Was reading through stuff and found this list of critical PMA parts according to OSAC (French ARC manager, document G -24 -00) :
Piston engines :
-Crankshafts;
-Connecting Rod Assemblies;
-Pistons;
-Wrist Pins;
-Cylinders;
-Cylinder Heads;
-Engine Mounts;
-Crankcase;
-Crankshaft Bearings;
-Valve Train (valves, valve springs, rocker shaftassembly, pushrods, camshafts);
-Fuel Delivery Systems (carburetors, injectors, fuel pumps).
At each ARC review, an up-to-date list of the PMA critical parts must be provided to the inspector with their limitations (time, calendar) and their CoC ( or whatever document is provided).
So it seems they are approved as long as listed and their limitations followed.
Is a cylinder a “critical” part ? Hard to believe it isn’t.
Are Superior cylinders installed on EASA regs ?
I was digging around for something and came across this on an obscure EASA site:
and the answer given was
Not sure I understand it, but it does sound like one of those combinations of requirements which nobody can satisfy in practice 
After some discussion elsewhere, it appears the answer to my question
“Can a pilot, performing maintenance within pilot privileges, substitute a PMAd or STDd part?”
is YES.
It has to be YES because if it was NO then we would have the ludicrous situation where a maintenance company could install e.g. a PMA oil filter (e.g. Tempest) but a pilot, exercising his pilot maintenance privileges, would have to source the original part listed in the MM (e.g. Champion, but it could be one which does not even exist anymore).
The LED lamp argument is not applicable, but if an LED was PMA for an incandescent lamp (P/N for P/N exactly) then clearly the pilot could install it. Also this is the wrong thread for LED lamps – there is a link above to the LED thread.
Michael wrote:
I’m always surprised that almost no one ever asks to see my licence or do any due-diligence whatsoever .
At least FAA certificates can be checked online by anyone…
Jesse wrote:
and some of them will commit fraud.
Funny you should bring this up: Just last week, I was contacted by the Gendarmerie. They want to talk to me about a plane that I inspected about 18 months ago. Seems the person that was “managing” the plane, as well as a dozen other planes, had been forging log—book entries and a mechanics’ License. He’s been in the slammer for the last 2 months and probably will do another couple of months before being tried for forgery and fraud.
I’m always surprised that almost no one ever asks to see my licence or do any due-diligence whatsoever .
Peter wrote:
But if there isn’t, or it is insufficient, the owner (in 99.9% of cases) would never realise there isn’t.
When outside CAMO the owner is 100% responsible for this kind of things. This is also why I think it would be better to always have a good relationship with a maintenance organisation or engineer. Even outside of CAMO they can help you with this kind of issues. And the rules and regulations and all paperwork / manuals are very time consuming and expensive.
I think then most people who organize all maintenance themselfs, don’t have access to all manuals for example, and basically can not perform the job.
The fact is that customers often try to bring in their own equipment. Often without correct paperwork etc, to lower the pricing. In fact this is 99.9% more expensive then buying the equipment trough the maintenance organisation. The paperwork if their is quite often not acceptable etc.
A good example was with ELTs. Where I quoted Kannad ELT’s, and the customer found elsewhere a lower priced ELT (basic pricing). The it needed programming and shipping from the US (as hazardous material). I charge a fee for bring in equipment yourself, as it takes more time from me, and yes I also loose money trough this, while customers would come to me for warranty if something doesn’t function. Before installation I would check it, and found out that ELT programming is done incorrect. This means the ELT eithers needs to be returned under warranty (shipping both ways excluded from warranty) or you have to have it locally repogrammed. At that point your allready far more expensive.
Peter wrote:
I know a UK 145 company which thinks they can write out a 337 for a job on an N-reg and stick it in the logbook.
This damages European companies, as you suggest this happens all the time. For sure anyone could make mistakes, and some of them will commit fraud. This happens not only in the UK, not only on Part 145. It also happens in your business, American companies, certified aviation companies and mechanics. Your bad experiance with this company is not representative for every company or person working under EASA regulations.
But if there isn’t, or it is insufficient, the owner (in 99.9% of cases) would never realise there isn’t.
I know a UK 145 company which thinks they can write out a 337 for a job on an N-reg and stick it in the logbook.
Peter wrote:
Really? I cannot see any bashing going on.
I was pointing to this:
Peter wrote:
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.
It doesn’t matter that this is a UK maintenance company. If an IA would made the same comment on this pump on an N reg, he would have a valid point as well, Michaels post support that the eligiblity is also to be followed on N reg. So it has nothing to do with EASA / UK / G-Reg
So in the past someone might have put the wrong pump in, this could be anyone as the story doesn’t tell. This is the disturbing part, not the company trying to correct this.
It still could be legal, if it has approved in a different way, using an STC, minor change, or as AnthonyQ mentioned trough the TC holder. In those cases there should be documentation to show this.
