Blog 

It seems that during the performance of Receiving Inspections we’ve placed a great premium on inspecting paperwork; the better to establish proper traceability, and that required certifications are evident. But what about inspecting the parts? Well, we’re pretty good at looking for part numbers, serial numbers, batch, and lot, etc. But what about inspecting the condition of the part? Hmm, that’s more problematic.

For trained aircraft technicians, inspecting the condition of parts poses few challenges, but the majority of aircraft related businesses are not required by regulations to have licensed technicians perform their Receiving Inspections. Fortunately, many of these firms place inspectors in these positions who have years of relevant aviation industry experience. But what if you have a promising new inspector with a keen eye for detail, but does not have the experience of what to look for as far as condition is concerned? I hope these pictures, along with explanatory narrative will help.

Before we begin our adventure, a few words:

• If your company deals exclusively in factory new parts, then this blog will be useless. When inspecting factory new parts, the primary offending condition you should be inspecting for is physical damage, such as may be inflicted by being dropped, manhandled, or damaged in shipment.

• In this blog we are emphatically not suggesting that these inspections are for the purpose of establishing airworthiness of parts.

• This blog will be particularly useful to those dealing with aftermarket parts. ALL the subject parts were from the aftermarket arena.

• I’ve purposely chosen most pictures that show two or more parts for comparative and educational reasons

Same Part number. All were represented as new. NOTE:

• Different finishes on all the parts. Some shine, some dull

• Inconsistent part numbering methods, or no part numbers at all

• The one on the far right represents the typical, new-part marking convention

• Note the inside diameter of the one on the far left is not painted

NOTE:

• The part is not truly rectangular. You can tell by comparing the two areas indicated by the lower arrows

• Note the dent (indicated by the right arrow)

• If the part is square or rectangular, or any other geometric shape, give it an eyeball to see if it’s symmetrical.

NOTE:

• The difference in the threads. The one on the left has sharp angles, but the one on the right has rounded threads as if it may have been previously installed

• The one on the right has zinc chromate primer on the chromed shaft, not expected.

NOTE:

• The corrosion on the insert

NOTE:

• The corrosion on the elbow

NOTE:

• Cracks on duct

NOTE:

• Symmetry of shredded lower empennage

• Lack of the Skyhawk’s pilot in the area, for some reason

All these parts were appropriately marked. NOTE:

• The part on the bottom has a different finish

On these two, same part number, same stated condition, new. NOTE:

• Different part marking conventions. The one on the left is the expected type

• Note the different height and finish appearance

NOTE:

• Documentation forgery in progress

• Gosh, they start so young...

NOTE:

• Typical effects of parts that were thrown into a common bin; metal to metal contact that eroded the protective finish.

Parts were represented as new. NOTE:

• Marks of clear evidence of previous installation

NOTE:

• The part on the right is the good part. If you need the reasons to be enumerated, you haven’t been paying attention and should start again from the top.

Engine case part represented as overhauled. NOTE:

• Widespread discoloration

• This picture was forwarded to the customer, who stated the discoloration was characteristic of the heat treating process, and that they would accept the part.

Represented as same part number and condition. NOTE:

• Difference in finish

• Difference in thickness

COMMENTS:
Some of the reasons for these may include:

• Corrosion happens regardless of a previous owner’s best efforts to prevent it. Of course the older the part, the more likely. Don’t assume that because the overall finish of the part looks good and is corrosion free, that there will not be isolated areas affected, as shown

• The input of data into computer systems is still largely a manual, human effort. As such, errors occur. PN, serial number, and yes, condition codes may be mistakenly entered. A part may be represented as ‘new’, but should have been stated as ‘repaired’ or ‘overhauled’ because you’ve discovered evidence of previous installation. Unfortunately, there are certain characters in our industry that will deliberately try to gain more money from a sale by misrepresenting a part as new, when it is not. There, I said it, and I meant it. After all, how many of us have looked at some overhauled parts and observed that ‘the part looks new.’

• Owners and operators are permitted to manufacture parts for the repair of their aircraft. These parts are not permitted to be sold in and of themselves, but from time to time a few show up in the market as new, and differences in marking for example, between the OEM and owner produced part become evident.

• Like manuals, blueprints often become revised, and a revision may have changed the marking or finish of the part, but not the part number

WHAT TO LOOK FOR AS FAR AS PART “CONDITION” SUMMARY:

• Corrosion

• Dents, creases, scratches

• Finish: Dull vs. shiny; painted vs. unpainted

• Symmetry

• Part marking

• What do the threads look like?

• Electrical connector pins

ROYBOY’s COUNSEL:

If you don’t feel comfortable signing for it, don’t do it. On the other hand, your observations may not necessarily be grounds for rejection. Take a picture, ask for a second opinion from a friend, or send the picture to your customer and ask what is their experience with this part.

5/23/06

Roy Resto - VP Technical Operations, FAA-DAR
Phone: 414 875-2191   Fax: 414 875-0200
royboy@mbtrepair.com

site map