My point was that the MS21042 is a widely used standard part, not particular to the instance shown in that AD. So if your shop uses that nut, it could be on loads of aircraft types that you maintain. How would you address that if you had no traceability of the parts?
Were the dodgy nuts supplied by a well known disti?
Peter
Here’s something closer to your own work environment. Again, if you have proper batch tracking it would help to address the quarantine requirements as you would know where you’d used the bits:
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/UPN_201620121019011.pdf/SIB_UPN2016-20121019011_1
Hmmm…..
That is like the photo of the fake Hitachi chip I posted in the link above.
There is however a slight problem: these fake chips don’t actually work 
In most cases the plastic package doesn’t contain any silicon. It just has the right number of legs… the way the fake parts work is that you sell 10k of them to somebody, at say $10 each, so you run off with $100k, maybe more if you did it to more than one customer, and then you move to another part. Nobody can make fake working chips with a few million transistors.
I don’t know why the FAA generated that notice. There is no actual safety hazard.
Here’s the document I was trying to find about defective standard parts. If a faulty batch is confirmed it’s even more essential to know where more of them have been used.
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/SIB_201206_R2_Defective_Standard_Hardware.pdf/SIB_2012-06R2_1
Peter wrote:
I don’t know why the FAA generated that notice. There is no actual safety hazard.
The yield in microprocessor production is less than 100%. What if someone just collected rejected processors, put fake markings on the package and sold them? The problems may not be immediately evident.
Peter wrote:
There is however a slight problem: these fake chips don’t actually work In most cases the plastic package doesn’t contain any silicon
You make incorrect assumptions all the time. I have seen, at another avionics shop, they had an issue with a display, giving invalid data flags every now and then. That shop used my ARINC analyzer/generator. The problem occured both on aircraft, with their tester and my tester. It was later found that these ARINC translater chips where bought from another supplier then the manufacturer regular supplier. Units from regulier supplier didn’t show this behaviour.
It was found that the ESD protection on these fake once was basically non consistant, either because it wasn’t in or these where damaged due incorrect handling at this supplier.
In cases like this it is important to know which in this case new units where delivered with this translator chip as well as which units have been repaired with these chips. Airbone_Again makes another valid argument.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The yield in microprocessor production is less than 100%. What if someone just collected rejected processors, put fake markings on the package and sold them? The problems may not be immediately evident.
Another example from a while ago is where magneto contact assy had a poor batch. These don’t have S/N’s, so you would have to use batch numbers and companies should take this serious. Are you will to pay for parts, labour and shipping to have your magneto removed, points renewed tested and reinstalled anyway? And accept the downtime which comes with that? I think you would post that this stupid Part 145 replaces your parts for no good reason.
Peter wrote:
but if it was me I would just replace any I see. I am sure the client would agree.
I don’t think so for the project above. Or what about parts inside the engine without S/N. Would you pay to have all your cilinders pulled because they know there is a badge of poor parts, but lacking tracibility it would be unsure if these are used on your engine? Don’t think you would happily pay for that one.
There are sufficient other examples.
Peter wrote:
That is exactly what every maintenance/avionics shop I have ever visited does, even though the result is that traceability is not maintained for trivial items. Most shops will keep the paperwork straight for major stuff e.g. whole radios, and anything else in general maintenance that has a serial number (which is basically large items e.g. landing gear legs, elevators, etc).
This is not fair, that is not the way how it works at our facility or at WigglyAmp’s shop. I am quite sure that the large majority of shops do this right. Especially Part 145 ones with external and auditing several times a year. An yes, showing tracibility and used parts on a project is one of the items that is done during such audits.
Peter wrote:
Very few general maintenance items have a serial or batch number. I have just bought the complete Annual parts kit for the TB20, plus extra bits which need doing, and not a single item has any numbering on it (serial or batch). But I have EASA-1 forms for the whole lot.
So you have traceability for these parts. You should keep track of which parts are used when and where.
Peter wrote:
but there is a huge practical difference: in the FAA system you don’t need the Form 1 for most items, so you don’t get the situation which we have in Europe which is that “Form 1 = genuine and perfect item”
That is not true. There is this regulation that you don’t need an Form 1 for all parts. Posted on this before. You are just trying to give an EASA a bad name, without valid arguments. The same is true for European maintenance shops, which is not fair.
Jesse – you are moving goalposts all the time.
Who is going make bogus ARINC429 chips? That is about the most specialised area possible. What probably happened in this case was that the original design of the product was marginal (on signal timing perhaps) so that only a particular batch of the chip worked properly, and a different batch exposed the problem, and the equipment maker tried to hide behind the “fake parts” assertion. And if the ARINC chip was just an interface chip (unlike one of the self contained UART + interface chips) then they just used the wrong one. ESD protection being relevant? Only in the most extremely negligent factory environments, and then they will have loads of other problems.
Also nobody will make fake Intel 186 processors, that actually work i.e. aren’t empty packages. Many years ago I worked with a guy whose next job was to see if he can make a fake 186 (because they were in a short supply at one point in the 1980s). It turned out to be a massive job. Today, one could synthesise a 186 in an FPGA but it would be about a man-year for a really really clever CPU designer, and the FPGA would cost more than the original chip. Also anything using the 186 today is pretty obsolete…
What A_A is saying is possible (theft inside Intel) but Intel probably have not made these chips for 20 years. Any equipment using them still in production is likely working from a large “strategic stock”, or they are buying them on Ebay (one company I know does buy 1980s chips on Ebay, for an item which they can’t afford to redesign).
I will give up this debate now because it just gets moved sideways at every post.
Peter,
This is just showing real world examples, which happend in the Netherlands. It shows a good reason for using EASA Form 1 and shows the need of tracebility.
The reason why I reject so strong, and I guess this will be the same for Wiggly Amp, is that I at least don’t recognize the way in run may shop in your general views. I also visit many other shops for testing, and I don’t recognize your points at those shops either.
We are not monkeys, who want to sell only the most expensive equipment as we make the most money on that. I think the most love general aviation, which is show that we spend quite some time to educate people, without promoting our own shop. Often we spend time to educate people on make the best decission for the situation. Sometimes that results in pricing lower then expects, sometimes higher then expected.
Some of the American contributors are pure commercial and just only ask for reviews, or promote there own equipment. I never have seen such with Wiggly Amp, A&C, Michael or myself. I have always found their posts very informative.
Your, and also others questions and answers from the communitee is which what make this website valueable. Being negative on French pilots, EASA, or maintenance shops doesn’t help to increase the value of your great website, actually it is IMHO the opposite. I hope you will continue to run this forum with great question, but stop being negative on these points.
Wow that’s quite a list, Jesse… surely you can think of more items which people have moaned about in the last four years?
From what I hear by email, you have got probably well into five figures worth of business from EuroGA.
Peter wrote:
Wow that’s quite a list, Jesse… surely you can think of more items which people have moaned about in the last four years?
I think this is the main point. Lets keep positive, and don’t become like many other forum which are either paid only, or full of bashing.
Don’t get me wrong. I really appriciate all the effort you put into EuroGA. It’s a pity however that some contributing people have left EuroGA.
Sure I get more business exposure and thus work out of EuroGA. Though IMHO this is due to be very open, and be helpfull, also for those who aren’t a customer.
