Gear SAIB

[PT20J]

Counterfeit parts is an issue that the FAA has been working on for years. Some accidents have been traced to unairworthy counterfeit parts. I think that the FAA is hyper alert to anyone making airplane parts that does not follow one of the approval routes. Clearly OPP is an area where abuse would be easy. Maybe the FAA is being overzealous. But, I think it is an area where all the i's and t's need to be carefully crossed.

[ragedracer1977]

6 hours ago, Shadrach said:

  It's a misuse of resources and the letter issued by the FAA should have never been worded as it was. It's an embarrassment.

This. And my participation in the event mirrored yours.  

[EricJ]

8 hours ago, Shadrach said:

This is very likely a case where a business that was unable to adequately serve demand is now improperly attempting to use the FAA to punish those who used the OPP process to keep their aircraft safe and airworthy.  It's a misuse of resources and the letter issued by the FAA should have never been worded as it was. It's an embarrassment.

I tend to agree here.

@N201MKTurbo, @ragedracer1977 and I were all at our local IA seminar yesterday, and attended two back-to-back sessions from the local FAA FSDO on Field Approvals and Owner Produced Parts.   Every time you go to one of these things you get a slightly different perspective, which is to be expected.   This time the presenter said that an A&P could produce the parts if done on behalf of a customer if the customer requested and participated in one of the five required ways, and even that the A&P could produce more than one and leave the unused ones on the shelf for others.   This is a little different from past presentations where there was some emphasis on the idea that A&Ps cannot manufacture parts (which is true from a manufacturing perspective, unless specific authorization is obtained, like a PMA).  He did make the point that any additional copies of the part could not be advertised or offered for sale, but left it open for other owners, presumably on referral from the first customer, to request them through a compliant OPP process.    As mentioned previously, when specifically asked if multiple owners could ask for multiple copies of a part to be made for their own use under an OPP process, that that would be okay.

So at least in the opinion of this presenter from this FSDO, the expectations and interpretations that many of us have had previously have been correct.   I do understand that the FAA has an obligation to pursue complaints about non-compliant  or counterfeit parts and that that's what they were doing, but it appears that this particular case has been handled in a suboptimal fashion.

[Sabremech]

33 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I tend to agree here.

@N201MKTurbo, @ragedracer1977 and I were all at our local IA seminar yesterday, and attended two back-to-back sessions from the local FAA FSDO on Field Approvals and Owner Produced Parts.   Every time you go to one of these things you get a slightly different perspective, which is to be expected.   This time the presenter said that an A&P could produce the parts if done on behalf of a customer if the customer requested and participated in one of the five required ways, and even that the A&P could produce more than one and leave the unused ones on the shelf for others.   This is a little different from past presentations where there was some emphasis on the idea that A&Ps cannot manufacture parts (which is true from a manufacturing perspective, unless specific authorization is obtained, like a PMA).  He did make the point that any additional copies of the part could not be advertised or offered for sale, but left it open for other owners, presumably on referral from the first customer, to request them through a compliant OPP process.    As mentioned previously, when specifically asked if multiple owners could ask for multiple copies of a part to be made for their own use under an OPP process, that that would be okay.

So at least in the opinion of this presenter from this FSDO, the expectations and interpretations that many of us have had previously have been correct.   I do understand that the FAA has an obligation to pursue complaints about non-compliant  or counterfeit parts and that that's what they were doing, but it appears that this particular case has been handled in a suboptimal fashion.

Are you willing to share which FSDO? 
 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Sabremech said:

Are you willing to share which FSDO? 
 

This was here in Phoenix, so Scottsdale FSDO.

[Shadrach]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

I tend to agree here.

@N201MKTurbo, @ragedracer1977 and I were all at our local IA seminar yesterday, and attended two back-to-back sessions from the local FAA FSDO on Field Approvals and Owner Produced Parts.   Every time you go to one of these things you get a slightly different perspective, which is to be expected.   This time the presenter said that an A&P could produce the parts if done on behalf of a customer if the customer requested and participated in one of the five required ways, and even that the A&P could produce more than one and leave the unused ones on the shelf for others.   This is a little different from past presentations where there was some emphasis on the idea that A&Ps cannot manufacture parts (which is true from a manufacturing perspective, unless specific authorization is obtained, like a PMA).  He did make the point that any additional copies of the part could not be advertised or offered for sale, but left it open for other owners, presumably on referral from the first customer, to request them through a compliant OPP process.    As mentioned previously, when specifically asked if multiple owners could ask for multiple copies of a part to be made for their own use under an OPP process, that that would be okay.

So at least in the opinion of this presenter from this FSDO, the expectations and interpretations that many of us have had previously have been correct.   I do understand that the FAA has an obligation to pursue complaints about non-compliant  or counterfeit parts and that that's what they were doing, but it appears that this particular case has been handled in a suboptimal fashion.

Thanks for posting this experience. Good to know there is some practical interpretation being espoused but consistency between regions has never been the organization’s strong suit. I am confident that any investigation into the quality of the  parts themselves would find little to fault, and while we all certainly met the one of the “one of five” it could strongly be argued that we met more.

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, PT20J said:

Counterfeit parts is an issue that the FAA has been working on for years. Some accidents have been traced to unairworthy counterfeit parts. I think that the FAA is hyper alert to anyone making airplane parts that does not follow one of the approval routes. Clearly OPP is an area where abuse would be easy. Maybe the FAA is being overzealous. But, I think it is an area where all the i's and t's need to be carefully crossed.

I am all for oversight. What we have in this case is a document that articulates why these parts are not FAA PMA. It does not articulate why they do not qualify as OPP. The document implies that these units were made before they were sold, but is careful not state that directly. I have every reason to believe that these parts were made to order. If the FAA has proof to the contrary, they should make that clear.

[cliffy]

22 hours ago, Sabremech said:

You do NOT have to comply with all 4 parts of OPP. You need only to comply with one of them to meet the rule. You also don’t need qualified data. You need nothing other than an original part to make a new one. Sorry Cliffy, but you don’t seem to understand OPP rules. 

I'm having a hard time understanding where the confusion lies.

As I see it there are 5 items that an owner can choose from to comply with OPP participation-

                                     From the article I posted-

"Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as:

1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or

2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or,

3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or,

4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’

5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part."

 

From the article on how the part has to comply with an approved design- There are 4 legs that a part has to comply with to be considered a approved part for installation- ALL 4 are required-

" The part must be produced to conform to the design. A properly produced part means the part conforms to the FAA approved design. Usually a properly produced part will have the following characteristics:

• The part complies with all applicable structural requirements of its design.
• The materials and products conform to the specifications in the design.
• The part conforms to the drawings in the design.
• The manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly of the part conform to those specified in the design."

 

Now here is a question posed to Bill O'Brien (an FAA Maintenance guy) many years ago (he's now passed away)

"Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the approved data to make a part if the manufacturer and other sources are no longer in business?

Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer supporting the continuing airworthiness of then the owner or operator can petition the FAA Aircraft Certification Directorate under the Freedom of Information Act for the data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator can reverse engineer the part and have the data approved under a FAA field approval or if it is a real complicated part, have the data approved by a FAA engineer or FAA Designated Engineering Representative."

 

I was stating that the part has to have some sort of traceable design paperwork to an approved status of manufacture. Factory design drawings, reverse engineer with DER, total DER design. I can see no way to just "design" your own part (even if it is better than original) because it still has to conform to the "approved " design. 

In addition, as was postulated in later additions to this thread, one "could" make 50 pieces to a "proper order" from one owner and put 49 on the shelf and NOT advertise them for sale to the general public. IF another owner needed one that owner "could" participate in the design by submitting the proper paperwork to the person making the part, purchase it and install it and get it legally signed off by an A&P. This is exactly how McFarlan sells throttle. mixture and prop controls. They supply the paperwork for the owner to specify what he needs (participates in the design of the part).  They don't just hold out to the public that they have the parts for sale.

 

I think all of the above go along with what I postulated in my first post 

Where is the controversy or confusion?

Sabremech- How can what I've posted be worked around when it comes straight from an FAA maintenance person? I am confused by your post. You say no approved data needs to be on hand and that only one leg of the four needs to be considered?  Please tell me how this can be accomplished in light of my above additional postings? I guess I could say I feel that it needs to be in 43.13 OR have tracable approved data to make the part comply. 

I am willing to learn but I see no way around it 

If there is any FAA opinion contrary to what I have posted please show me so I can change my position on the subject at hand. I can find noting to contradict what I have posted.

Attached is the original Bill O'Brien  article

https://150cessna.tripod.com/obrienonownermadeparts.html

 

 

[cliffy]

13 hours ago, Pinecone said:

You are not reading that article carefully.  It CLEARLY says you only need to meet ONE of the requirements.

 

"The aircraft owner must participate in the manufacture of the part in at least one of five ways for it to be considered an owner produced part.
1. The owner provides the manufacturer of the part with the design or performance data.
2. The owner provides the manufacturer of the part with the materials.
3. The owner provides the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods.
4. The owner provides the manufacturer of the part with quality control procedures.
5. The owner personally supervises the manufacture of the new part."

I think you have misunderstood my position   Could we be confusing "participate in the process" with the required 4 legs of approval of the part? 

They are different subjects

The owner can "make the part" in one of 5 ways

The part then has to qualify as "approved" in 4 ways. 

If I'm wrong please someone show me verifiable FAA opinions on the matter so I can change my position. 

I am willing to learn. 

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I am all for oversight. What we have in this case is a document that articulates why these parts are not FAA PMA. It does not articulate why they do not qualify as OPP. The document implies that these units were made before they were sold, but is careful not state that directly. I have every reason to believe that these parts were made to order. If the FAA has proof to the contrary, they should make that clear.

I don't disagree. My point was simply that knowing that this is an area of emphasis for the FAA, it would seem prudent to be circumspect regarding the process and documentation. I know nothing about the parts that are the subject of the present discussion, and have no opinion one way or the other. But, I have seen plenty of threads where the some seemed to push the limits considerably. The off shore company making cheap landing gear biscuits comes to mind. On the other hand, McFarlane seems very good at making both PMA parts and OPP without running afoul of the rules, so it must be possible. 

Skip

[Sabremech]

9 hours ago, cliffy said:

I'm having a hard time understanding where the confusion lies.

As I see it there are 5 items that an owner can choose from to comply with OPP participation-

                                     From the article I posted-

"Answer 1: No, the owner does not have to make the part himself. However to be considered a producer of the part he must have participated in controlling the design, manufacturer, or quality of the part such as:

1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or

2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or,

3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or,

4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’

5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part."

 

From the article on how the part has to comply with an approved design- There are 4 legs that a part has to comply with to be considered a approved part for installation- ALL 4 are required-

" The part must be produced to conform to the design. A properly produced part means the part conforms to the FAA approved design. Usually a properly produced part will have the following characteristics:

• The part complies with all applicable structural requirements of its design.
• The materials and products conform to the specifications in the design.
• The part conforms to the drawings in the design.
• The manufacturing processes, construction, and assembly of the part conform to those specified in the design."

 

Now here is a question posed to Bill O'Brien (an FAA Maintenance guy) many years ago (he's now passed away)

"Question 8: How does the owner or operator get the approved data to make a part if the manufacturer and other sources are no longer in business?

Answer 8: For aircraft that the manufacturer is no longer supporting the continuing airworthiness of then the owner or operator can petition the FAA Aircraft Certification Directorate under the Freedom of Information Act for the data on how the part was made. Or the owner or operator can reverse engineer the part and have the data approved under a FAA field approval or if it is a real complicated part, have the data approved by a FAA engineer or FAA Designated Engineering Representative."

 

I was stating that the part has to have some sort of traceable design paperwork to an approved status of manufacture. Factory design drawings, reverse engineer with DER, total DER design. I can see no way to just "design" your own part (even if it is better than original) because it still has to conform to the "approved " design. 

In addition, as was postulated in later additions to this thread, one "could" make 50 pieces to a "proper order" from one owner and put 49 on the shelf and NOT advertise them for sale to the general public. IF another owner needed one that owner "could" participate in the design by submitting the proper paperwork to the person making the part, purchase it and install it and get it legally signed off by an A&P. This is exactly how McFarlan sells throttle. mixture and prop controls. They supply the paperwork for the owner to specify what he needs (participates in the design of the part).  They don't just hold out to the public that they have the parts for sale.

 

I think all of the above go along with what I postulated in my first post 

Where is the controversy or confusion?

Sabremech- How can what I've posted be worked around when it comes straight from an FAA maintenance person? I am confused by your post. You say no approved data needs to be on hand and that only one leg of the four needs to be considered?  Please tell me how this can be accomplished in light of my above additional postings? I guess I could say I feel that it needs to be in 43.13 OR have tracable approved data to make the part comply. 

I am willing to learn but I see no way around it 

If there is any FAA opinion contrary to what I have posted please show me so I can change my position on the subject at hand. I can find noting to contradict what I have posted.

Attached is the original Bill O'Brien  article

https://150cessna.tripod.com/obrienonownermadeparts.html

 

 

I think you are confusing and intermingling OPP and FAA/PMA parts together. I think even Bill O’Brien was referencing PMA parts process in his article a bit. I spoke with a DER during the process of the downlock blocks as to whether their services were required and the answer was no unless I was seeking a PMA. Much like the FAA, I think we’re interpreting the OPP rule differently. 
 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Sabremech

[ragedracer1977]

2 hours ago, cliffy said:

I think you have misunderstood my position   Could we be confusing "participate in the process" with the required 4 legs of approval of the part? 

They are different subjects

The owner can "make the part" in one of 5 ways

The part then has to qualify as "approved" in 4 ways. 

If I'm wrong please someone show me verifiable FAA opinions on the matter so I can change my position. 

I am willing to learn. 

I don’t think you’re wrong, per se, I just think you’re misreading.

1: the part must be properly designed.  

 - the parts in question here are properly designed, being either a duplicate of the OEM or another approved part depending who you ask, and therefore they are FAA approved.

2: the part must conform to the design.

  - here the owners verified the produced parts conformed to the design. Still FAA approved.

3:  properly documented.

  - machinist drawings and reports containing the FAA approved data was provided to the owner of the part.

4: properly maintained.

 -that’s an ongoing thing. As it’s a duplicate FAA approved part - complying with the maintenance manual (which, btw for the model I owned had no requirements) would meet this standard.

 

 So, the owners definitely met at least one, but realistically 3, prongs of the 5 OPP tests, and all 4 legs of your stool.

At least that’s how I see it.  Although, I’d argue that the 4 “leg” test is fundamentally flawed. It’s circular.  If it meets just #1, it automatically meets the other 3 if produced in accordance with #1.  

 

 

[EricJ]

On 3/10/2023 at 7:31 PM, cliffy said:

I was stating that the part has to have some sort of traceable design paperwork to an approved status of manufacture. Factory design drawings, reverse engineer with DER, total DER design. I can see no way to just "design" your own part (even if it is better than original) because it still has to conform to the "approved " design. 

If an A&P duplicates a control surface rib during the repair of a damaged control surface, that is a part replacement during a repair.   The rib design is already approved, and if the part is properly duplicated getting a DER involved is just a waste of the customer's time and money, and the customer would be well advised to go elsewhere for a repair.   An OPP part is often essentially the same, imho. 

This is discussed in the Byrne legal opinion letter from the FAA:

"The person provided the manufacturer with design or performance data from which to manufacture the part. (This may occur, for instance, where a person provided a part to a manufacturer and asked that the part be duplicated.)"

So just providing the previous article for duplication inherently includes the data if the previous part was approved.   If the part is a proper duplication of an existing approved part, getting an additional approval would seem redundant.  Part substitution is covered in many different ACs, including some specific to aging or vintage aircraft, and none that I've read require the engagement of a DER for part duplication, even through reverse engineering as described above in the Byrne letter.  There are certainly times when it is appropriate, but I've not seen any guidance to indicate it is always required.

Unless you or I are installing the part, our opinions on whether the part is suitable for installation don't matter.   As mentioned previously, the only approval required is that of the installing A&P (or owner if it falls under Preventive Maintenance).   It'll get a second look by the IA at the next annual, so their opinion matters as well.

[Pinecone]

On 3/11/2023 at 12:20 AM, ragedracer1977 said:

I don’t think you’re wrong, per se, I just think you’re misreading.

1: the part must be properly designed.  

 - the parts in question here are properly designed, being either a duplicate of the OEM or another approved part depending who you ask, and therefore they are FAA approved.

2: the part must conform to the design.

  - here the owners verified the produced parts conformed to the design. Still FAA approved.

3:  properly documented.

  - machinist drawings and reports containing the FAA approved data was provided to the owner of the part.

4: properly maintained.

 -that’s an ongoing thing. As it’s a duplicate FAA approved part - complying with the maintenance manual (which, btw for the model I owned had no requirements) would meet this standard.

 

 So, the owners definitely met at least one, but realistically 3, prongs of the 5 OPP tests, and all 4 legs of your stool.

At least that’s how I see it.  Although, I’d argue that the 4 “leg” test is fundamentally flawed. It’s circular.  If it meets just #1, it automatically meets the other 3 if produced in accordance with #1.  

Those are not the 5 items for OPP.  They are:

1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or

2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or,

3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or,

4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’

5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part."

When this came up initially, I stated that based on what was first said, that I could see why the FAA had an issue.  One owner sent a part to be duplicated. The shop created a drawing, made the parts and shipped the part with the drawing to the other owners.  So, other than the owner that shipped the shop the part to be duplicated, the other owners did not do 1, 2, 3 or 5.

IMO, if the original owner got the drawing, distributed it to the other owners, who then send a copy to the shop to be part of a group production, they would have met 1 and possibly 3, if they were included in the drawing.  Yes, this ends up at the same end point, but the path is different.  And it meets what the regs say.

It was not clear from the original postings that the owners did the QC upon receipt (measuring to make sure that the part complied with the drawing).  If they did, and I would have documented doing so, they would have met 4.

[ragedracer1977]

4 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Those are not the 5 items for OPP.  They are:

1. provide the manufacturer with the design or performance data from which to make the part, or

2. provide the manufacturer with the materials to make the part or,

3. provide the manufacturer with fabrication processes or assembly methods to make the part or,

4. provide the quality control procedures to make the part or’

5. personally supervised the manufacturer of the part."

When this came up initially, I stated that based on what was first said, that I could see why the FAA had an issue.  One owner sent a part to be duplicated. The shop created a drawing, made the parts and shipped the part with the drawing to the other owners.  So, other than the owner that shipped the shop the part to be duplicated, the other owners did not do 1, 2, 3 or 5.

IMO, if the original owner got the drawing, distributed it to the other owners, who then send a copy to the shop to be part of a group production, they would have met 1 and possibly 3, if they were included in the drawing.  Yes, this ends up at the same end point, but the path is different.  And it meets what the regs say.

It was not clear from the original postings that the owners did the QC upon receipt (measuring to make sure that the part complied with the drawing).  If they did, and I would have documented doing so, they would have met 4.

There’s two separate “tests”.  First test determines if the part is OPP.  Second test is if the part is FAA approved.

 As part of the group that had the parts produced, you don’t have a clear understanding of how it was done.

[carusoam]

If an A&P mechanic can legally replace a damaged wing rib… using OPPs…

We are in good shape!

 

When it comes to throttle cables…

Nobody produces them better than McFarlane…

Nobody knows more about getting the right one than McFarlane…

Nobody knows the OPP business better than McFarlane…

Nobody knows the OEM business better than McFarlane as well…

 

When it comes to Mooney parts… it can get more tricky… but doesn’t have to be tricky for all parts…

There is one down lock block…

It easily suffers from wear…

We don’t need to be metallurgists to know that a chrome coated steel piece inserted into a painted piece of aluminum will preferentially wear through any paint or aluminum over time… the softer material wears preferentially…

 

The part wears during all the time the plane is taxiing around, and while moving around in the wind at it’s tie-down…

When not replaced, it has a high probability of failure… making the pilot look bad…

The part has Such a high probability of failure, every Mooney community group has been aware of it for decades…

So much time… that work arounds have been designed by Mooney Maintenance gurus… we know it as the thumbnail test as described by DMax…

With all this in place… each new owner has to come up to speed with all of these idiosyncrasies before day one of flying…

 

Manufacturing parts is complex for owners with no background in parts manufacturing…

We all (probably)know… a part isn’t done being manufactured, until all of its QC is completed and filed away properly…

 

As an owner…

We need to make sure we get the right part…

Often the design process for us… is to check the P/N printed on it… combined with what plane we have… confirm with the parts manual to be sure the part hasn’t been improperly replaced before…

In the event there are two different lock blocks… we need to verify that we have the right one…

A huge quality test for an owner… is comparison to the original, and/or install the part.  Confirm it’s operation… up on jacks.

For a parts manufacturer…

Even Continental builds engines to a very complete standard in advance, then completes a final step in accordance with what the customer requirement is…  the final manufacturing step, can easily be… compare what the customer has asked for… to what the manufacturer has just completed for him… then file the documents in the finished parts file. 

 

Something was keeping owners from being able to buy a proper part for their Mooney…

Depending on the year… Mooney was out of business, or just asleep at the parts sales switch…

Mooney once had a very adept parts sales guy that was restricted on using social media where his customers were all hanging around at…

 

We could all discuss DMax’s thumbnail test annually… and often miss getting through to new owners…

 

Or find David… who knows how to build GA airplane parts as a business….

Have him build a down lock block that matches the OPP procedure…

Once installed, the part is good for the next 20-30 years again…

 

A new downlock block has…

1) A straight hole, not egg shaped…

2) smooth bore, no step in it…

 

Trying to define how egg shaped is too much… can’t happen economically…

Trying to define how much of a step is too much… can’t happen economically…

Trying to get Mooney to supply parts everywhere they are needed… can’t happen economically…

For comparison, Even getting Big G to supply answers… everywhere they are needed is a challenge… and comes at a price…. Try to find Trek…. 

 

Holy cow… there is one Mooney rubber donut that is ripe for OPP manufacturing… anyone with a Mooney Mite knows this…

That rubber parts manufacturer… is getting closer to being able to make that ancient part… the project is still alive and has dragged on for years…  it probably could use David’s (expertise in OPP) assistance to cross the finish line… every Mooney Mite owner would be better served by this occurrence!

 

 

The FAA gave us OPP for a reason…

We need more OPPs!

PP thinking out loud only, not a mechanic… or FAA lawyer…

Best regards,

-a-

[Pinecone]

20 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

There’s two separate “tests”.  First test determines if the part is OPP.  Second test is if the part is FAA approved.

 As part of the group that had the parts produced, you don’t have a clear understanding of how it was done.

I understand the difference.

The post I was replying to mixed up the two sets of requirements.  That is why I quoted the 5 things from the OPP.

I can only go by what was stated here.  And based on what I heard, I can see why the FAA had an issue.   It is a minor difference, but they have to go by the what the regs state.  Even when there is no difference in the end.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

I can only go by what was stated here.  And based on what I heard, I can see why the FAA had an issue.   It is a minor difference, but they have to go by the what the regs state.  Even when there is no difference in the end.

What you may be missing is that there was great care taken by those involved to make sure that they were following the regs.   This wasn't done without a lot of thought put into it.

[Shadrach]

There are many subjective opinions being rendered here that I don’t think pass the smell test. Let’s take a try a totally different scenario. That I will intentionally make a bit more questionable.
 

Let’s say I have a CAD drawing of a specific tool. It’s known to be accurate because I used it to have a tool duplicated for myself.  An acquaintance of mine who has inquired about borrowing the tool learns that I have the CAD drawing. I give them the name of the machine shop that I used and tell them that the shop has drawing number XXX3762 on file. That person and several acquaintances take that information and decide to have several tools made for each of them. They all prepay for the tool, they all know the  CAD files was developed from an original tool but they have one person go to the machine shop and make the initial request. Another member of the group calls to check on the fabrication progress. Yet another member picks up the final products and meets the other three in his shop. All of them review the supplied paper work which is in their individual names. All of them analyze the tools for quality and conformity. All of them test the tools for functionality.  Is the machine shop a manufacturer or a fabricator?  Did the group buy manufactured tools or did the group commission the production of tools with verified data? 

[ragedracer1977]

4 hours ago, Shadrach said:

There are many subjective opinions being rendered here that I don’t think pass the smell test. Let’s take a try a totally different scenario. That I will intentionally make a bit more questionable.
 

Let’s say I have a CAD drawing of a specific tool. It’s known to be accurate because I used it to have a tool duplicated for myself.  An acquaintance of mine who has inquired about borrowing the tool learns that I have the CAD drawing. I give them the name of the machine shop that I used and tell them that the shop has drawing number XXX3762 on file. That person and several acquaintances take that information and decide to have several tools made for each of them. They all prepay for the tool, they all know the  CAD files was developed from an original tool but they have one person go to the machine shop and make the initial request. Another member of the group calls to check on the fabrication progress. Yet another member picks up the final products and meets the other three in his shop. All of them review the supplied paper work which is in their individual names. All of them analyze the tools for quality and conformity. All of them test the tools for functionality.  Is the machine shop a manufacturer or a fabricator?  Did the group buy manufactured tools or did the group commission the production of tools with verified data? 

Long story short, the Scottsdale FSDO says that’s fine.

His example was:  

Owner comes to a fabricator.  Has a part made.  Fabricator sees they can make 5 parts out of the one chunk of specific material they had to buy.  Totally OK to make 5 and put 4 on the shelf.  Fabricator can’t advertise them, but if the original owner who requested the part tells his friends about it, they can can go and buy them as OPP.

 

 

[Igor_U]

On 3/13/2023 at 10:13 AM, Shadrach said:

 Is the machine shop a manufacturer or a fabricator?  Did the group buy manufactured tools or did the group commission the production of tools with verified data? 

It doesn't matter. It's a tool, not a airplane installed part. 

[A64Pilot]

On 3/7/2023 at 10:21 PM, Shadrach said:

There are only two going concerns capable of manufacturing down block. So….probably one of them.

I know it’s a sensitive subject, but what’s stopping an owner from taking one to a local machine shop and asking them to duplicate it?

If one wanted to get really anal, take a chunk of the proper material, I assume 6061 T6?

IF you have a worn lock, there is nothing keeping you from replacing it with a new one.

I’ve never really inspected one but doubt it’s a very difficult part to duplicate.

With what PMA parts often cost it may even be less expensive to have a one off part manufactured.

I bring this up in case someone is flying with a worn one and thinks they can’t get it replaced.

[A64Pilot]

Ref the A&P manufacturing an OPP.

An A&P unless they are the owner CANNOT manufacture an OPP from a legal perspective.

The owner is the manufacturer, even if they didn’t build anything.

As with everything in the FAA, it’s the paperwork trail that matters, not what really goes on, you have to give them plausible deniability, and at the inspector level, most things are their opinion, and ask three and you will get three different opinions.

It’s just like building your own airplane, you can have A&P’s or others assist you, but you are the manufacturer.

I’m sure we and the FAA know that a great many “Experimental” airplanes are built without the owner really building 51% themselves.

Saw what looked like a Lancair IVP with a P&W 750HP turbine the other day, it wasn’t a Lancair, but looked similar, but does anyone really think the Dr or whoever owned it really built that thing as his first ever airplane build?

[Shadrach]

On 3/23/2023 at 8:37 AM, A64Pilot said:

I know it’s a sensitive subject, but what’s stopping an owner from taking one to a local machine shop and asking them to duplicate it?

If one wanted to get really anal, take a chunk of the proper material, I assume 6061 T6?

IF you have a worn lock, there is nothing keeping you from replacing it with a new one.

I’ve never really inspected one but doubt it’s a very difficult part to duplicate.

With what PMA parts often cost it may even be less expensive to have a one off part manufactured.

I bring this up in case someone is flying with a worn one and thinks they can’t get it replaced.

Indeed the gross costs to OPP this piece are significantly less than buying PMA...if you can find one.  The question is how has such a scenario occurred.  The most obvious answer is low volume and over regulation.  However, the manufactures have some responsibility here.  If several dozen people have collaborated to fabricate hard to get replacement parts, then the manufacture was obviously asleep at the wheel.  We have a commerce section on this board. As far as I can tell, it's not being well utilized by folks with PMA.  Seems small producers of STC'd mods are more interested in their potential customer base than the folks with PMA.  What stopped Mooney or LASAR from offering a group buy to facilitate an efficient production run?  

[Shadrach]

On 3/15/2023 at 3:33 PM, Igor_U said:

It doesn't matter. It's a tool, not a airplane installed part. 

Absolutely. Which illustrates how poorly written/interpreted regulations can bend a straight forward scenario into an ambiguous, confusing and inconsistent reality.  At least it contributes to safety...oh wait.