UK company suspected of distributing unapproved part

[Denti]

Saw this (https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/aircraft-products/suspected-unapproved-parts/aircraft-parts-distributed-aog-technics) on the EASA homepage, but couldn’t find anything on the CAA homepage. Is that already a difference in governance? And does anybody know who is affected? After all the CFM56 is a fairly widely used engine.

[Longtimer]

This is scary.
Another report of fake engine parts

United finds fake parts in plane engines | Fortune (https://fortune.com/2023/09/18/united-plane-engine-parts/)

[AvionicsHippo]

This is mental, with all the regulations in place and P/N and S/N and accompanying documents, I cannot see how someone has got away with it.

I know the paperwork is counterfeit but how would someone would go about the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.

[tdracer]

This is mental, with all the regulations in place and P/N and S/N and accompanying documents, I cannot see how someone has got away with it.

I know the paperwork is counterfeit but how would someone would go about the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.

What's unbelievable about people making parts that look like the original but without bothering to go through the necessary testing/approvals?
Internal engine parts are seriously expensive - in no small part because of all that has to be done to get the parts approved is expensive.
So creating 'look alike' parts - which may or may not be functionally equivalent to the originals - then instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing a proper approval and instead spending a few pennies on counterfeit 'approval' paperwork is quite appealing to the less than scrupulous... Popular engines like the CFM56 (literally thousands in daily operation) need lots of spares - and 'aftermarket' parts can be far cheaper than the OEM parts. Not sure if it's still happening, but Pratt & Whitney was producing PMA replacement turbine blades for the CFM56 engine due to huge market for them (and Pratt had the excess facilities just sitting unused).
Even when the parts manufacturer goes through the proper PMA process (Parts Manufacturing Authority - if memory serves), there is some risk involved that the parts may not perform like the originals. I recall a big recall of CFM56-7 (737NG) PMA fuel filters because - although they'd gone through the official PMA process - they had a nasty habit of disintegrating in service (which played havoc with the fuel control and cause a few shutdowns).

[jimjim1]

the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.

How about the manufacture of fake helicopters?

"Counterfeit Kamov Helicopter Ring Busted. Moldovan police raided a factory in Cruileni allegedly making unauthorized copies of Russian Kamov"

https://emerging-europe.com/news/who-was-the-intended-recipient-of-moldovas-fake-helicopters/

[CargoOne]

This is mental, with all the regulations in place and P/N and S/N and accompanying documents, I cannot see how someone has got away with it.

I know the paperwork is counterfeit but how would someone would go about the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.

you are going way off in your assumptions. 99% of bogus parts are not manufactured. When it comes to engine parts, it is just the status of CSN which is falsified but the part itself is original.

[DaveReidUK]

you are going way off in your assumptions. 99% of bogus parts are not manufactured. When it comes to engine parts, it is just the status of CSN which is falsified but the part itself is original.

CSN status ?

[EXDAC]

CSN status ?

Cycles Since New?

[tdracer]

you are going way off in your assumptions. 99% of bogus parts are not manufactured. When it comes to engine parts, it is just the status of CSN which is falsified but the part itself is original.
Source?
There a many, many sources of PMA engine parts. Making compressor and turbine blades isn't always rocket science (some of the turbine blades are, but not all), and there is huge money in the parts.
Now, if someone has taken the necessary steps to get proper PMA approvals, those PMA parts are usually (although not always) perfectly adequate (and legal/legit). But PMA approvals can be expensive - very expensive. The un-scrupulous have plenty of incentive to skip that step and either give them bogus PMA paperwork, or even pass them off as OEM parts.

[happybiker]

The linked Aviation Week article provides a bit more background to this. It looks like the supply of reclaimed parts issued with bogus Airworthiness Release Certificates. This has happened a number times in the last 40 years, particularly for engine parts which are high value items. Regulators promote Suspected Unapproved Parts programs to try to contain this problem but this indicates that there are still chancers active out there who are out to make a quick buck.

AOG Technics Ordered To Provide Details Of Engine Parts Transactions | Aviation Week Network (https://aviationweek.com/mro/aircraft-propulsion/aog-technics-ordered-provide-details-engine-parts-transactions)

GE and Safran legal move on AOG Technics over rogue engine parts (punchline-gloucester.com) (https://www.punchline-gloucester.com/articles/aanews/ge-and-safran-legal-move-on-aog-technics-over-rogue-engine-parts)

[Longtimer]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Jet engine maker CFM International said on Tuesday more than half of the 145 engines suspected, thus far, of containing falsely documented parts from a UK distributor have been removed from service.
Jet engine maker CFM says more than half of engines with suspect parts have been removed from service | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/jet-engine-maker-cfm-says-more-than-half-engines-with-suspect-parts-have-been-2023-10-24/#:~:text=CHICAGO%2C%20Oct%2024%20(Reuters),have%20been%20rem oved%20from%20service.)

[DaveReidUK]

Earlier threads on AOG Technics:

Virgin aircraft -- use of unauthorised engine parts (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/654850-virgin-aircraft-use-unauthorised-engine-parts.html)

[ShyTorque]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Jet engine maker CFM International said on Tuesday more than half of the 145 engines suspected, thus far, of containing falsely documented parts from a UK distributor have been removed from service.
Jet engine maker CFM says more than half of engines with suspect parts have been removed from service | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/jet-engine-maker-cfm-says-more-than-half-engines-with-suspect-parts-have-been-2023-10-24/#:~:text=CHICAGO%2C%20Oct%2024%20(Reuters),have%20been%20rem oved%20from%20service.)


Which half, though?

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

Unapproved does not mean fake. It could be original but not have the correct paperwork or any paperwork for that matter.

[DaveReidUK]

Unapproved does not mean fake. It could be original but not have the correct paperwork or any paperwork for that matter.

Nobody fits undocumented parts. If the documentation is fake, the provenance of the part is irrelevant.

[MichaelOLearyGenius]

I get that. We have nuclear power plant beside us. One day the headline in the news paper was that a discharge of contaminated cooling SOP for the discharge. The discharge was fine but the documentation was not so it became an illegal discharge. All I was meaning that this part could have been unapproved due to a minor error in it's documentation, still unapproved on saying that.

[EddyCurr]

Following is a 2022.09.07 post #25 from Rotorheads with a link to a Final Report (w/ synopsis in post) regarding the 2022.06.27 downing of a firefighting helo.

A TT strap pin produced by a vetted contracted vendor failed catastrophically at 27 hrs.
.https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/641323-firefighting-helicopter-down-west-edmonton-2.html#post11292746

[tonytales]

I have run into fake parts. When putting together TIMCO at KGSO in early 1990's, we had a whole stockroom to fill. I had some good receiving inspectors checking inbound stock before it was shelved. One of them noticed the lettering on the heads of some Hi-Loc rivets were not district. Extra magnification made them even worse when compared to genuine Hi-Locs. Hardness tester said too soft.
FAA FSDO was contacted. Those Hi-Locs were forgeries coming out of Asia.
You have to check everything and be able to trace sources. Lots of bad stuff floating about. And know your suppliers.

[Pilot DAR]

The report for the Bell 212 strap pin failure can be found here:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2021/A21W0045/A21W0045.html
It is certainly a sad story of failure to detect during many steps of quality control the substitution of material. Whether this was a deliberate intent to deceive that a non conforming part was genuine is uncertain (counterfeit part), but it is certainly a case of failing of he quality process.

"Unapproved part" is a broad term. It could mean a genuine part which lacks proper documentation of airworthiness (lost the documents) which is common. The part may be fine, but that cannot be proven. Instant red flag with a document check - there isn't any, or it's terrible. It could also be an accidentally non conforming part - no excuse for that, but it got through the entire quality system, and the certification paperwork is genuine, albeit not actually representing the non conformance of the part - very, very hard for the end user to detect, 'cause the paperwork is right on. The Bell 212 strap pin being made [accidentally?] from the wrong material being an example. The last being a counterfeit part - a certainly non conforming part, deliberately manufactured and/or part marked to deceive the installer that it's legitimate. Generally, such parts come with some paperwork or part marking which at first glance looks correct.

This is why knowing your supplier will help. Does your supplier audit or review the documentation they get? Do they audit their suppliers? Do they actually sample check parts they receive independently of the manufacturer? None of that would have helped in the case of the Bell 212 strap pin, 'cause the paperwork was as it should be, and no one is going to hardness check a brand new part from Bell, 'cause would they even know the correct hardness anyway? But, knowing your supplier will catch the counterfeit part problem. Yes, some expensive forged (an expensive process) can be counterfeit as cast parts (much less costly). They can be nearly impossible to differentiate between, other than destructive testing. In this case, only good audit/knowledge of supplier, and paperwork can flag a counterfeit part. That said, there have been careless counterfeiting examples; Bearings where the wording is erect at the 6 O'clock position where the genuine part has the wording erect at the 12 O'clock position, parts with the wrong font for part numbering, or bolts with no/wrong head markings where there should be some. I have also found parts made "outside" the contract with the aircraft OEM. A contractor to the OEM gets an order to make 1000 of the OEM's part 123 to the OEM's drawings. Contractor makes 2000, and sells the other 1000 out the back door with "alternate" paperwork ('cause they cannot issue the OEM's paperwork). I caught this once as a receiving inspector, and rejected the parts. My boss was both unhappy, and happy about it - he settled on happy after some consideration!

Aircraft manufacturers do provide training material from time to time, which is worth understanding in general, and certainly if you acquire parts for that type.

[EddyCurr]

More recent news about AOG
.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-06/uk-fraud-cops-make-arrest-in-aog-technics-fake-airplane-parts-scandal
UK Fraud Cops Make Arrest in Fake Airplane Parts Scandal
By Katharine Gemmell and Siddharth Vikram Philip
Bloomberg 2023.12.06

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67641076
AOG Technics: UK fraud body makes arrest in aircraft parts probe
By Katy Austin & Lora Jones
BBC Business 2023.12.06.
The Daily Mail has a number of articles containing references to Jose Alejandro Zamora Yrala, whom DM identifies as the 35 yo founder of AOG,

[Asturias56]

Piot DAR is correct - know your supplier - and of course if someone is offering you parts at a price below the standard rate be very suspicious

[CW247]

A legitimate copy of Windows 11 costs around $150. Previous versions of Windows easily double that. No issue for us to afford, but in the third world? That's 2-3 weeks salary for most people. MS and other big vendors publically denounce piracy but privately tolerate it. Even serial keys and activation codes can be bypassed and nothing is done. Why? Because it's the only way those products get used in the third world. And their usage (legal and otherwise) drives the tech industry forward so all benefit.

Clearly, this can't be applied to the world of aviation due to the safety requirement of critical components but some manufacturers are guilty of artificially restricting supply so they can charge an arm and a leg for parts when they could create an environment of economies of scale that benefits them and the market. Your average ACMI provider in the third world is going to be looking for an easy and cost-effective way out because they simply don't have a Western budget and where there's a demand, there's always supply...

[tdracer]

It's pretty much an open secret of the industry that - when you buy a new aircraft - the engine company doesn't make any real money on the deal, they're basically selling the engines at cost.
The money is made late on selling the required spare parts, spare engines, and servicing.
Even the airframers do this (to a somewhat lesser extent). For a long time, Boeing all but gave their after-sales support away to the original aircraft purchaser. This made Boeing quite popular and was a major competitive advantage in sales campaigns against MacDac, Airbus, etc.
Sadly, that all changed after the MacDac merger - and it was decided that after sales support had to be a major profit center. This upset long time customers no end, and airlines that had long been exclusively Boeing customers suddenly started buy Airbus.
Talk about your penny wise, pound foolish :ugh:

[tonytales]

PILOT DAR has it right. Airline aviation is a mad world of different OEM, aged aircraft, variations between customers and suppliers who may not be trustworthy. Receiving Inspection is your first defense. Given necessary training in Airworthiness requirements and proper tools like high powered magnifiers, hardness testers, etc. they are a defense. The QA manager must have the guts to withstand corporate pressures due to the aircraft being AOG.
Repair stations have an extra load as they must buy a lot of fasteners and raw stock shut as aluminum sheets. Then they work on customers aircraft of various vintages and original operators.
Traceability is a must. You must be able to answer what is the source of the materials, fasteners and sealants used in a repair. Components are another can of worms. Parts are removed from boneyard hulks. Good part/bad part??? Poor QC inspectors and managers.

[EddyCurr]

Receiving Inspection is your first defense.

Purchasing is the first line of defense.

It is Purchasing's duty to thoroughly vet new entrants like AOG. It is Purchasing's duty to continuously scrutinize existing vendors like Fore Machine.

Inspection sleeps easier at night when Purchasing is awake during the day.