BINDT aerospace event in Bristol

At the beginning of April, I attended an actual physical event in the form of the BINDT Aerospace Event in Bristol. The event was comfortable, with fewer exhibitors and delegates, which was better as it was easier to avoid overcrowding and bottlenecks. The exhibitors were suitably professional and settled into their usual mode of operations; it was like the last two years were forgotten. The delegates soon found their way around the building but were probably quieter than in pre-COVID times, what with there being fewer of them. The presenters were soon back into the swing of things and gave interesting and informative presentations on their specific topics. It was encouraging to know that the academics are still working on ever more technical solutions to issues being encountered in the aerospace sector. One of the presentations covered the use of remote inspection and I related this to the divers and topside technicians that have been used in the oil & gas sector, in particular, for years. I wondered if the aerospace sector had communicated with the subsea sector to see if any lessons could be learned from them on remote testing. The aerospace sector was looking to deploy Level 1 testers who could be remotely supervised by Level 2 and/or Level 3 testers, akin to the subsea practices, the main difference being the use of wireless connections in the aerospace sector rather than the umbilical connections used for subsea work.

BS EN ISO 9712:2022 has now been published to complement ISO 9712:2021 and there is already a call from the ISO group to look at the next revision, especially surrounding the method technologies such as ultrasonic testing and guided wave testing. I would like to see more control of the training organisations, which are not regulated under the requirements and have a significant way to go to catch up with the PCN network that must provide training materials covering the theoretical syllabus, equipment, specimens and staff, plus auditing of said factors. The PCN Scheme and some of the other schemes are already doing this, but the other schemes are not as well equipped.

In conversation with a tester who had been comparing an older digital ultrasonic set with a newer model and a greater range of transducers, the conclusion was that the older set-up favoured the client that preferred not to have too many defects located. 
The newer set and wider range of transducers were locating more flaws and these were often outside the specification’s tolerances for defects. Providing the tester is working to the agreed specification and instructions with the agreed equipment, they are providing an acceptable test. Should the company-appointed Level 3 and/or clients be reviewing their testing parameters considering the advances in equipment or, as the specifications were authored when the mature equipment was the current equipment and the safety calculations were made using these now outdated abilities, is it acceptable to continue using them?

In England, the apprenticeships are continuing well, with the effects of the COVID lockdowns and furlough becoming less significant as industry is catching up for lost time, though I may regret saying this as the COVID numbers continue to rise. Keep well.