Arzouni From UK - England, joined Aug 2012, 7 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
I am writing an assay about the unapproved parts (Bogus)
i have to research and analyse the maintenance practices in a civil commercial aircraft environment, concerning the use and control of genuine and non-genuine (bogus) spare parts for aircraft use.
i need some advice on what exactly i have to write and if it possible suplay me with some good wesite that explaine everything
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2701 times:
There is a process usually referred to as PMI. This is where airlines get parts from a supplier that was not the original supplier by Boeing or Airbus. There is a certification process for these parts. Using parts from alternate suppliers are not bogus parts. For example, airlines rarely use the original filter suppliers. They use alternate suppliers who still comply with FAA requirements.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5929 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
You still have the nutjobs around in GA circles who do things like stick a rebuilt Ford Mustang alternator from the nearest cheap auto parts store in a Cessna 172 when the alternator goes bad, rather than pay the mechanic to put the (PMA'ed version of) the same part in the plane. How these planes ever pass their annual, I'll never know...
Not exactly bogus parts, just unapproved ones (which renders the aircraft unairworthy! ) Not to mention people who overstep the boundary of mechanic and allowed owner maintenance...
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
amccann From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
Something you could look in to is/was the influx of counterfeit fasteners in not only the aerospace industry but also in the automotive industry.
"The Fastener Quality Act" was passed in 1990 to reduce the number of counterfeit fasteners through means of accreditation, certification, inspection, and testing.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. - Ronald Reagan
BE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 3): How these planes ever pass their annual, I'll never know...
Quoting amccann (Reply 4): "The Fastener Quality Act" was passed in 1990
Easiest part would have been to pass the annual - they used to look 'exactly' the same as the original part (which is not a suprise, since it was the same, just bought at a different store). You would have had to really be looking for it to find it.
They used the same alternator on Ford tractors for a long time too - and those were even cheaper to buy way back when than buying the same alternator at the Ford auto dealer. Even if you're mechanic noticed it, he'd probably 'not notice' during the annual, since it was the same alternator and it didn't affect the airworthiness - remember too that the manufacturing QA/QC and supply chain processes for parts like this were essentially the same (basically non-existent) for Tractor/Car/Aircraft until conterfeit parts started becoming an issue - as amccam noted things didn't start to change until the 80's and 90's.
Not to say any of this was legal, but things were (really) different then (seatbelts in cars weren't mandatory, no baby seats, and light aircraft (and pickup trucks) had fewer and simpler systems that any backyard mechanic could generally understand and fix. I couldn't change the snake belt on my truck now, but in high school we'd stock fan belts and us kids would install them in 5 minutes at the fuel island as part of normal the service provided at the local 'full service gasoline station".
I do miss the $200 annual (same plane, and I am lucky to get out at $3000 doing all the legally allowed owner assistance tasks - of course is was new in the 80's too and now has 30+ years on it).
twincommander From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
I changed a standby alternator on a caravan a while back... the one i removed had motorcraft stamped on it and the one installed had motorcraft stamped on it. the STC showed that exact ford part number. we paid $450 for the rebuilt replacement from someplace in anchorage, and napa had the same one for $56.40 before core.
however, while napa's would work fine, it would be considered a bogus part, as it is not certified for aircraft use.
aklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 682 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
On a remotely related topic a large number of the parts on a Ferrari are from ordinary parts suppliers who put their ordinary part in a Ferrari box. The price is then multiplied by 10. A $3.50 Fiat oil filter is thus transformed into a $35 Ferrari oil filter. I cannot tell the difference, and I suspect my engine can't either. I once needed a servo motor that Ferrari wanted to sell me for $650. I found the VW version for $50. Worked just fine.
I realize that the difference is that if my car stops I am really just inconvenienced, and if a 747 stops several hundred people are dead, but I can understand the frustration in the budget limited Cessna owner. Still, I wouldn't want to fly in his plane, or be standing under it.
BE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1702 times:
Quoting aklrno (Reply 8): Still, I wouldn't want to fly in his plane, or be standing under it.
Not nearly as common as before, but very, very likely that you have done both it you were in or around general aviation 20 or 30 years ago.
Quoting twincommander (Reply 10): however, i avoid napa parts even for my beater truck. regardless if they are better than OE...
Generally a good policy to follow!
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 9): It would be an unapproved part, full stop.
Very true. Also generally not safe, and may be really stupid to use.
There are some pretty unreliable approved parts too that we keep using because the certification isn't worth anyone's trouble.
A couple years ago I got caught in a electrical switch AD, and the $1100 replacement set which will eventually fail the same way could have been replaced with much better stuff for about $50, but it would have cost way more to certify than the $1000 cost per flying mid 70's to mid 80's Beech to certify.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 9): NAPA isn't FAA approved FAR Part 23/25 certified,
Very true - and the supply chains are managed now to meet those rules, very aggressively.
25 or so years ago, not so much. It WAS the same part, and was tracked equally poorly. Even buying from an av supplier was not a guarentee of anything.
The paper trail, while expensive, has improved enough that it is getting much more difficult to get bogus parts in - and very few accidents are traced back to bogus parts.
(I suppose unapproved is the Ford alternator - maybe it's not bogus because it is the same part number, but it is unapproved since the paper trail back to Ford doesn;t exist, and so it might be bogus...)
Sponsor Message: 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2012, 7 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, 
) Not to mention people who overstep the boundary of mechanic and allowed owner maintenance...
From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1682 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
