One Baseline, Fewer Errors: Why aerospace shot peening specifications should converge on AMS2430 and AMS2432

Author:  Walter Beach | Vice President | Peening Technologies
Source:  The Shot Peener magazine, Vol 40, Issue 4, Fall 2026
Doc ID:  2026059
Year of Publication:  2026
Abstract:  
HOW I ARRIVED AT THIS VIEW Before 2001, before shot peening became a special process audited through Nadcap, prime audits often lacked a clear, consistent structure. In my experience, one audit could look very different from the next, and findings sometimes seemed based more on individual interpretation than on a clearly defined specification requirement. I became involved with Nadcap from the beginning, helping develop the initial shot peening audit checklists. Our facility in East Hartford, Connecticut, became the first Nadcap-accredited shot peening facility. That was a major improvement: the audit process became more consistent, and the experience helped us strengthen our own internal procedures and documentation. But it was also obvious that more work remained. That led me to the SAE committees responsible for writing and revising the AMS and J specifications. For more than 20 years, I have worked with those committees to bring lessons from audits, customer specifications, and actual processing experience back into the industry standards. The long-term goal has been simple: strengthen the common standards enough that customers do not need to recreate the same process controls in separate proprietary specifications, reducing redundant requirements while preserving legitimate engineering differences.