What PMA'd parts have you found at auto parts stores ?

[colomtnflyer]

I'm just curious, from the thread about the stolen landing light, where it was mentioned that certain light bulbs were available at various stores.

Where have you all found PMA'd parts at locations other than aviation specific shops?

I have found NAPA has alternator belts which are PMA'd, for about $8, instead of the $25 charged by the mechanics shop...

 

[Dean]

I have found the GE 4509, GE 4313 and one of the Halogen bulbs at NAPA. I have found starter relays and alternators at Auto Zone.

 

[Stache]

As an owner supplying parts or installing them on your aircraft from auto parts stores I would be very careful. The parts you purchase may say PMA on the box; however what you want to go along with the part is a FAA Form 8130-3 tracing the part back to the original part manufacture. Without traceability the part is considered suspected unapproved.

I’m sure if you asked the auto shop for a FAA Form 8130-3 they won’t have a clue what you are talking about. Manufactures and repair stations fill out 8310-3 forms to show compliance and part traceability back to the source. I am sure you’re A&P will also want to know where the parts came from since this installer is held accountable for them.

Just one man’s opinion.

 

[JohnR]

Where have you all found PMA'd parts at locations other than aviation specific shops?

Nowhere.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

If you own a Grumman or simular vitage A/C, get your wheel bearings at any Auto Parts store. The Grummans use a wheel bearing from a 64-66 or 67 MOPAR (Chrysler) product. Timken made them for cars only. There was no specific bearing for A/C. Cost from the Auto Parts guy $8-11 bucks, order from the aviation parts supplier, $30 bucks. Early Mooney door locks were stamped with Volkswagen Logos, I kid you not.

 

[Maxmosbey]

As an owner supplying parts or installing them on your aircraft from auto parts stores I would be very careful. The parts you purchase may say PMA on the box; however what you want to go along with the part is a FAA Form 8130-3 tracing the part back to the original part manufacture. Without traceability the part is considered suspected unapproved.

I’m sure if you asked the auto shop for a FAA Form 8130-3 they won’t have a clue what you are talking about. Manufactures and repair stations fill out 8310-3 forms to show compliance and part traceability back to the source. I am sure you’re A&P will also want to know where the parts came from since this installer is held accountable for them.

Just one man’s opinion.

That might be the only difference, but it is a big one. That little form costs a lot.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

The most egregious one I became personally aware of is an owner who used soft copper flexible line from the hardware store to replace a length of gear hydraulic tubing.
Once I heard the plane changed hands, I pointed it out to the new owner.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Back in the 70s I worked for a crop spraying outfit, and a mechanic ran out of safety wire, so he used electric fence wire instead.

 

[Stache]

If you own a Grumman or simular vitage A/C, get your wheel bearings at any Auto Parts store. The Grummans use a wheel bearing from a 64-66 or 67 MOPAR (Chrysler) product. Timken made them for cars only. There was no specific bearing for A/C. Cost from the Auto Parts guy $8-11 bucks, order from the aviation parts supplier, $30 bucks. Early Mooney door locks were stamped with Volkswagen Logos, I kid you not.

Funny you should mention the wheel bearings. One of the local FBO's was doing this that and ran down to auto parts store and purchased some wheel bearings and installed them. Interesting enought the bearing froze up with the tractor grease he pack them with. To bad they were installed on a FAA OPS Inspector aircraft who went through the ceiling when he found out where the parts and grease came from.

Needless to say the installer had a interview with a couple of FSDO airworthiness inspectors.

You really have to know where your parts are coming from they may look the same have the same number, however the process to manufacture them is different. In many cases such as bearing the manufactures will use the same part number, but the PMA part will have a different material, finish, testing, and comes with a certification paperwork. There is a reason why PMA parts cost more they are just better parts that meet the type design for the aircraft or specification.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

You really have to know where your parts are coming from they may look the same have the same number, however the process to manufacture them is different. In many cases such as bearing the manufactures will use the same part number, but the PMA part will have a different material, finish, testing, and comes with a certification paperwork. There is a reason why PMA parts cost more they are just better parts that meet the type design for the aircraft or specification.

Just one man's opinion.

Not the Timken bearings, at least not back then. I found out about it throught my buddy and fellow Grumman owner, who called Timken. The guy at Timken laughed when my friend read him the part number (he had previously purchased a set from A/C parts supplier) with a dash "A" suffix on the box, not the part. Timken guy new the part was for a aircraft and stated they make NO PART with that number or any other number with the "A" suffix. "Its for a plane right?"

Back them the aircraft manufacturer would purchase the part and add their number, in this case the "A" after the mfgr original number. They also jacked up the price. No special material or processes here.

 

[colomtnflyer]

My question wasn't about illegal parts or horror stories about bad parts. It was as a source of information of where legitimate parts could be found cheaper than from aviation specific shops...

 

[C-1 PILOT]

My question wasn't about illegal parts or horror stories about bad parts. It was as a source of information of where legitimate parts could be found cheaper than from aviation specific shops...

Legal parts are those which have a paper trail. Unfortunately sometimes all the paper trail is, is purchasing the part from the A/C manufacturer or A/C supply house. The identical part maybe available (like the bearings) from other sources, but they are considered not approved. It a Catch 22 situation.

 

[Tom-D]

Not the Timken bearings, at least not back then. I found out about it throught my buddy and fellow Grumman owner, who called Timken. The guy at Timken laughed when my friend read him the part number (he had previously purchased a set from A/C parts supplier) with a dash "A" suffix on the box, not the part. Timken guy new the part was for a aircraft and stated they make NO PART with that number or any other number with the "A" suffix. "Its for a plane right?"

Back them the aircraft manufacturer would purchase the part and add their number, in this case the "A" after the mfgr original number. They also jacked up the price. No special material or processes here.

Cessna uses a KOYO wheel bearing in the OEM McCauley wheels, Cleveland bought McCauley out and when you convert to Cleveland wheels and brakes you get Tinken bearings. I have talked to Timken bearing Sales people and they say there are no special production methods for aircraft bearings with the same part numbers. Some special part numbers are only made for Aerospace and are only bought by the aerospace industry, but thoses bearings are manufactured in the same method as any other bearing they make.

 

[Tom-D]

Legal parts are those which have a paper trail. Unfortunately sometimes all the paper trail is, is purchasing the part from the A/C manufacturer or A/C supply house. The identical part maybe available (like the bearings) from other sources, but they are considered not approved. It a Catch 22 situation.

Aircraft manufacturers buy production lots from parts manufacturers, and they are susposed to test and certify the parts and issue proper paper work thru their dealers. You pay for that testing.

I have bought tons of AN / MS Hardware and never get any paperwork on it and it comes directly from aircraft material dealers (actually where Boeing buys from)

See FAR 21,303-(b)-(4)

 

[Stache]

Aircraft manufacturers buy production lots from parts manufacturers, and they are susposed to test and certify the parts and issue proper paper work thru their dealers. You pay for that testing.

I have bought tons of AN / MS Hardware and never get any paperwork on it and it comes directly from aircraft material dealers (actually where Boeing buys from)

See FAR 21,303-(b)-(4)

As a follow-on to your statements.


The FAA has published the rule governing false and misleading statements regarding aircraft products, parts, and materials. The rule, developed by the FAA’s Suspected Unapproved Parts Program Office, is designed to enhance the FAA’s authority to take enforcement action against persons who make false or misleading statements concerning the airworthiness of aeronautical products and parts. It is designed in particular to extend the regulatory reach of the FAA to uncertificated parties such as parts distributors. The rule also allows for increased FAA inspection of records regarding the quality of aircraft parts.

When a distributor acquires a part, or a customer buys a part from a distributor, he or she seldom has the time or resources to independently verify its airworthiness. Instead, distributors and their customers must necessarily rely on the representations of others that the part is airworthy. These representations may be found in shipping documents, invoices, maintenance logs, or an FAA Form 8130-3 signed by an appropriately certificated person approving the part for return to service following maintenance. Regardless of the specific type of representation the distributor or customer demands, however, that assurance is ultimately only as good as the word of the person who makes it.

Our current system works because in almost all cases, the purchaser or installer of a part can rely on the word of the person attesting to its airworthiness. The vast majority of members of the aviation industry take their safety responsibilities very seriously, and are careful to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and business integrity when dealing in aircraft parts. Unfortunately, as in any industry, there will always be a small number of less scrupulous individuals who cut corners in one way or another. Because the potential consequences of fraud are so serious and so apparent to the public even a few bad actors can cast doubts on the entire industry.

Fraudis illegal in all fifty states, and can carry criminal as well as civil penalties. The rule would give the FAA concurrent jurisdiction over certain types of fraud, permitting the FAA to investigate and punish such misconduct, too. The FAA already has some jurisdiction over certain frauds. There is an anti-fraud rule under the manufacturing regulations of Part 21. 14 C.F.R. § 21.2 prohibits fraudulent and intentionally false statements on applications for certificates or approvals under part 21, and on records kept, made, or used to show compliance with part 21. There is an anti-fraud rule under the maintenance regulations of Part 43. 14 C.F.R. § 43.12 prohibits fraudulent and intentionally false statements on records kept, made, or used to show compliance with part 43. While these rules cover some records used in distributing parts (like airworthiness approvals and approvals for return to service, respectively), they do not cover all of them.


Two federal criminal statutes also forbid false statements under certain circumstances. The Aircraft Safety Act of 2000 prohibits the falsification or concealment of any “material fact” concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part; any materially false representation concerning any aircraft or space vehicle part; the making or use of any materially false writing, entry, certification, document, record, data plate, label, or electronic communication regarding any aircraft or space vehicle part; and fraudulent representations relating to the import, export, introduction, sale, trade, or installation of aircraft or space vehicle parts. A more general “don’t-lie-to-the-government” statute (Title 18 United States Code, section 1001) provides criminal penalties for any person who, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies a material fact, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.” This arguably might have criminalized falsification of the 8130-3 tag, but today the Aircraft Safety Act of 2000 does a much better job of criminalizing such falsification.