To get an STC in EASA for a replacement pump is probably not that daunting of a task. I’ve heard it’s much easier there than FAA land these days, and once it’s EASA approved, the route to FAA approval is also much easier. If it’s a part that you can foresee a great need for – why not do it? Could be a good little investment anyway.
I had a conversation with a US based DAR (who specialises in generating STCs) regarding the term “form fit and function”. This is his reply:
Peter wrote:
But if the pump itself is gone…?
Buy cores.
IMHO, a certified Repair Station could develop an overhaul procedure that would be satis to the Administrator.
It has been claimed that is not an option. The POV put forward was that if there is no CMM (component maintenance manual) then a legal overhaul is not possible.
In practice, electric motors can be overhauled, but in most cases of oddball parts like this you have to do it off the books.
I have in the past used Trafford Rewinds for various non-aviation motors and they did every one at a very reasonable price.
But if the pump itself is gone…?
Peter – Why is’nt anyone “overhauling” the OEM pump ?
It might be enlightening to look at typical examples of some FAA certified types in 2016, the Globe/Temco Swift comes to mind. I wonder if there is one flying today with less 100 field approvals? 
More generically many of them have non factory engines and cowlings, non factory controls, non factory seats, non factory canopies, flush riveting, different fuel tanks, different panels and instruments, non factory landing gear hydraulics, basically non factory ummmm…. everything. The factory hasn’t existed for over 65 years, and neither have many of the component suppliers. I know one one that has a different wing section and no slots. Some of that gets done with STCs, some with Field Approvals based on old 337s (which if old enough can be used as approved data), some with new field approvals – which may take some FSDO shopping. The older and less well supported the type, the more the owners start to band together and figure out how to get things done as opposed to petty criticism of each other because somebody didn’t source their safety wire from the factory 
Beyond that, if the type is old enough and also unusual enough, there is likely to be nobody with authority who knows just what was original with any great precision, and the factory documentation won’t exist to that level of detail either. Welcome to the world of the ‘antiquer’ who owns and flies an FAA certified plane. There are actually practical advantages to flying an aircraft type for which most of the axe grinders are dead or overseas. Without data upon which to make a fuss, generally for tiddly little stuff nobody in FAA Land makes a fuss unless there is reason to do so.
Interesting, since the “official point of view” on the Socata owners’ group is the usual 100% strict one: this is it, no approved pump, and no other options.
Of course such a situation would suit Socata, whose tacit approval and support is needed for the owners’ group to exist in its present form.
Unfortunately Socata cannot get this fuel pump either so there are no winners either way…
Thanks fro the clarification
The FAA does not give a squat that you cannot find a replacement part for your acft. Not their problem.
Thankfully, there are “work arounds” as pointed out above, that are acceptable to the FAA in the vast majority of cases.
