessment and heat treat operation.

To get the run-down on CQI-9, listen to this episode of Heat Treat Radio.

"How like is one test to the next one? What is your means of collecting data and what is your response plan when that data is unfavorable? Having that predetermined, so that you’re not doing in on the fly, can be incredibly helpful."

Heat Treat Radio: Andrew Bassett on AMS2750F (Part 1 of 3)

Andrew Bassett, President, Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry

In this three-part episode, Andrew Bassett of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry discusses all things AMS2750F. Questions on thermocouples, calibrations and thermal processing classification, SATs, or TUSs? This series of Heat Treat Radio episodes has the answers.
In this first episode, Andrew focuses on thermocouples and sensors and the different thermocouple types that AM2750 Revision F addresses compared to past revisions. The use of nickel/nickel-moly thermocouples and the use of resistant temperature devices are just two of the additions found in Rev. F.

To get an overview of the changes to AMS2750 made in Revision F, as well as to hear a bit about the process for writing the specification book, listen to this series of episodes on Heat Treat Radio.

"I’m an end-user, so I’m able give my input and say, 'Hey, this doesn’t make sense. What you want to add into the spec is not real world.' It’s nice that people such as us get involved with these specifications."

Heat Treat Radio: Reimagining Furnace Compliance with C3 Data’s Matt Wright

Matt Wright
Chief Marketing Officer,
C3 Data
Source: C3 Data

The future of compliance could be in the palm of your hand. Matt Wright, chief marketing officer at C3 Data, describes how C3 Data has encapsulated everything required to be AMS2750 or CQI-9 compliant into one platform: a user-friendly system that can run on a smart phone. No more clipboards, spreadsheets, or post-it notes. Using optical character recognition, heat treaters can complete SATs in real-time. With QR codes, operators can scan thermocouples and access the appropriate table within a specification book.

To learn more about what C3 Data is doing to make compliance easier, listen to this episode of Heat Treat Radio.

"When I look at our industry, one of the things that is the biggest challenge is the flow of information — getting information from where it resides to where it needs to be in the format that it needs to be."

Heat Treat Radio: Justin Rydzewski and James Hawthorne on CQI-9 Rev.4 (Part 3 of 4) – Process Tables & New Resources

James Hawthorne
Corporate Heat Treat Specialist,
Acument Global Technologies

There's more new material in CQI-9 Rev. 4 than just pyrometry updates. James Hawthorne of Acument Global Technologies, zooms in on changes to CQI-9's process tables and new resources. One of these new resources, a glossary of terms used within the document, was created specifically because of end-user requests. Maintenance request forms, helpful illustrations, and informative figures are just a few other new resources added to the latest version of CQI-9.

"Read the document. Read as much of it as you can and try to understand as much as you possibly can."

To hear more about what's new in CQI-9 Rev.4, listen to this episode of Heat Treat Radio.

.

Search for heat treat solution providers and suppliers on Heat Treat Buyers Guide.com

4 Heat Treat Radio Episodes To Boost Your Confidence in Compliance Read More »

Aerospace Standards in the Heat Treating Industry

April 14, 2020 / AEROSPACE HEAT TREAT, AEROSPACE HEAT TREAT NEWS, FEATURED NEWS

Have you ever wondered how to create or revise AMS specifications? In this original Heat Treat Today Technical Tuesday feature, come along with Andrew Bassett, president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry and an expert in aerospace pyrometry specifications, as he shares his experience and knowledge in the process.

Author’s Note: These comments are the non-binding opinion of the author and do not constitute an interpretation by SAE. Such opinions do not replace the need to ensure agreement between the supplier, customer, and cognizant engineering organization.

This article originally appeared in Heat Treat Today’s March 2020 Aerospace print edition.

Those who are familiar with aerospace heat treating are accustomed to Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) that guide heat treaters on how to process parts and raw materials. These specifications will mandate equipment requirements, atmospheres to be used, cleaning methods, soaking times and temperatures, and testing requirements, to name a few. The working committee, Aerospace Metals Engineering Committee (AMEC), is in charge of revising these specifications, which is required every five years. This is a long and sometimes tedious process of revising specifications with many knowledgeable experts involved.

There are various types of specifications that have been established by the SAE Technical Standards Board:

Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS)
- These technical reports contain specific performance requirements and are used for material and process specifications conforming to sound established engineering and metallurgical practices in aerospace sciences and practices.
Aerospace Standards (AS)
- These technical reports contain specific performance requirements and are used for design standards, parts standards, minimum performance standards, quality, and other areas conforming to broadly accepted engineering practices or specifications for a material, product, process, procedure, or test method.
Aerospace Recommended Practice (ARP)
- These aerospace technical reports are documentations of practice, procedures, and technology that are intended as guides to standard engineering practices. Their content may be more general in nature, or they may offer data that has not yet gained broad acceptance.
Aerospace Information Report (AIR)
- These aerospace technical reports are compilations of engineering reference data, historical information, or educational material useful to the technical community.

To create or revise an Aerospace Specification, a “sponsor” of the specification will request to either create a new or revise an existing standard with the approval of the chairperson. Once the approval has been granted, the sponsor will work to create and/or revise the existing document. When the draft document is complete, the draft is balloted for a 28 Day Ballot. Members of AMEC can make comments on the ballot with either a “T” comment or an “I” comment. The “T” comment is a technical error, missing requirement, or improper requirement that needs action by the committee. All technical comments should be accompanied by a reason for the comment and a suggested improvement to resolve the issue. The “I” comment is a non-technical correction. These may include spelling and grammatical mistakes, incorrect paragraph numbering, and the like. Each “T” comment must be discussed and voted on by the committee members and approved or disapproved. During the ballot process, members are asked to “Approve” or “Disapprove” the ballot. This process goes on until no more changes are required to the draft before the document is sent to the appropriate commodity committees.

The illustration (Figure 1) describes the creation/revision process for given specifications.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Figure 1. Ballot Process Flowchart from SAE

The projects for the revisions to AMS-2759 series of specifications started in 2009/2010 with many of the draft revisions waiting in “parking lots” until all the specifications were completed. Since their release in 2018, several of these specifications had to be revised again due to missing or omitted requirements or small changes to clarify issues.

Over the last eighteen months, the heat treat industry has experienced new revisions to the following specifications (revision dates):

AMS-2759 Rev G Heat Treatment of Steel Parts General Requirements (04-23-19)
AMS-2759/1 Rev H Heat Treatment of Carbon and Low Alloy Steel Parts Minimum Tensile Strength Below 220 ksi (1517MPa) (09-19-19)
AMS-2759/2 Rev J Heat Treatment of Low Alloy Steel Parts Minimum Tensile Strength 220 ksi (1517MPa) and Higher (07-15-19)
AMS-2759/3 Rev H Heat Treatment Precipitation-Hardening Corrosion-Resistant, Maraging and Secondary Hardening Steel Parts (01/07/19)
AMS-2759/4 Rev D Heat Treatment Austenitic Corrosion-Resistant Steel Parts (04-28-18)
AMS-2759/5 Rev E Heat Treatment Martensitic Corrosion-Resistant Steel Parts (04-28-18)
AMS-2759/6 Rev C Gas Nitriding of Low Alloy Steel Parts (06-11-18)
AMS-2759/7 Rev D Carburizing and Heat Treatment of Carburizing Grade Steel Parts (04-15-19)
AMS-2759/8 Rev B Ion Nitriding (06-11-18)
AMS-2759/9 Rev E Hydrogen Embrittlement Relief (Baking) of Steel Parts (10-18-18)
AMS-2759/10 Rev B Automated Gaseous Nitriding Controlled by Nitriding Potential (06-11-18)
AMS-2759/11 Rev A Stress Relief of Steel Parts (04-28-18)
AMS-2759/12 Rev B Automated Gaseous Nitrocarburizing Controlled by Potentials (07-02-18)
AMS-2759/13 Gaseous Nitrocarburizing (06-11-18)
AMS-2769 Rev C Heat Treatment of Parts in Vacuum (07-12-19)
AMS-2770 Rev P Heat Treatment of Wrought Aluminum Alloy Parts (04-08-19)
ARP-1962 Rev B Training and Approval of Heat Treating Personnel (06-11-19)
ARP-7446 Vacuum Gauge Calibration (03-06-19) New ARP

There are several more projects underway that include the revision of AMS-H-6875, Heat Treatment of Steel Raw Materials that will become a four-digit AMS Specification, AMS-2774, Heat Treatment Wrought Nickel Alloy and Cobalt Alloy Parts, AMS-2801, Heat Treatment of Titanium Alloy Parts and AMS-2750, Pyrometry, to name a few. As new technology emerges, such as additive manufactured metal parts, AMS standards will need to be revised or created to address the thermal processing of these parts.

AMS-2750 (Pyrometry) is one of the more contentious specifications, which is currently under revision, because it is the main specification for the testing of thermal processing equipment. This specification not only has an effect on commercial heat treaters working in aerospace, but this specification has been adopted in chemical processing/coatings for baking/drying ovens, composites for curing and bonding laminates, and as of January 28, 2018, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health has added this standard to its list of recognized consensus standards database. For those who are heat treating medical devices such as needles, heart wires, titanium staples, and metallic joint replacements, AMS-2750 is now governing how the thermal processing equipment will be tested.

When I first became involved with AMEC in June 2008, the AMS-2750D (Pyrometry) was starting to be revised to AMS-2750E. I attended my first meeting in Niagara Falls, New York, with the expectation that I would be working only with a group of aerospace primes who write these standards. As it turned out, many of the members at AMEC are end users, such as captive and commercial heat treaters who are experts in the specifications in which they are involved. Since being in the field of pyrometry, I thought I would volunteer my time and expertise on the revision of AMS-2750. The sub-team group consisted of experts from Boeing, Honeywell, Carpenter Technology, Alcoa, Performance Review Institute (PRI), and Bodycote Thermal Processing with each team member bringing to the table his/her own knowledge and expertise in pyrometry. The process of revising this specification took four years to complete with numerous team meetings to discuss and propose changes to better clarify the previous revision. The final revision was finally published in July of 2012. Since then, I have been involved with other specifications such as AMS-2769 (Heat Treatment of Parts in a Vacuum), ARP-7446 (Vacuum Gauge Calibration), and the next revision of AMS-2750F.

Getting involved with AMEC and the various commodity groups is rewarding as it allows you to have a voice in the specifications that affect your business. You work with other members in the heat treat community to develop and create specification to enhance the industry, better the process, and continually strive to deliver quality parts or materials.

About the Author: Andrew Bassett is the president of Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry and is an expert in aerospace pyrometry specifications. He has 25 years of experience in the calibration and testing of thermal processing equipment. This article originally appeared in Heat Treat Today’s March 2020 Aerospace print edition.

Aerospace Standards in the Heat Treating Industry Read More »

40 Under 40 Class of 2019 Members Attending Heat Treat Show 2019

October 17, 2019 / HEAT TREAT NEWS INDUSTRIES

The Class of 2019 40 Under 40, revealed online on October 4, was featured at the Heat Treat Today booth at the Heat Treat Show in Detroit, Michigan. Here is a group photo of most of those still present on the last day:

Matt Watts (Ultra Electronics Energy), Mike Harrison (Gasbarre), Ben Gasbarre (Gasbarre), Tom Zimmerman (ATP), Chris Davidson (SSi), Neal Conway (Delta H), Brandon Sheldon (Plibrico), Kyle Hummel (Contour), Sergio Cantu (Quaker Houghton), Uwe Rahn (Rubig), Justin Dzik (Fives)

Several recipients stopped by to get their pictures taken alongside their photo on the pop-up banner. See the gallery below, and Click here to see the announcement of the full Class of 2019.

40 Under 40 Class of 2019 Members Attending Heat Treat Show 2019 Read More »

Aerospace Testing and Pyrometry