Sealant shelf life 2

[Dan320]

Some people at my company wants to use PR1422 after the shelf-life has expired for economic reasons. Shelf-life is stated to be "at least 9 mo. when stored btw 40 and 60 F". Intended use after 9 mo. will be secondary sealing like floor boards, cargo liners etc. Not for structural repairs.
Being the one to write the instructions for the extended usage I am at loss as to whether this is possible and how long the extension might be.
The request is for 3 extra months.

Brgds
Dan

 

[bf109g]

Been there, done that. I usually looked to BSS7002 for cases like this. The FAA generally accepted that as a reference for any action I took regarding expired material.

I believe BSS7002 allowed PR 1422 to be used based on its appearance. If the user isn't happy with the way it looks based on previous experience, don't use it.

 

[Dan320]

Thanks, bf109g.

Meanwhile I discovered a huge number of outdated sem-kits. Will test them and see at what age they fail to e.g. cure.

I do not have access to BSS7002.

Dan

 

[Neubaten]

PR1422 meets AMS-S-8802


Yes the shelf life is 9 months.

But, good news, you can retest your material and extend the shelf life an additional 3 months if results are OK. You can retest up to three times.
Take a look at AMS-S-8802 for further details.

If you don't do this you are going to aeronautic's hell with eternal damnation.

 

[Dan320]

OOOh, I do not want to go to aeronautic's hell, I'll call AMS right away.

 

[rerig]

bf109g

Be careful referencing BSS 7002.
Even though this is a current Boeing document, Boeing does not allow this to be referenced for Shelf/Shop life requirements. They said this was for a specific program and can not be used for general reference.
I was trying to clarify a BSS7002 disparity and was chastised by the Spec owner for using it, even though it is still current.

 

[bf109g]

Curious. You say it is for a specific program, yet it is specific enough in that it identifies materials by OEM designation. Don't see how that works - I would think that if a material is good for X and can be used per Y, the program wouldn't matter. Sounds like they don't want to have to defend the document if it should ever come up. Kind of like the old fastener guides.

In any event, I'm no longer in a position where I need to make these dispositions. I just provided my experience using BSS7002 as data acceptable to the FAA while working at XXX. Most of what I looked at was minutia like, believe it or not, tape. Anything like structural adhesives, sealants or protective coatings were kept to strict performance specfication requirements.

 

[Dan320]

Thanks for your input.
I believe BSS 7002 is only a legal document within Boeing. It is generated by Boeing for Boeing use.
However, it is a good reference basis for your own organisation' s standards.

Dan