Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

EASA and FAA-PMA parts

It has been repeatedly stated (e.g. here ) that EASA accepts FAA-PMA parts in most cases.

However I have just read a disturbing story of a UK maintenance company forcing a G-reg TB9 PMA fuel pump to be replaced before they will sign off the Annual.

That is 1000 quid chucked out, just for a laugh. The item is a FACET 476284E fuel pump, which was replaced with a PMA part. The pump seems to have an interesting original use

Does anyone have a reference to the EASA FAA-PMA acceptance regs?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

It depends if this fuel pump is classified as an critical part or not. Many IMHO critical parts are considered non critical, which is enable you to use them (magneto’s, magneto breaker point, coils, ignition cables etc.)

EASA Accepts FAA-PMA parts in some cases according ED 2007/003/C [ local copy ]

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

Thanks for that document, Jesse.

However, the wording

should mean that most currently-PMA parts could not be acceptable. Basically the whole Bendix mag overhaul business runs on PMA parts, and a mag is a whole lot more critical than a backup electric fuel pump.

Also many other parts on an aircraft have a “replacement time or interval” specified in the MM.

So clearly that document is being widely disregarded, and I wonder what the real guidelines are. On this basis, the entire EASA-reg GA fleet with Bendix mags is grounded right now

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

should mean that most currently-PMA parts could not be acceptable. Basically the whole Bendix mag overhaul business runs on PMA parts, and a mag is a whole lot more critical than a backup electric fuel pump.

You refer to typical usage. However, block 13 makes a difference. If it is non critical or licensed by manufacturer as stated in block 13 (which most components are) this exclusion is not the case.

With this fuel pump it likely doesn’t have one of those statements, or this aircraft / engine is not on the eligible list, in those cases the statements of this company could be correct.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

I just looked up 476284E which seems to be using PMA P/N CA476294E which is eligible for installation on several types of Beechcraft only. It does not mention any Socata. So if using this P/N the answer from the UK maintenance company is 100% logical.

I don’t know if you would be able to install these parts on an N Reg outside the elgibility scope.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

It was however installed by another UK CAA or EASA Part M company, apparently.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

It was however installed by another UK CAA or EASA Part M company, apparently.

Why bash a company? It could be a mechanic or owner as well. Lots of illegal installations are done outside “controlled areas”

I once was called by a maintenance company to have a look at a transponder installation. Their customer suggested it was installed by a certain company, where I was 100% sure it wasn’t. This was definitly installed by themselfs, using dimmer wire as positive power, making the transponder operation depending on the dimmer.

With this fuel pump however it seems that this has not been done correctly IMHO. It could be that it was done before this ED, and that it was eligble at that time. Logentries would show this, and then it wouldn’t be an ARC issue.

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

@Michael Not sure on FAA, can you install a PMA part without anything else then a logbook entry if the aircraft is outside the PMA eligibility scope? If so what is eligibility used for and why does an PMA company have to show compliance for this eligibility list?

JP-Avionics
EHMZ

This sounds to me like people are going way over the top with the concerns about PMA parts, I don’t think there would be a Cessna flying in Europe if you removed the PMA parts manufactured by McFarlane from the fleet.

Jesse wrote:

on FAA, can you install a PMA part without anything else then a logbook entry if the aircraft is outside the PMA eligibility scope?

No, otherwise what good is the eligibility list good for ?

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN
19 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top