AME's who are thieves Part Duh

[photofly]

But that's the point, It DOESN'T conform to FAA parts supply requirements.

In what way(s) doesn't it?

By the way, have you seen this?
http://www.aircraftspruce.ca/canada_tra ... roved.html

I've used 4 different AME's and AMO's over the last few years, across all different price ranges, and they all buy and install parts from AS. Are they all doing it wrong?

[Colonel Sanders]

Everyone uses parts from Spruce. CID lives on another planet.

[CID]

Colonel Saunders, sorry but you don't have a clue. Yes, everyone uses parts from Aircaft Spruce but as my post stated they often give the buyer an option buy parts with no 8130-3 form. From their website:

Aircraft Spruce provides you with its own Certificate of Conformance for our products at no charge. This is noted on every invoice. Factory certification and test reports are available on some items and 8130 Forms are available on FAA approved products. A cost of $25-$100 per product is charged to secure these forms.

Please inquire at time of order if test reports/8130 Forms are available for the items you are ordering. If available, the forms must be requested at time of order and the product must be special-ordered from the factory with the forms. These forms cannot be furnished after you receive the product. Anticipate shipping delays if 8130 Forms are requested.

Do not order products using catalog part number if you require 8130 forms, as you will receive standard parts without the form. Simply describe the part and specifically request Form 8130. Due to delays and costs involved in furnishing these forms, we strongly suggest that you check to see if the Aircraft Spruce Certificate of Conformance will be acceptable in lieu of Form 8130.

So that means that unless specifically requested, you will receive parts that may as well have fallen off the back of a truck....on it's way to Walmart.

And for your information and the benefit of others:

571.07 Installation of New Parts

Information Note:

The definitions of ‘commercial part’ and ‘standard part’ set out in Subpart 101 of the CARs apply to this Standard and are reproduced below for convenience only.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

“commercial part”, in respect of an aircraft, means a part
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(a) that is not specifically designed or produced for use as an aeronautical product,

(b) that is made to a specification or catalogue description and marked under an identification scheme of the maker, and

(c) whose failure does not adversely affect the continued safe flight and take-off and landing of the aircraft; (pièce commerciale)

“standard part”, in respect of an aircraft, means a part manufactured in conformity with a specification that
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(a) is established, published and maintained by an organization setting consensus standards or by a government agency, and

(b) includes design, manufacturing, test and acceptance criteria and identification requirements; (pièce standard)

The standards of airworthiness applicable to the installation of new parts are as follows:

(a) The requirements detailed in section 571.13 of this standard are met;

Information Note:

Parts and bulk materials provided under this provision do not require an airworthiness certification, but must be identified or be identifiable, through a part number, shipping document, etc.

(b)Parts that were not originally intended for aeronautical use (e.g. automotive voltage regulators, electronic components, air filters), providing the original manufacturer’s part number is shown in the parts list of the next or subsequent higher assembly. Where the original manufacturer’s part number is not shown in a parts list, other data authorised by type design, such as data approved under a supplemental type certificate are to be consulted.
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

Information Note:

(i) The person installing a replacement electronic component is responsible for ensuring that the replacement part meets the correct tolerance required by the type design. This information can usually be obtained from either a colour code or markings on the original part, or the illustrated parts catalogue of a higher assembly.

(ii) The part may be:
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(a) a standard electrical or electronic part, that requires additional processing before it can be used in the intended application;

(b) produced in conformance with a specification published and maintained by a consensus standards organization, a government agency, a holder of a type certificate or in conformance with the manufacturer's internal specifications and standards.
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

(iii) The specification may include manufacturing controls, quality and reliability test methods, acceptance criteria, and identification requirements. It does not include electrical parameters and test methods which are obtained from the supplier's data sheet. The part is used within the manufacturer's published operating characteristics and environmental ranges.
(amended 2002/03/01; no previous version)

(c) Parts produced pursuant to an FAA Parts Manufacturer approval (PMA) are eligible for installation on a Canadian aircraft or on an aeronautical product intended for installation on a Canadian aircraft provided that:
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

(i) the parts are marked in accordance with the part marking requirements set out by the FAA; and
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

(ii) the parts are accompanied by an authorized release certificate which certifies the parts conform to the applicable design data approved by the FAA or the Minister and indicates the aeronautical product for which they are eligible.
(amended 2009/12/01; previous version)

[Colonel Sanders]

[CID]

Are you "fixing" your tech logs Colonel Saunders?

[photofly]

So that means that unless specifically requested, you will receive parts that may as well have fallen off the back of a truck....on it's way to Walmart.

Are you suggesting that AS stocks two lines of Concorde sealed lead-acid battery? The "real" ones, and the "fake" ones?

I guess by not asking for an 8130 when I placed the order they must have sent me a bogus one.

Then when I followed up the paperwork, including getting a photocopy of the shipping order from Concorde themselves, with the serialized details of all the batteries they shipped to Aircraft Spruce (lo and behold, the serial number of the battery AS shipped me was on the list) an Aircraft Spruce secret agent slipped into my aircraft and changed the bogus battery for a genuine one with the same serial number.

Fascinating. I had no idea they were so skilful.


Note to the lawyers: does CID's claim that AS ship bogus products count as libel?

[Colonel Sanders]

What are these "tech log" things you speak of?

Are they where you make fraudulent entries,
claiming to have inspected an airplane IAW
CAR 625 App B Part I, requiring you to clean
the airplane so you can inspect it?

does CID's claim that AS ship bogus products count as libel?

Probably, but no one really cares what he thinks.

[CID]

It's not that difficult photofly. Aircraft Spruce provides the option because the paperwork all depends on the destination of the parts. If they ship to an American repair station, many of the new parts only need a company conformity statement to qualify it for installation.

But....if they export it, the part is a bogus part unless the paperwork meets the requirements of the airworthiness authority of the importing country or agency. I provided you with Canada's requirements and EASA's are pretty much the same.

So Aircraft Spruce isn't about to make up 8110-3 forms automatically when the vast majority of their parts are destined to US repair shops.

The same things goes for parts exported to the US from Canada. They require an authorized release certificate that meets the requirements of the BASA and the IPA. You can read the IPA here if you like:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/in ... adaIPA.pdf

All good reading. And remember, it doesn't always show you how it's done....it shows you how it should be done. But some people are happy to own and operate airplanes that don't meet the official definition of "airworthy".

[CID]

Note to the lawyers: does CID's claim that AS ship bogus products count as libel?

No. Aircraft Spruce isn't required to keep your airplane airworthy. You are. Aircraft Spruce just ships parts. If you bolt them on your airplaine without the proper airworthiness release certificate, you are the one who makes it a bogus part.

[Colonel Sanders]

But some people are happy to own and operate airplanes that don't meet the official definition of "airworthy".

Because their AME's fraudulently signed off inspections
that they didn't perform, then charged them $30k?

[photofly]

Note to the lawyers: does CID's claim that AS ship bogus products count as libel?

No. Aircraft Spruce isn't required to keep your airplane airworthy. You are. Aircraft Spruce just ships parts. If you bolt them on your airplaine without the proper airworthiness release certificate, you are the one who makes it a bogus part.

It's hard to engage in a discussion when we're not talking the same language:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bogus

After discussing the matter with a TC inspector, I'm comfortable with the way I obtain parts to maintain my aircraft.

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm comfortable with the way I obtain parts to maintain my aircraft

Me too. There are some real-world considerations
that our fussy, pedantic friend in the ivory tower is
unaware of (email sent).

[helicopterray]

Parts installed on a Canadian registered aircraft don't have to have a Form 8130.

Products imported from the US

FAA Class I Aeronautical Products – (Complete Aircraft);

Export Certificate of Airworthiness.


FAA Class II Aeronautical Products - (Aeronautical Products);

FAA Airworthiness Approval Tag, Form 8130-3; or
Signed Certification on a Company Inspection Release Note, Tag,
or other shipping document;
or
Signed Certification referencing the original documentation issued by a company.


http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 3-2642.htm

[CID]

No I wasn't suggesting charging labour while an airplane sits idle and I don't like the situation I described. I was merely surmising why it would take that long.

[Colonel Sanders]

It wasn't going to take six weeks - the quote was
for 240 hrs labour, performed by one guy in one week.

I mean, aren't there laws against a guy working
more than 24 hours a day?

I've heard of a lawyer billing more than 24 hours in
a day, but I'm pretty sure he crossed several time
zones to do it. Heck, he might have crossed the
International Dateline.

[CID]

Helicopterray, read that carefully. You sort of left out some important words that would put that in context. You can use alternate documentation as prescribed by the guidance but it has to come from the manufacturer or a PAH. Aircraft Spruce is a distributor. Not a manufacturer or even a PAH.

Here's the entire passage:

b) New part received from a manufacturer located in the United States:

Must have a signed FAA form 8130-3 or a signed certification indicating that the product conforms to approved design data and is in a condition for safe operation. For example:

FAA Class I Aeronautical Products – (Complete Aircraft);

Export Certificate of Airworthiness.
FAA Class II Aeronautical Products - (Aeronautical Products);

FAA Airworthiness Approval Tag, Form 8130-3; or
Signed Certification on a Company Inspection Release Note, Tag, or other shipping document; or
Signed Certification referencing the original documentation issued by a company.
Note: The name and address of the company and FAA approval number of Production Certificate (PC), Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), Technical Standard Order (TSO) authorization, or Repair Station Certificate number, must be identified on the applicable signed company certification or reference to original documentation. Additionally, when a part is used in an aeronautical product that holds a Production Approval, authorization from the Production Approval Holder (PAH) must be received to direct ship parts to anyone other than the PAH. If a part is received without the direct shipment authorization, the FAA considers these parts to be unapproved parts.

FAA Class III Aeronautical Product – (Standard and Commercial parts);

Conforms to a recognized government or industry national standard (AN, SAE, NAS); or
Conforms to the design data for the aeronautical product, which they are a part or component thereof.
Note: TC will also accept as proof of conformity a company release document with a statement certifying the product conforms to its recognized standard or specification.

[CID]

photofly, If you're comfortable, fine.

With respect to "bogus", I use the terminology in the manner TC and the FAA uses it. I just assumed you would do likewise. Don't you remember the "Seek Out, Speak Out, Wipe Out" campaign?

In many of the prepared guidance that the FAA and TC have released in the past, the following definition applies:

The term "bogus parts" can loosely refer to various categories of unapproved parts.

You will find this in the Seek/Speak/Wipe video available from Transport Canada as well as here:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/de ... tion14.pdf

and here:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... 0_ch12.pdf

Here's a cool excerpt from the latter:

There are four types of aircraft parts:

1. Good parts with good paperwork.
2. Good parts with bad paperwork.
3. Bad parts with “good” (bogus) paperwork.
4. Bad parts with bad paperwork.

The first of those listed represents properly authorized parts and when properly installed are approved parts,
and the aircraft can be returned to service.

The last of those listed represent obviously unauthorized and unapproved parts. The technician should
be alert for these, and must never install them on an aircraft.

The center two categories of parts represent suspected unapproved parts. If either the physical part or the
paperwork associated with the part is questionable, it is best to contact the shop foreman, shift supervisor, or the assigned quality individual to discuss your concerns. Suspected unapproved parts (SUPs) should be segregated and quarantined until proper disposition can be determined. Contacting the manufacturer of the product is a good way to start gathering the facts concerning the product in question.

(Refer to the current version of Advisory Circular (AC) 21-29, Detecting and Reporting Suspected Unapproved Parts, for additional information.) Contact the FAA—System Surveillance and Analysis Division (AIR-300), P.O. Box 17030, Washington, DC 20041; using FAA Form 8120-11, Suspected Unapproved Parts Report, or call the FAA Aviation Safety Hotline at 1-800-255-1111.

You may also want to take a look at FAA AC 21-29. You can view it on the FAA RGL library site. It's pretty clear once you find the right section.

[CID]

Because their AME's fraudulently signed off inspections
that they didn't perform, then charged them $30k?

That's all just a nice little story some guy on the internet wrote. I don't know it's true or just made up to stimulate debate. Ask 10 different aircraft owners if they were overcharged for maintenance and I bet at least 8 will say "yes".

[helicopterray]

The main difference between receiving parts directly from a manufacturer/supplier from the U.S. rather than receiving them directly from a manufacturer in Canada is that the use of the authorized release certificate form 8130-3 is optional for the airworthiness approval of parts produced in the United States. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 21.271 states in part that; “a manufacturer may issue an airworthiness approval tag FAA Form 8130-3 for each part produced for which he holds a type certificate”, but this is not mandatory by regulation.

[photofly]

Ask 10 different aircraft owners if they were overcharged for maintenance and I bet at least 8 will say "yes".

Seems to me that's a sign that the aircraft maintenance industry should be doing something different. Eight out of ten customers unhappy? That's atrocious.

[CID]

helicopterray, I'm not disagreeing with what you stated last with respect to the different regulations in the US and Canada but you seem to be ignoring that the parts we're discussing are being imported. Have you read the IPA between the US and Canada? TCCA doesn't automatically accept parts from the US documented for use in US aircraft just because "that's the way they do it down there". There are agreements in place to meet the requirements of the importing state.

What's the sense of having our own airworthiness authority if we're just going to leave airworthiness to the exporter?

[david_351]

@ Colonel Sanders,

In all seriousness, I don't post often, but read some of the topics that come up on the forums here. It seems like you are always trying to rip apart mechanics and paint us all in a negative light. What is your gripe with mechanics? I don't know why you must constantly promote conflict betweens AMEs and Pilots/Owners. I go into every situation with respect for the Pilot/Owner. I treat everyone I meet in the industry with respect and honesty unless they give me reason not to. There are a few AMEs I know who hate pilots/owners with a passion and I don't understand why, and likewise I have come across pilots and owners who have treated me like yesterdays garbage with no apparent reason, for which I did not respond well.

But you seem to simply promote a hate for all things involved in the aircraft maintenance trait. If you want to do you own maintenance, why not apply for an owner maintenance category cert and be done with it, but why do you have to encourage a hatred for AME's on` here?

I work hard to build trust with my clients. If they want to do their own work, I have no problem with that, I will inspect it long and hard before signing my # to their logbook and I will charge them fairly. I have no problems with owners suggesting I search for a cheaper source on parts or otherwise. I believe I charge owners a very fair rate on all work I do, and I would never to anything to diminish the trust I have built up with the people I have worked with.

Grow up Colonel

[Sulako]

Personal attacks removed, thread locked.

Please play nice. If you can't do that, then don't post.

I haven't given out strikes in a while, maybe they are about due?