One of the aircraft manufacturers that we deal with ( & I’m not telling you who ) are happy for us to fit some parts that we sorce direct from the original part manufacturer provided we have a certificate of conformity with the item. This results in a considerable cost saving for our customers.
provided we have a certificate of conformity with the item
That (a CofC) was exactly the UK position per CAP747 (see my article linked earlier – just updated it with the latest EASA “position” on ELA1/2) for many years, even though very few people knew about it and the JAR-1 form was demanded by most firms – as the EASA-1 form is demanded today albeit with more apparent support because EASA seems to be trying to tighten its parts industry revenue protection to exclude the CofC route.
Peter wrote:
because EASA seems to be trying to tighten its parts industry revenue protection
Sorry Peter, but what has EASA done with you? This EASA regulation is a follow up from many national regulations, so in general are quite similair for the old regulations. That you like FAA over EASA is absolutely fine, but these comments don’t make sense at all.
Peter wrote:
What you are now illustrating is the widespread industry practice of custom-labelling aviation versions of otherwise identifiable as identical commercial parts, to ensure that
You are consedering that these parts are identical based on the looks. Some aircraft use Ford Alternators, yet they are different from Ford automotive alternators. Fuel injectors on Thielert engines are different from their Mercedes / Bosch automative variant. These parts look similair but are not.
That you can just install these parts, and it gets unnoticed can be good for you or anyone using this procedure. This will generate the can of worms you often refer to when changing owner / maintenance organisation / IA / CAMO / Registration.
No Jesse I am not, but let’s leave it at that, because I have already described it in enough detail.
Post moved from here
Also remember you don’t need (and shouldn’t expect to receive) an EASA Form 1 or 8130-3 for standard parts such as nuts/bolts, O rings, P-clips etc where the parts are manufactured to an international specification available to anyone in the public domain. So this applies to MS, AN etc parts. For these you only require a C of C but it must trace to the original manufacturer and not be just a C of C generated by a stockist.
Also remember you don’t need (and shouldn’t expect to receive) an EASA Form 1 or 8130-3 for standard parts such as nuts/bolts, O rings, P-clips etc where the parts are manufactured to an international specification available to anyone in the public domain. So this applies to MS, AN etc parts.
It would appear that the metric parts routinely used on e.g. Socata aircraft do not fall into the above, since most of them are unusual parts made by variously obscure French companies.
AN, MS parts are imperial sizes.
I get EASA-1 forms with everything, even a M5 screw, etc. I have a pile of them right here. Of course these small parts have no serial numbers…
For these you only require a C of C but it must trace to the original manufacturer and not be just a C of C generated by a stockist.
Is there a reference for this?
A “stockist” can operate a variety of systems. You can get ISO9000 while stocking and selling absolute crap, although you can write in your quality manual that you do checks on your suppliers, defective stock is segregated (no, really??) etc.
A better system would implement item or batch traceability. But that cannot ever really work on items which have no serial or batch numbers. All you can operate is a “policy”, staff vetting, a locked store-room, etc.
See M.A.501c, 501(d)6 and the associated AMC. It’s because of the need for full batch traceability that you need manufacturer data and not just a. stockist certificate.
Peter wrote:
It would appear that the metric parts routinely used on e.g. Socata aircraft do not fall into the above
That is because Socata didn’t choose to use standard hardware (you should compare this to an American aircraft manufacture which doesn’t use MS/AN/NAS etc)
Why they didn’t do so, has nothing to do with EASA or FAA. It’s just a decission made by Socata. IMHO a stupid one.
Peter wrote:
AN, MS parts are imperial sizes.
Metric parts often are DIN or ISO standard. These are very common on Diamond aircraft for example, but also in the glider world these standards are used in aviation.
WOW 253 pages on what paperwork is needed!
This is for private aircraft?
So every screw, washer and nut needs this?
This was almost never implemented before. Let’s say you are screwing an altimeter into the panel. One would go to a bin of oddball parts and get them out of there.
