Mil-STD-2219

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 10-17-2009 20:02

Milt

Mil-Std 2219 is *NOT* Cancelled.

Mil-Std 1595 (the other aerospace mil standard) has been substituted by AWS D17.1

Mil Std 2219A was published 18-Jul-2005
D17.1 was published in 2000

Expect 2219 to stay in effect until sometime after the next revision of D17 hits the streets.

2219 latest edition does reference and incorperate D17 performance and procedue qualification requirements.

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 10-17-2009 21:55

I check again on ASSIT Lawrence and it said it was cancell.

M.G.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 10-17-2009 22:13 Edited 10-19-2009 13:57

Milt

Check again.

MIL-STD-2219A w/CHANGE 1 was actually published 16 June 2008

Check it here.
http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD+(2000+-+2999)/MIL-STD-2219_CHANGE-1_10186/

copy and paste the entire url into your browser rather than clicking on the hyperlink

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 10-18-2009 15:01

Lawrence yes what you said is right MIL-STD-2219A w/CHANGE 1 was actually published 16 June 2008
but now it states Revision A Notice - Cancellation 04-SEP-2009. I also know that it might change again in another day are so.
M.G.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 10-18-2009 16:39

Milt

You are right!

I am wrong.

The Sept 2009 cancellation is news to me.. Thanks for pointing it out.

I did not expect the cancellation to take place until the next D17 revision.

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 10-18-2009 17:38

I just check every few days or so just to stay ahead of the game Lawrence glade I could help you this time because you and a lot other guys and gals has help me a great deal on this forum.

M.G.

By OBEWAN

Date 10-17-2009 22:31

Just because a spec is "cancelled" does not mean it can not be used. Here where I work, we continue to use lots and lots of old obsolete specs. As long as the customer agrees, there is nothing wrong or illegal with it. We grandfather in the old specs when the new specs are issued, and we sometimes say "inactive for new designs" on the cover page of the old specs when the new specs come out. We always use the latest rev of any spec called out though. We have thousands of detail parts that call out old specs. We would have to submit an engineering change to update each and every one to the new specs. It would take tens of thousands of man hours and years of waiting to get the customer approvals back. D17.1 does not cancel old existing drawing callouts on old drawings unless the customer or design authority requests a change (by my understanding). And, MIL-1595 is for weldor qualifications. D17.1 makes some allowances for MIL-1595 quals to be grandfathered of transferred to the new spec.

By 803056

Date 10-18-2009 15:11

The combination of MIL-STD-2219, MIL-STD-1595, and AWS D17.1 is the cluster-fuxk of all time. Sorry to say AWS totally missed the boat with their version of D17.1. It is impossible to qualify a welder to D17.1. There is no bend radius listed using D17.1. You are forced to refer to MIL-STD-1595 in order to perform a bend test. The kicker is there is no thread to follow from D17.1 to MIL-STD-1595.

D17.1 was a chance in a lifetime of harmonizing the military welding standards for aerospace application with AWS B2.1 with regards to M numbers, F numbers, etc. Poof! They missed it, the boat has left the dock, the train has left the station, the plane has left, oops, there it is at the end of the runway, nose gear in the mud!

Best regards - Al

By Milton Gravitt (***)

Date 10-18-2009 17:31

Now don't hold anything back Al.LOL
M.G.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 10-18-2009 18:01

So is the Ti BS that a few codes and standards have come up with also... Al please don't get me started on down that road also!!! ROTFLMFAO!!! :) :) :) :) :)

Respectfully,
Henry

By OBEWAN

Date 10-19-2009 13:17

Yes I agree. Just this morning we had a vendor ask if he could transfer his 1595 certs to a D17.1 callout on one of our drawings.

I double checked both specs just to be sure. While the same tests are used, the acceptance limits may be different. In some cases they are more strict in D17.1 and in some cases more liberal in D17.1. If a qual specimen is clean with no indications a direct transfer is possible, but if there were indications, it would need to be reflected in the paperwork and reviewed against the "new" limits in D17.1. The problem is our QA tech does not record indication sizes on certs. She justs says pass/fail. While we rarely if ever see indications in quals, it puts me in a gray area if I just say transfer with no review of prior data. But, that is exactly what one of our divisions has done. For the next 5 years of so they say they will accept all 1595 certs as equal to D17.1.

By Ke1thk

Date 10-21-2009 12:43

I've seen many Codes and Standards that accept qualification transfers from one to the other if and only if you receive the blessing from the customer. It could save a fortune in costs.

A problem is time. Some customers resell the parts I make to a final customer and don't want to risk my being wrong (not being able to ship parts due to no welding procedure).

Another problem is knowledge. Other customers wouldn’t know a bare stainless steel rod from a bare aluminum rod. They don't have the time or capacity to understand my request and insist on a new set of welding documents.

I bring the transfer option to their attention to satisfy my own ethical standards, but make more money with their decision.

Keith