Price of PFA vs CAA parts

[QDMQDMQDM]

Can anyone explain why a non-approved airspeed indicator for use in a permit aircraft costs in the region of £80, while a CAA-approved one costs around £400?

QDM

[BlueRobin]

Middle-men?

I have read some conjecture, which suggests that the increase price is to account for liability insurance against the part failing and subsequent legal action be taken.

[FlyingForFun]

Apparently, certain models of Lotus cars from the late 70s and early 80s used a Triumph-based steering column - including a horn-button which is identical except for the logo.

A friend of mine, and a member of my Triumph club, happened to get hold of a box of several dozen Triumph horn-pushes, which he advertised for £1 each. He was approached by someone from a Lotus club, who bought the entire box for a slightly reduced price, replaced the Triumph logos with Lotus logos, and sold them on for £20 each.

I'd guess the CAA/PFA thing is the aeroplane equivalent?

FFF
----------

[gasax]

The liability issue is a red herring of more recent days.

The simple answer is because they can.

There is an additional cost in obtaining the necessaary approvals and in maintaining the paperwork trail for real auditability. If you look at the cost in the US of TSO'd versus non- TSO'd instruments you will see the realisitic cost of the paperwork.

In the UK the whole thing is driven by people making a living out of a small market and pricing parts up to a level that will support that living.

As most CAA activity is centred around paperwork it allows people who write it to charge what the trade will bear.

Maintaining an old Auster where virtually all the remaining spares are ex-military and hence never had any paperwork is a real education!

[QDMQDMQDM]

Thanks all. What an absolute idiocy this is.

QDM

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's universal. Many of the parts of Gazelle and Puma helicopters have equivalent Renault car or truck parts numbers, but the difference in price is enormous depending upon where the paperwork came from with it.

G

[A and C]

The paperwork trail is for your protection and to help stop sub-stadard parts getting fitted to your aircraft.

The quality system is not perfect and a lot of stupid anomalys can be found (like the £40 GE landing light that can be brought in a disco shop for £ 5 )

But if the system makes shure that the wing spar bolts are to the correct standard and not made from "monkey metal" in a Bombay back street then it is a price that I am willing to pay............after all I only get one life !.

[Mr Wolfie]

Regarding Gasax's comments re TSO'd parts, this satire from 1977 regarding the cost of certified pencils for air navigation use may raise a smirk.

http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/magazine/tsodpencil.pdf

Mr. W

[QDMQDMQDM]

The paperwork trail is for your protection and to help stop sub-stadard parts getting fitted to your aircraft.

Indeed. However, it would be interesting to know how many incidents were actually caused by the fact of a part being non-approved in a PFA aircraft.

There were, I note, precisely zero fatal accidents in permit aircaft last year.

QDM

[Genghis the Engineer]

A&C is of-course correct.

However, what isn't all that obviously justified is why the paper trail ends up costing several times more than the manufacturing cost.

G

[gasax]

But half the problem with the paperwork issue is that it encourages the use of sub-standard parts!

Take a 50p bolt, issue an official looking piece of paper - sell it for £10.

In fixed wing aircraft there is virtually no problem in accidents directly traceable to sub-standard parts - after all it is in the financial interest of most engineers to seek them out and sell you an expensive replacement. Let alone that of the owner/pilot/maintainer of for instance a permit aircraft.

But helicopters and heavy transport aircraft - it is a problem and primarily that is due to the 50p for scrap, £100 for paper, issue. There have been a small number of accidents and a fair number of prosecutions due to fake paperwork on time-ex or scrap parts. The only reason it occurs is because of the huge diferential in price that is possible under the present arrangements.

My aircraft has a number of 'historic' repairs, dating from the days when aircraft engineers were trusted to source the right materials and use the right methods. Now that has been almost completely surplanted by the need to 'prove' the paperwork and repair scheme is 'certified'. The only effect this has had is to push up costs, it has not increased safety, simply made auditing by surveyors easier as they do not have to know anything about the specifics, just check the paper.

[A and C]

The PFA quality audit system is entirly diferent to the system used by the CAA and puts the responsability for the fitness of an item to be used on to the builder of the aircraft.

The system of inspectors insurers that the owner/builder has not fitted something that is not fit for the job.

This one off approach is OK for a cottage industry such as home building but is not robust enough for an industry that has to ensure the saftey of the paying public.

The fact is that most PFA inspectors ( like me ) give there time for free and if we charged the going rate then the cost of inspection of parts would not differ much from that of the CAA aproved parts.

If we wanted to continue on this road I might suggest that the aviation public transport industry is subsidising the PFA system by training a large number of the inspectors that the PFA requires to allow the homebuilders to enjoy cheap flying.

[QDMQDMQDM]

This one off approach is OK for a cottage industry such as home building but is not robust enough for an industry that has to ensure the saftey of the paying public.

Agreed. However, we're not talking Boeing 737 here. I fly a Super Cub which happens to be on a private C of A. The same, or similar aircraft could be on a permit. Since mine isn't, I have to pay a lot more money for parts and I call an uplift of five times for an ASI unreasonable. I can't imagine who wouldn't. It's galling.

QDM

[A and C]

You have an aircraft that without let or hinerance can fly all over the world due to the fact that the issue of a C of A ensures that the aircraft is fit to do so.

The people over whos heads you fly expect the aircraft to be in such a state that they will not fall out of the sky and the expencive paperwork trail required for the C of A helps to ensure that the aircraft are safe.

I might remind you that the private C of A lets you do the 50hr/6m checks your self saving you the expence of a licenced engineer.

If in a year or two,s time a part of your Cub that is critical to safety is found to have a manufacturing fault it can be traced directly to your aircraft and changed before it fails in flight , without the paperwork trail the first thing you are likely to know about the fault at manufacture is as you plummit towards the ground.

As the old saying goes "If you think that saftey is expencive try having an accident".

[Genghis the Engineer]

You have to agree however a&c that although this papertrail is clearly necessary, much could be done to reduce it's cost in this day and age.

Where, as has been mentioned, a certified instrument costs 4-5 times as much as an uncertified one, something is wrong here. I'd have thought 1.5 to 2 times should be quite enough.

G

[QDMQDMQDM]

A and C, rearrange the following words to make a well-known phrase:

"Robbery"
"Daylight"

500% price hike for a piece of paper, certifying provenance and what have you, is simply unreasonable. I feel justifiably like I am being ripped off.

QDM

P.S. Of course the following is true:

As the old saying goes "If you think that saftey is expencive try having an accident".

but people are hiding behind this as a licence to rip off the aviating punter. There are limits.

[A and C]

Yes the paperwork should not cost 500% more but are you buying at the best place ?.

One well known aviation supply company charges 100% more than another for windscreen cleaner and £4.99 more for a case of oil and that is just from one page of there catalogue !.

Take a good look around the market and you may well find that it is not all in the cost of the paperwork ( it costs about £10 to produce a release note and keep the required records ) but some suplyers who have a high profile in the market trade on the premiss that people assume that they are the only sorce of parts and load the price accordingly.