Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The joke of component certification and EASA 145 (ancient stock sold as serviceable)

Peter wrote:

I don’t think anybody who flies the plane would knowingly put in a 21 year old CB.

So given you know – are you sending them back?

Biggin Hill

Yes, the vendor is replacing them with new ones …. which cost £5 more

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Just got another one, from the same “top firm”, this time “only” 10 years old. The bag it came in is interesting

Britten Norman moved their IOW factory some years ago to the mainland, and it looks like they chucked out a load of old stock and flogged it to a willing 145 company which could print off nice EASA-1 forms

Working through the pile of CBs, it gets better… a couple more 19 year old ones

These 1A CBs are not carrying any significant current (they are basically for wire protection) so I will keep them. But it stinks.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

And it gets even better. It turns out that several of the 7277 CBs are actually 7274. Not possible of course, since the documentation was perfect. I have four 1A ones, which cost me about 30 quid each. And because the documentation is perfect, I will have a hard time sending them back

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Here’s another one. Just bought these, excuse the word, nipples. Top UK aviation parts supplier. Upon opening the package I realised this would be yet another case of somebody’s old stock. This company specialises in buying up old stock and their website even says so

The 2003 date on the JAR-1 form is optimistic; my estimate from the condition of the parts would be closer to 1953. The 2003 date is just the date when B-N were shutting down their place on the Isle of Wight and flogging off their old stock to whoever wanted to buy it, and being a JAA145 company they had the authority to generate a JAR-1 form.

The practical issue is that these are to be used in a fuel system and the slightest imperfection in the mating surface will cause a leak which cannot be solved by tightening up the nut… you will just split the nut. To be usable, they will have to be cleaned up and the mating surfaces polished.

What do people do when this happens? Do they send it back? Are they entitled to send it back, given that a part with good paperwork is by definition good? Put in some sealant and hope it doesn’t leak? These fittings should not use any sealant (except on the tapered thread).

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I am sending them back. Too corroded and pitted so they won’t clean up. I believe a stainless version is a AN816-6-6J (not sure though) but nobody seems to stock it.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

AN816 is deprecated since 2000. Replaced by
AS5194

AN816-6-6 becomes AS5194-0606
AN816-6-6J becomes AS5194J0606

There are 2 other stainless. Code K and R in the AS spec (K and S in the AN spec)

Nympsfield, United Kingdom

Ha, we ran into a fuel leak on a similar nipple a few months ago. Teflon didn’t cut it, but a touch of PRC did (so far..).

The problem is that you have nowhere to apply a sealant which guarantees it won’t get squeezed out into the fuel flow, and block something downstream.

On a tapered thread such as the one on this AN816 fitting, it is easy: you just put some on the thread, several threads away from the end. That is done where you want to be really sure it won’t leak. Most people don’t do it because you have to wait for the sealant to cure before pressurising the system to leak check it.

Many thanks Xtophe. I wonder how you have accumulated all this amazingly detailed knowledge However, I would make the observation that an aviation parts supplier should know all this and should cross-reference the parts. Also the AN etc parts are all over the world, referenced in aviation documents, IMs, STCs, etc.

Who decides which part numbers get deprecated? The Americans are still using the AN numbers everywhere, it seems.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Whoever owns the standard, here the US DoD, can drop it especially when someone else has an exactly matching standard.

Also your form 1 lists AN816-6. That’s differrent from AN816-6-6.
AN816-6 becomes AS5194-0604

Nympsfield, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top