Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Certificate of Conformity

Peter wrote:

A CofC may be a legal requirement by the national CAA, as A&C says it is in his case.

Yes, but neither the FAA or anyone else for that matter may ever even pay a visit to the manufacturer of standard parts. The factory could in principle be a warehouse selling cheap parts and CofCs, or a combination. The system relies on the industry itself checking up on the manufacturers. For Boeing for instance, it’s in their interest to do a continuous and thorough investigation and surveillance of the manufacturer. A re-seller may have a much larger interest in price over quality, and no one checks if the re-seller do a proper investigation of the manufacturers. The link is broken, a CofC is not worth anything, unless of course, the re-seller use the same manufacturers as the big industry players. And if they do, then a CofC is a redundant piece of paper, just like it is for Boeing. They have no use for, and don’t use CofCs.

I sometimes have to do certificates of conformity at work. Essentially MS Word, copy paste customer’s name, address, invoice number and product specification. If it looks really serious I might sign it and use the company stamp. But the customer should know all this already

This is usually for more regulated markets, e.g. medical (or aviation), where someone has to put a piece of paper in a file. Like supplier questionnaires, it’s unlikely the piece of paper is looked at before it’s put in the file, or ever looked at again.

In fact I got fed up doing it (it’s a waste of my time) and added a bit of text to our delivery notes saying that the delivery note is also the certificate of conformity. I know I’m not selling rubbish, so as far as I’m concerned it’s not necessary.

EGHP-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

In fact I got fed up doing it (it’s a waste of my time) and added a bit of text to our delivery notes saying that the delivery note is also the certificate of conformity. I know I’m not selling rubbish, so as far as I’m concerned it’s not necessary

We do the same

But some customers want a specific format.

The big problem is that you rarely find out if a particular customer has a really anally retarded “quality manager” who simply rules “do not buy from Company X” and Purchasing then goes elsewhere because everybody wants an easy life. Then “you” are happy because nobody has questioned your CofC. This is why so many companies got ISO9000. It’s junk, but it keeps the doors open. My little business never did ISO9000 but I have probably lost a lot of business by not having it. You get a consultant in for about 5k and he generates a load of forms and a quality manual; it’s all fake.

Yes, but neither the FAA or anyone else for that matter may ever even pay a visit to the manufacturer of standard parts. The factory could in principle be a warehouse selling cheap parts and CofCs, or a combination

Yes; it is worthless in reality.

It is like a non EASA145 company issuing EASA-1 forms, by renting the printing facility of a nearby EASA145 company. I got hammered here some years ago for saying this was pretty worthless, but the same guy then emailed me saying he does exactly that! Because he cannot afford his own 145, so a bunch of them share somebody’s 145…

The system is as good as the people operating it. In reality your best and probably only assurance of genuine parts is that nobody will bother counterfeiting an obscure part. I mean, if you bought a KLN94 on US Ebay, it’s not gonna be a fake, is it Or an APEM milspec toggle switch which is €100 or €10 on Ebay in original packaging (I like those). But a Canon camera battery on Amazon is about 90% likely to be a fake one.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

ISO9000. It’s junk

I’m so glad I’m not the only person who thinks that.

Peter wrote:

anally retarded “quality manager”

A few years ago we were the only people in Europe that stocked a particular product that conformed to a new quality standard in Brazil. We had an enquiry from a new customer, who sounded very desperate (so the price went up, of course ). They paid, we shipped the goods. I waited a few days, and called them trying to sell them other (non-Brazilian) products:

  • Customer: “are you ISO9001 certified?”
  • Me: “no”
  • Customer: “ we can’t buy from you then”
  • Me: “that’s odd, because we supplied you last week”
  • Customer: “impossible, we can only buy from ISO9001 certified companies”
  • Me: “it was you I spoke to last week, and here’s your order number”
  • Customer: “no, that could never have happened”
    And so on…
EGHP-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

The funny bit is when you (the mfg) don’t have ISO9000 so somebody who wants it buys your product via an ISO9000 stockist. We’ve had loads of that over the years.

This happens in aviation too. You can get an 8130-3 from some US parts stockist, covering a pile of bits, some of which they bought from non-145 manufacturers. And same in EASA-world; I posted loads of dodgy CofCs here over the years, like that 1968 p-clip – example. A CofC issued by a stockist is even more worthless than one issued by a manufacturer. As previous link shows, the stockist business is rife with old parts which were bought up from stocks from gone-bust airlines and which are sold simply as brand new.

The problem with us getting cynical like this is that it p1sses off everybody who works in the trade – because their livelihood relies on it. Then they go on strike and stop posting

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I just did a certificate of conformity at work. In this case, creating your own means your customer doesn’t find out who your supplier is

The only ones I know are 2cv handbrake Robin flap lever and 2cv door lock Robin canopy lock, but there must be millions

EGHP-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

You are now eminently qualified to start a 145 company

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
17 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top