UK company suspected of distributing unapproved part
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK company suspected of distributing unapproved part
Saw this 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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Fake Engine Parts
This is scary.
Another report of fake engine parts
United finds fake parts in plane engines | Fortune
Another report of fake engine parts
United finds fake parts in plane engines | Fortune
Last edited by Longtimer; 21st Sep 2023 at 18:45. Reason: better link
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: LGW
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I know the paperwork is counterfeit but how would someone would go about the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.
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.
I know the paperwork is counterfeit but how would someone would go about the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.
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).
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...e-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...e-helicopters/
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I know the paperwork is counterfeit but how would someone would go about the manufacture of fake components is unbelievable.
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.
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
GE and Safran legal move on AOG Technics over rogue engine parts (punchline-gloucester.com)
AOG Technics Ordered To Provide Details Of Engine Parts Transactions | Aviation Week Network
GE and Safran legal move on AOG Technics over rogue engine parts (punchline-gloucester.com)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Jet engine maker CFM says more than half of engines with suspect parts have been removed from service | Reuters
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 7th Dec 2023 at 07:54. Reason: Threads merged, superfluous links removed
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
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
Jet engine maker CFM says more than half of engines with suspect parts have been removed from service | Reuters
Which half, though?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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
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.
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.
Moderator
The report for the Bell 212 strap pin failure can be found here:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i.../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.
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-i.../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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More recent news about AOG
.
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,
.
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
.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,