Aerodine Composites’ Post

"Mastering the Fundamentals: A Closer Look at 14 CFR Part 91.417(a)(1)" In the world of general aviation, meticulous maintenance documentation is not just a best practice; it's a requirement. Today, we narrow our focus to 14 CFR Part 91.417(a)(1), detailing the first set of requirements for maintaining and retaining aircraft maintenance records. This regulation is foundational for ensuring the ongoing airworthiness and safety of your aircraft. The Core of 14 CFR Part 91.417(a)(1): This specific section mandates that aircraft owners and operators keep records of all maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, and repairs performed on the aircraft. Here’s what you need to know: Detailed Records: Every action taken on the aircraft, no matter how minor it may seem, must be documented. This includes routine maintenance, unexpected repairs, modifications, and even the smallest adjustments. What to Include: For each entry, the record must specify the description of the work performed, ensuring clarity and completeness. It’s not enough to note that maintenance was done; the records must articulate what was maintained or repaired, how it was done, and why. The Importance of Detail: These detailed records serve multiple critical functions. They ensure compliance with FAA regulations, yes, but they also provide a transparent history of the aircraft’s upkeep. This can be invaluable for diagnosing future issues, planning maintenance, ensuring safety, and preserving the aircraft's value. Why Detail Matters: Each maintenance entry is a piece of the aircraft’s story. Accurate and comprehensive records help paint a full picture of the aircraft's health and maintenance history. They're essential for maintaining high safety standards and can significantly impact the aircraft's longevity and performance. Navigating Compliance: Understanding and applying the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.417(a)(1) is crucial for every aircraft owner and operator. It’s about more than following rules; it’s about embracing a culture of safety and responsibility. Next in Our Series: Stay tuned as we continue to explore the depths of aviation maintenance documentation, offering insights to navigate the complexities of FAA regulations confidently.  #AviationMaintenance #FAARegulations #SafetyFirst #AircraftOwnership #Avolatus How do you ensure your maintenance records meet the detailed requirements of Part 91.417(a)(1)?

Recently, poorly documented parts have been self-reported by airlines (Delta, United, American Airlines). The suspect parts have been found in jet turbine engines after routine maintenance. The flashier headlines call this "fake parts." Whether or not the parts are counterfeit, blacktopped, or just poorly documented, the security of the supply chain is worrisome. One question on the table is: How much are we willing to pay for a secure supply chain? Logically, part authentication in the supply chain falls into the workflow category of quality assurance. From an accounting perspective, quality assurance is a necessary expense and not a revenue generator. The optimal solution is to combine part authentication and a quality assurance inspection into a single workflow operation. In the #additivemanufacturing workflow, new part inspection with X-ray imaging is common. We believe a slight modification of the X-ray imaging process is a path towards part authentication. To summarize, to fight suspect parts in aircrafts, we believe current X-ray inspection at fabrication and maintenance needs an upgrade to become part of a cyber-physical trust anchor workflow. And, for those parts not currently inspected by X-ray, a review of the available X-ray methods--the last few years have brought new technology such as interferometry and handheld systems--can yield a best fit of imaging for both #qualityassurance and part #authentication. Les Butler Charles Hartman https://lnkd.in/g4XGXYau

New Post: What you need to know about the counterfeit airplane engine parts scandal - Airlines worldwide are checking their aircraft amid reports of counterfeit documents surrounding engine parts installed in certain jet engines. More than 100 aircraft have been found to contain questionable parts in engines manufactured by CFM International, a joint venture between General Electric and French aerospace firm Safran. Several of those aircraft are operated by U.S. carriers, including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines. Want more airline-specific news? Sign up for TPG’s free new biweekly Aviation newsletter. At the center of the scandal is a U.K. firm called AOG Technics, which serves as a broker for spare aircraft parts. CFM has accused the company of forging safety documentation for various engine parts, which were eventually installed on the aircraft during maintenance. The specific engine that has been affected, the CFM56, is used on a variety of aircraft, including some older Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family jets. A total of 126 engines globally contain parts sold by AOG Technics, according to an accounting by Bloomberg, while 95 falsified documents have been uncovered. What remains unclear is whether the engine parts in question are actually shoddy or if it’s simply the documentation that is unreliable. The Federal Aviation Administration typically must approve all parts that are used as replacements on aircraft through its Parts Manufacturing Approval program, an FAA spokesperson told TPG. Parts that have not undergone the PMA process can make it into the supply chain, however. This led the FAA to create a specific program to investigate Suspected Unapproved Parts in the 1990s. In some cases, the FAA spokesperson said, companies may produce parts but will skip the PMA application “to avoid the time and cost of the process and the uncertainty whether we’ll agree the part is of equal or better quality than the original,” which is the FAA’s standard for replacement parts. That means that even if those parts are built at full quality, the FAA has not verified it. In an advisory posted to the SUP webpage, the FAA noted that the parts sold by AOG Technics came with PMA documentation that appears to be fraudulent, with improper formatting and missing boilerplate text. Ultimately, however, it does not necessarily matter whether the parts are substandard or whether they’re just missing the authentic documentation. Without genuine documentation that verifies that the parts meet all quality and safety standards, the FAA requires that they be removed. So far in the U.S., the scandal does not appear to have impacted any airlines’ operations. Each of the affected airlines has pulled the impacted aircraft from service. Delta, the latest U.S. carrier to find parts supplied by AOG Technics, said it was working to replace those parts. “Delta has been informed by one of our engine service providers

Safety Inspection Manager® by Guardhat Inc. has partnered with Gulfstream Aerospace to digitally streamline safety inspections. Gulf Stream's G650 inspection scope requires approximately 1,800 labor hours and 20 days of aircraft downtime! Digitizing and automating this inspection process with Safety Inspection Manager® can save Gulfstream Aerospace nearly 750 labor hours in just 20 days amplified by improved inspection accuracy keeping birds in the air, and owners, pilots and riders safe. Guardhat Inc. is improving lives... one... inspection... at... a... time. Check out the short article by Weststar Aviation Group below:

What unconventional maintenance methods have you seen? Aircraft maintenance procedures adhere to strict regulations and safety standards, and approved lubricants designed specifically for aviation applications are used to ensure proper functioning of aircraft components, including doors. Using inappropriate lubricants could compromise the integrity of the door mechanisms, potentially leading to malfunctions or safety hazards during flight. #engineeringinnovation #safety #airlinesafety #industrialautomation #dishsoaplubricant #boeing737 https://lnkd.in/eH-WCAar

Need to know what to do with your core after an exchange? See how to correctly return your core and the steps necessary.

Time is of the essence when it comes to Aircraft on Ground (AOG) situations. An AOG may occur if an aircraft part is found unserviceable, preventing the aircraft from flying. Delays to aircraft schedules may financially hurt operations, depending on how long it takes to receive the necessary parts or repairs. Knowing how to prepare for the unexpected and what information to provide to suppliers ahead of time can help you effectively and efficiently navigate the AOG process.

Why are airlines purchasing aircraft parts from unaccredited suppliers? The guidance provided by FAA AC 00-56B Voluntary Industry Distributor Accreditation Program was developed jointly by the FAA and Quality Assurance Professionals at many of the leading airlines. It was developed to help certificated persons such as MROs, Repair Stations and Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (AMTs) establish the eligibility of parts and products for installation on Type Certificated (TC) Products. Bottom line, know your supplier! AOG Technics, Ltd was NOT an Accredited Supplier; they DID NOT follow the guidance of FAA AC 00-56B; they DID NOT allow their company to be audited by a third party auditor to certify that their organization complied with any of the Quality Management Systems (QMS) listed in FAA AC 00-56B. Shortly after FAA AC 00-56 was first published in 1993 most airlines adopted a position of ONLY purchasing from suppliers that were Accredited. My question is: "Since AOG Technics, Ltd was NOT Accredited Supplier, did any company who purchased parts from them ever conduct an onsite audit". If you have questions about FAA AC 00-56B or ASA 100 you can download the documents for free at a link found on the aviation Suppliers Association site at www.aviationsuppliers.org #ASA100 #aviation #airlines #aviationindustry #aviationsuppliersassociation #FAA