Gulfstream Airlines Uses Car Parts

Bandit_Driver said:
I am a little concerned that the first one doesn't bother you at all....It should scare the heck out of you....

I am sure some hear can give us the link to it but there was a large jet that lost an engine some years ago because the mechanic thought it would be OK to run down the hardware store and get some bolts to hang the engine with. Of course the bolts broke on takeoff....
Click to expand...

Not really, if a mechanic is dumb enough to use bolts that aren't "NAS or AN" where they are required, that bothers me, however, the use of car sheetmetal screws in a non structural place or the same component from a car just its not "FAA/PMA Approved" that's not really a big deal as far as I'm concerned. Look, I used to work in an aircraft parts store, it was a terrible job, but other than that, we'd say "go to napa" for some stuff a lot if you didn't want to pay $150 for something that should cost $20
 
TallFlyer said:
Well, in the Caravan the 65A stand-by alternator has a big Ford logo on the side of it.
Click to expand...


Chances are the main alternator has it as well.

The problem with car parts is this... Yeah, it may be the same alternator, air conditioning compressor, screws, bolts, whatever that you can get from Napa... the difference is Traceability. When the airframe manufacturer slaps a part number on something it's the same part, but when they attach an airworthiness approval form to it they are certifying that it meets the criteria they set for that part.

When you get that part from Napa/OSH/Home Depot who is certifying it? How do you know where it even came from? What material is it made out of? Well, as the owner of an airplane operated under part 91 you're perfectly allowed to produce your own parts, and your mechanic is allowed to approve them for use... but when that part breaks, people get hurt, and no one knows where the part came from, who gets the blame?

You guessed it.
 
ppragman said:
Not really, if a mechanic is dumb enough to use bolts that aren't "NAS or AN" where they are required, that bothers me, however, the use of car sheetmetal screws in a non structural place or the same component from a car just its not "FAA/PMA Approved" that's not really a big deal as far as I'm concerned. Look, I used to work in an aircraft parts store, it was a terrible job, but other than that, we'd say "go to napa" for some stuff a lot if you didn't want to pay $150 for something that should cost $20
Click to expand...

I agree with aviation parts being overpriced but that is a poor excuse to justify using auto parts in a plane IMO. I am just a pilot and not an A & P but as the one who is going Mach .90 at FL 3XX I am the one who would pay the price along with any pax or cargo if a part were to fail. I personally don't agree with it and if I had proof of a repair that mx did with substandard parts I would refuse the flight and put it back in the book.
 
It takes a lot of money to put parts thru testing, hence why certified parts always cost more. They have to recoup their costs somehow. Also I guarantee you the finished product liability insurance is 9,000,000 times higher on the aviation part than the "non" aviation part.

Everyone plays on a level playing field using FAA certified parts. There's absolutely no excuse to not use correct parts on a 121/135 level. If they are cutting corners here think about what other corners they cut...
 
The bottom line is that Gulfstream was cutting corners with maintenance items. If you're going to run a business, especially in the regulated transportation industry, than you should be following any regulations in place. I don't care what interchangable parts would work. If they aren't approved, than they shouldn't be on the aircraft. The law is the law, bottom line.

If they're willing to disregard the regs as they see fit, I wouldn't want anything to do with that operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top