Hello.
Westhawk, you're right. In addition, compliance issues for parts submitted by non-OEM production facilities are serious business under watchful eyes of DERs and ARs.
Part, however, always DO MEET specs, at least according to appropriate documentation that follows. Otherwise there are mechanisms to prevent them from being used. Inspectors that were upset for their treatment have no link to acceptance definition process and therefore no delegation for the high tier of that process.
What I mean is that engineering is the one which defines criteria for acceptance based on the appropriate set of rules and regulations (FAR, JAR). So, if someone complains issue becomes very big since automatically DERs and ARs are involved.
Maybe you can say with higher probability that fraud is possible at MRO since OEM has no control over its actions apart from sending them SBs and ADs.
As for what N380UA says on the fact that airlines send their engineering reps to control the design process - I can just very politely say, hardly.
The bulk of knowledge regarding the design and usage is in the hands of OEM. All the lessons learned plus all data from the fleet are coming to one and only one point. An airline has just a portion of info no matter how big is their fleet.
Also, to add to that, and with all due respect, FAA in case of Boeing or JAA in case of Airbus can say far few opinions on what to do and how. They can simply follow and try to make everything look as it was scrutinized properly.
Simply ,the one with less knowledge and experience (most of engineering staff at regulatory bodies) can never fully control OEMs.
One who controls the information (OEM) has all the power and the bureaucrat (CAA) can just try to make its life hard. So many protective mechanisms are embedded in order to increas safety and reliability for an aircraft/helicopter that there is absolotely no meaning in the topic of this thread.
Regards all,
Last edited by Grunf; 27th October 2005 at 14:44.