Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Revalidation of used parts e.g. removed from other aircraft

I’ve merged above posts into an existing thread on same topic.

@fly310 what you describe is more or less exactly the system we have for many years for EASA-reg. Used parts had to come with a Form 1. And a Form 1 can be issued (with some odd exceptions – example) only by an EASA 145 company.

There were workarounds “on the ground” but nobody ever talked about them openly. One company owner said he could transplant a part from a plane (that was my Q to him) if the plane had a CofA at the time. This applied also to removing from a crashed plane (whose CofA was not valid post-crash ). IMHO, all this was just his imagination… @wigglyamp can post a historical rundown, I am sure.

Then we got this which was actually around for years but was kept very quiet (I’d say, predictably, not surprisingly). Now this concession is hard to use. I’d say impossible to use, if the company wants to be a bit anal.

Best approach is to do this off the books but many/most pilots have no opportunity to do that because they are in a tight grip of some company.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As far as I know:
Used parts require a Form 1, this can only be issued at the same time as the part is removed from its donor. So, according to EASA(and many national regulations), you can not inspect a part and install it in the same manner as you can in FAA land. This is a shame.

Let’s say that you have two identical aircraft in your hangar with the exact same instrumentation. You are allowed to remove parts during maintenance and put them back on the same individual aircraft without a Form 1. But you are not allowed to replace a part with an identical one from an identical aircraft.

Another issue with Form 1 is that it can only be issued by an organisation, so any parts removed by an independent mechanic are more or less useless for another certified aircraft. This system is a “spare parts killer” once they slip out of the system.

Last Edited by Fly310 at 26 Apr 13:30
ESSZ, Sweden

Parts without EASA-1

That concession is unfortunately now almost worthless – see near the end of the thread.

Your mechanic is doing what almost everybody is doing: trying to put bread on the table at home. A €1000 Socata part puts €250 on the table at home, whereas an owner supplied part puts €0 on the table.

If you are N-reg (most of the worldwide ruddervator issue) then an FAA A&P can authorise a part by inspection.

The comment about “EASA approved supplier” is laughable. No such thing, never was. I hope he is smart enough to correctly set up a torque wrench when tightening your cylinder bolts (I would have strong doubts).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

dutch_flyer wrote:

eBay is not an approved EASA supplier

This is totally irrelevant there is no such requirement in part-ML. A requirement for an EASA form 1 could in principle be relevant, but if the parts on eBay are original TB10 parts, it should be possible to use them as owner-approved parts even with the recent restrictions.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I have been struggling to get a specific door latch part from Daher for my TB10. They have it in their pipeline, but production keeps getting delayed. Meanwhile I found several complete assemblies on eBay, and I asked my mechanic if I could purchase one of these and use the relevant part. I was informed that this is not possible, because eBay is not an approved EASA supplier and I cannot supply parts directly for the same reason. I was very surprised by this, and wonder how the used aircraft parts market functions if this is the case.

I asked about this, and used the example of supply problems such as the infamous V35 ruddervator, which at this point can only be obtained from a salvaged aircraft. I was told that whoever buys the rights to supply parts is obligated to do so, yet I hear stories (like the ruddervator) where this isn’t happening. Can someone shed light on this whole situation?

EHRD, Netherlands

This is also relevant.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I merged a couple of threads on the same topic.

I can see many clauses in the above why this MA613 concession is worthless in real life. For example

The organisation should ensure that the component was removed from the aircraft by an appropriately qualified person.

The aircraft component may only be deemed serviceable if the last flight operation with the component fitted revealed no faults on that component or related system.

The aircraft record should be researched for any unusual events that could affect the serviceability of the aircraft component such as involvement in accidents, incidents, heavy landings or lightning strikes. Under no circumstances may an EASA Form 1 be issued in accordance with this paragraph 2.6 if it is suspected that the aircraft component has been subjected to extremes of stress, temperatures or immersion which could affect its operation.

A maintenance history record should be available for all used serialised aircraft components.

each separately render most aircraft parting-out sources worthless.

It seems to me that this procedure is useful only if the donor aircraft is being dismantled at an EASA 145 facility which also used to maintain it.

So I am sure other processes are also used in reality – as described earlier in this thread and perhaps not too different from the N-reg process

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Thanks a lot! Just what i was looking for.

See M.A.613:

Avionics geek.
Somewhere remote in Devon, UK.

By accident I met a guy who has a complete tail of a crash landed SR22, same year as mine and only some serial numbers apart. The elevators, rudder and many other parts are in perfect condition, not even light dents, there’s also the pitch trim motor and many small parts of course.

Could these parts be declared airworthy spare parts? How does that work?

93 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top