Savvy Aviator Newsletter 2005-02

The FAA places restrictions on what parts may be installed on a certificated aircraft. Sometimes, liability-conscious A&Ps make those restrictions sound more restrictive (and expensive) than the FAA intends.

Two months ago, I wrote a Savvy Owner Notebook column titled "Just Say No To Overpriced Parts." In that piece, I offered a number of specific suggestions for saving money on replacement parts, including: (1) purchasing parts at discount; (2) using salvage yard parts; and (3) buying "standard parts" such as fasteners and discrete electronic components from non-aviation sources.

My friend Joseph E. ("Jeb") Burnside, who edits Belvoir Publications' Aviation Safety magazine (and is a very savvy owner of a gorgeous Beech Debonair), read my newsletter and asked to reprint it in his magazine. Naturally, I said yes.

Shortly after that issue of Aviation Safety hit the streets, Jeb emailed me a letter he'd received from an A&P/IA who was clearly unhappy with my suggestions:

I just finished reading Mike Busch's article in the February 2005 issue and came away shaking my head.

First he tells us "Never pay list price for any expensive part. Your shop can often get 40% off." I'd like to know the place where he gets these discounted parts so I can order them for my shop! In my shop we go through various manufacturers, distributors and other parts vendors, but if they don't have the part in stock, we sometimes have to get it from the factory AT LIST PRICE and no discount. The repair facility needs to be able to make something to stay in business right? Otherwise who will be there to fix you when you break down?

Under his sidebar, Busch tells us to "buy standard parts from a non-aviation source whenever possible." I don't like to pay what seems like absurdly high prices for a microswitch or fasteners from Cessna, Piper, or Beech when I can get them at Newark Electronics or McMaster-Carr. But the fact is they are not supposed to be installed on an aircraft! Period! If the doesn't have traceability and/or an FAA 8130 Form, it doesn't get installed on the aircraft even it appears to be truly identical. The FAA is so big on SUPs (suspected unapproved parts) that they have forms to fill out and submit to them when and A&P or Repairman finds one on an aircraft. Mr. Busch tells us to "just make sure that the parts are truly identical to the originals." I'd like to ask how he expects an aircraft owner to do this?

I run an FAA Approved Certified Repair Station and I need to be competitive on pricing so I don't lose my customers to the next guy down the street, but I will not install a part in an aircraft unless it meets the FAA's requirements. It's the Law.

I won't identify the letter writer because I don't want to embarrass him -- let's call him "Ike the IA." I was not surprised by Ike's letter, because owners are told things like this by mechanics and repair stations all the time. I'm sure that Ike is a very experienced A&P/IA, and that he genuinely believes every syllable of his letter.

If Ike's repair station sometimes has to pay "list price (no discount)" for aircraft parts, then I respectfully suggest Ike consider firing his parts manager and hire one who knows what he's doing. Nobody in the industry ever pays anything remotely close to list price for parts. I'll concede that occasionally there are parts that can only be purchased at 20% or 25% off list, but there are plenty that can be had for 50% off list. If a parts manager is not averaging at least 30% or 35% discount from list price across the board, he's not trying.

Look, I have no problem with a shop charging its aircraft-owner customers list price on repair parts. That's pretty much standard industry practice, and appropriately so. The shop probably buys the parts for 30% or 40% less than list (on average), but by the time you add in the time the shop spends researching the part numbers, ordering, unpacking and inspecting the parts (none of this is usually billable time), financing the parts (for parts the shop keeps in stock), and paying for freight charges, the shop is lucky to do just barely better than break-even when it charges its customer list price.

On the other hand, if the list price of a "genuine Beech" throttle cable is $1,600 (yes, that's Raytheon's price!) and if a just-as-good PMA replacement is available for $350 (which it is), then I think a shop does its customers a grave disservice by insisting that the exorbitantly overpriced OEM part be installed. At the very least, I think the shop should advise the owner about the available options and let the owner make the final decision.

In my seminars, I teach owners to avoid overpriced parts (like that Beech $1,600 throttle cable) like the plague. The $350 PMA cable is a much more sensible option. If the owner is lucky enough to find a good, serviceable throttle cable in a salvage yard or on eBay for $150 with an approved part number stamped on it, that's even better in my view.

Some shops have a problem with that. Clearly Ike's shop does. But if a shop has this attitude, then I'd suggest that the shop's customers might do well to find another shop that is a little more sensitive to the desire of aircraft owners not to waste money on overpriced parts.

Then there's the issue of owner-furnished parts. Is it reasonable for an owner to buy aircraft parts at discount and then ask his A&P or shop to install them? Different shops and mechanics have widely different policies in this regard. Some shops strictly prohibit the installation of owner-furnished parts -- I suspect that Ike's shop is one of these. Other shops are amenable to using owner-furnished parts provided that the owner coordinates with the shop in advance, and does all the necessary research, ordering and unpacking, and pays the taxes and shipping costs. (Guess which kind of shop I'd prefer to do business with?)

Owners interested in furnishing their own parts would be wise to discuss this with their shop before they place any orders. Your mechanic doesn't like surprises any better than you do. Talk it over with him first.

I am very disturbed by Ike's assertion that if a part doesn't have traceability and/or an FAA 8130-3 form, it isn't legal to be installed on a certificated aircraft. I'm sure Ike believes this, that he tells this to his customers, and that many of them buy it. But it's just flat wrong.

Would the FAA be happy if every part installed on an aircraft had traceability and 8130-3 paperwork? Sure it would. Has the FAA issued (non-regulatory) Advisory Circulars suggesting that mechanics might want to do this? Sure it has. Is such traceability required by regulation for maintenance of a Part 91 aircraft. Heck no!

If it were required by regulation, all the aircraft salvage yards (and there are dozens of them) would be out of business, because their entire business is selling "as removed" parts that have no paperwork by definition. The same would be true of the dozens of companies that deal in surplus parts that generally have no paperwork with them (often because the parts were manufactured before the FAA invented Form 8130-3).

Salvage yard parts and surplus parts are perfectly legal to be installed on a certificated aircraft, so long as the installing mechanic inspects them and determines that they are airworthy. I defy Ike to show me the rule in 14 CFR that says this isn't so. In fact, I've yet to meet an A&P who hasn't installed salvage yard parts and surplus parts from time to time, because sometimes that's the only place you can obtain a needed part.

Let's talk about standard fasteners and electronic components. For these, the situation is even clearer. Not only is there no regulation that prohibits an A&P from using standard AN/MS/NAS-type fasteners from McMaster-Carr or standard electrical or electronic components from Newark Electronics or Mouser Electronics or Digi-Key Corp. or even Radio Shack, but in fact there's a regulation that explicitly says it's okay to do exactly that.

14 CFR §21.303(a)(4) explicitly says that "standard parts (such as bolts and nuts) conforming to established industry or U.S. specifications" may be installed on a certificated aircraft without the need for any PMA paperwork. Furthermore, a March 5, 1997, notice of interpretation by the FAA Office of General Counsel (see Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 43, pp 9923-9925) states that certain discrete electrical and electronic parts (e.g., resistors, capacitors, diodes, transistors, non-programmable ICs) "fit within the limits of the §21.303(a)(4) exception."

Suppose, for example, that the cockpit lighting rheostat and dimming transistor on my Cessna 310 are burned out. I remove the bad parts and note that the rheostat Cessna used is a Mallory VK1K and the transistor is a 2N3055. Is it legal for me to replace them with a Mallory VK1K and 2N3055 purchased from Newark Electronics or Radio Shack? Absolutely! The top lawyers in the FAA have said so unambiguously.

If this comes as a surprise to Ike, he's not alone. Very few A&Ps know about FAR §21.303(a)(4), much less the FAA's letter of interpretation that extends that regulation to cover standard electrical and electronic components. Owners who attend my seminars leave with copies of both the reg and the letter of interpretation to show their A&Ps should the issue arise.

So why do so many A&Ps insist on using only parts from the OEM or ones with 8130-3 documentation, even though they may cost more (sometimes a lot more)? That's easy: To cover their butts.

If an A&P installs a part with an 8130-3 form, then the supplier has vouched for the part's airworthiness. If the A&P installs a part without an 8130-3 form, then the A&P has to vouch for its airworthiness. Some A&Ps are unwilling to do that, even if it means the customer has to pay through the nose. Some shops have a company policy against installing parts unless they come with a yellow tag or 8130-3 that can be stapled into the aircraft maintenance logbook to take the shop and mechanic off the hook for the airworthiness of the part. It sounds like Ike's shop may be one of those. I can certainly understand where Ike is coming from.

But for an A&P to tell an aircraft-owner customer that he has no choice in the matter -- that the FAA requires it and "it's the law" -- is simply false. It may be the mechanic's policy (or his employer's), and it's understandable why he might prefer to do it this way (to minimize his liability). But it's NOT the law.

I stand by my advice to owners to "just say no to overpriced parts." If your shop won't cooperate with you in trying to avoid wasting money on overpriced parts, you should probably consider finding another shop with a more owner-friendly attitude.

Do you have a maintenance-related "war story" that you'd like to share with fellow aircraft owners? If you do, I'd love to hear from you. The most interesting stories I receive each month will be rewarded with highly prized Savvy Aviator coffee mugs, so please include your shipping address. Also be sure to let me know if you'd like me to "change the names to protect the innocent" when sharing your story.