These are about €8 now from Socata
M4x14. The countersink angle looks like 100 degrees. The material is soft stainless steel. Philips #2.
About 5 years ago they were €1.
There is nothing special about them, except they are accurately made, with a sharp corner on the head so they fit nicely flush with the inspection cover they hold down.
This M5x16 screw, also from Socata, is about €0.10
You can see the difference in the quality of the head.
I have just had a quote for GBP 1.70 plus 20% VAT, each, for 1000 of these, custom machined in A2 stainless steel to what looks like a high standard by a UK company so presumably one would get some sort of CofC
Not an EASA-1 form; to get that you would need to push them through a 145 company and they probably charge a few hundred quid for essentially bogus paperwork, but a non-AOC owner would not need an EASA-1.
I would be happy to front a syndicated purchase of 1000 of these, but obviously would want to have the money in the bank before doing this 
I would suggest 10 people buy 100 each. They are used in substantial quantity on TB aircraft. There are about 20-40 in the two inspection covers, and a further huge quantity (50?) holding on the fibreglass wingtips. Every time a “maintenance” company goes anywhere near the plane, a load of them need replacing because they chew the heads up with power screwdrivers.
I’ve edited the thread subject also
Views?
I have no need for them but I think it’s a great project!
If I owned a plane using them, and if they are really necessary to fit the fairings properly, I’d want several hundred in stock. Fairing screws get chewed up and thrown away on a regular cycle – that’s just life.
They are not necessary for mechanical reasons. You could use cheapo ones, but they would look crap.
The daft thing is that if I was a 145 company I would get 100k made in China, for probably (if the CNC turned brass parts and little springs we buy, 100k qty, are anything to go by) 10 pence each, and flog them with EASA-1 forms. The most expensive bit would be the laser printer toner.
Knowing Socata, they prob99 buy them from some obscure French company which makes screws for Airbus.
Somebody ought to post a link to this thread on the Socata owners’ group
The daft thing is that if I was a 145 company I would get 100k made in China, for probably (if the CNC turned brass parts and little springs we buy, 100k qty, are anything to go by) 10 pence each, and flog them with EASA-1 forms.
A Part 145 can not have parts produced by someone and sell them with a EASA certificate. You might want to have a look at the FAA-PMA system, which is the most cost efficient method for these kind of things.
That requires a production in the USA, unfortunatly EASA doesn’t have such an FAA-PMA system (yet). It would be good for European aviation.
A Part 145 can not have parts produced by someone and sell them with a EASA certificate.
There must be a misunderstanding because that is exactly what every EASA145 approved aviation parts distributor does. They buy in parts, with a CofC (which doesn’t have to be an EASA-1 form; for example it can be an 8130-3) and they generate the EASA-1 form.
You might want to have a look at the FAA-PMA system, which is the most cost efficient method for these kind of things.
I did look into this a while ago. It is complicated to do in Europe because you need to get your company approved by FAA visitors. You also need some kind of recognised QA process in place e.g. ISO9000. At my age I no longer have the appetite for that kind of crap… I don’t know of any Europe based FAA PMA manufacturer. It would be much easier to find one in the USA and get them to make for you whatever it is you want to make.
That requires a production in the USA,
It doesn’t actually require that (or didn’t when I looked into it).
unfortunatly EASA doesn’t have such an FAA-PMA system (yet). It would be good for European aviation.
It would be great but there would be much resistance in the trade. Without PMA parts, the US-reg GA scene would be dead. For example many magnetos are full of PMA parts now. I heard that EASA tried to stop the USA of PMA parts on EASA-reg aircraft, but they obviously have not been successful otherwise (to take just one example) every EASA-reg aircraft with a D3000 magneto would have been grounded for several years. I spoke to a UK CAA inspector about this once and he was horrified at what would happen if EASA did actually block it.
So I wonder if EASA not allowing PMA parts sold with an EASA-1 actually matters in practice.
There must be a misunderstanding because that is exactly what every EASA145 approved aviation parts distributor does.
EASA Part 145 is a maintenance organisation. It generally cannot produce parts. It can test/inspect parts, or overhaul parts. Parts can be recertified that way.
It would be great but there would be much resistance in the trade. Without PMA parts, the US-reg GA scene would be dead.
The same is true for Europe.
I meant to say that I don’t like that EASA doesn’t have PMA system of it’s own. There is a bi-lateral agreement on acceptance of some parts. FAA PMA accepted parts are generally accepted by EASA. However European manufacturers require a full design and production organisation to make similair parts. It would be good for aviation companies in Europe could also produce PMA parts (like your screws).
The cost of a PMA approval is much lower then a full certified design and production approval. Last time I checked, PMA was possible, but final construction should be done in USA. I would be interested in gaining PMA approvals if their would be EASA PMA as well (and possibility to export to USA as well under same agreement).
It would be good if FAA PMA could exist side by side to “EASA PMA”
PMA doesn’t apply to, and is not available on, standard parts like screws – generally MS or AN parts.
Also these “standard parts” are specifically excluded from the scope of the FAA “owner produced parts” regime.
So the only way I see anybody making these screws, and delivering them with the highest possible level of paperwork, even good enough for an AOC operated aircraft, would be to get them made by a firm which issues a CofC, and the “marketing firm” is 145 approved and has the generation of an EASA-1 form within its scope. Or is an FAA 145 company and generates an 8130-3, in the same way. But none of this is necessary for private GA and especially not for non-critical parts like these.
An interesting Q is whether a metric screw such as this is indeed an FAA “standard part”. It is not AN or MS, which are mostly UNC or UNF thread fasteners, NPT fittings, etc. I have never seen a metric AN/MS part. But I think it must be.
It turns out these M4 screws are custom (non standard). Their head is smaller than standard for an M4 CSK. The reason for this is that they need to be flush in ~1.6mm material, so the head is undersize.
The interesting thing is that somebody is paying over $10 for these tiny screws. I wonder who? If this is a microcosm of how the French work, it must cost an absolute fortune to operate an Airbus, compared to a Boeing. Think of all the ISO-thread (metric) hoses which are 10x to 20x the cost of NPT-thread hoses. Yet some US airlines have bought Airbuses. Maybe this is insignificant on the scale of what it costs to run an A330 etc?
Correction: these screws are now US$ 6.10 each from Socata.
PMA doesn’t apply to, and is not available on, standard parts like screws – generally MS or AN parts.
I think that is part of the trick. For example, for magnetos the screws, washers, nuts are available as PMA parts (they are non MS / AN parts).
German manufacturers seem to go for DIN parts, while French will go for their “own” parts.
An EASA part 145 can not produce a form with manufactured/new, it is not part of the scope of the EASA part 145. Might be different with FAA. Under EASA that would require a Part 21 (which can only manufacture), for repair they have to use a Part 145.
They have the same with FAA-PMA with these light weight starters for example (NL???) They are non repairable, even by themself. They only got production authorisation, no repair authorisation. It seems more an more companies follow this way, which is poor, because a simple repair would turn in expensive replacement (no spares, no repair authorisation, no repair manuals)
I am now getting some quotes from China for this one.
The quantity might have to be 2k or 5k in which case I would bag them up 100-up and flog them on Ebay A nonstandard screw like that should fly off the shelf.
