Who's Liable for Counterfeit Parts?


By Peter Vosbury, professor of aviation maintenance technology
 
In September of 1989, a Convair 580 turboprop was cruising comfortably at 23,000 feet when its horizontal stabilizer began to flutter, then vibrated uncontrollably, and finally tore itself free from the airplane. The aircraft crashed and all the people on board were killed. The cause of the crash was determined to be the use of improper hardware to attach the stabilizer. The very expensive, special bolts that hold the stabilizer on the airplane had looked correct, had all the right markings, and were accompanied by the necessary paperwork, but they were counterfeit.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, 174 aircraft crashes or less serious accidents between 1973 and 1996 were in part or in whole attributed to unapproved parts.

The use of unapproved parts on aircraft is not a new problem in the aviation industry, but it is becoming more serious and prevalent. As the number of aircraft in service increases, and the cost of replacement parts for these aircraft continues to climb, a lot of money can be made by supplying parts to the aviation industry. A supplier can easily triple or quadruple profits by selling counterfeit parts or old parts with forged paperwork that make them appear new. A legitimate and honest supplier would never intentionally provide unapproved parts, but counterfeit parts can be very difficult to detect, and, unfortunately, not everyone is honest.

And where does the FAA-certified maintenance technician fit in? The certified technician, through his signature, returns the aircraft to service after maintenance is performed. When the technician takes the part out of the box and installs it in the aircraft, he is as much responsible for the legitimacy of the part as for the procedures he uses. If an unapproved part is used and causes the aircraft to crash, he is liable and could end up being charged with manslaughter or murder. At the very least, the technician could be heavily fined or have his certificate revoked.

Welder at WorkShould the responsibility of the technician be this great when it comes to the legality of the parts he uses? If he orders a part from a legitimate distributor and the part and its paperwork appear to be in order, should the technician be liable if the part turns out to be counterfeit? A few years ago, counterfeit pistons for certain Lycoming and Continental engines infiltrated the parts distribution system. The pistons looked perfect and had all the right markings, but they were manufactured outside of an FAA-approved system and were substandard in their construction. When put in service, the pistons failed by separating into two pieces.

Short of a time-consuming and expensive metallurgical analysis, there is no way a technician could have known these pistons were not legal. In such a case, it is unrealistic and unfair to place blame on the technician. The parts manufacturers, and to an even greater extent the parts distributors, must carry the bulk of responsibility for ensuring that the parts used by industry are legal. When a distributor sends a technician all the parts needed to overhaul an engine, the necessary paperwork and traceability of the parts should be verified before shipping. This is not to say the technician doesn't need to check the parts for the correct part number and verify their condition. But the supplier of the parts should hold the primary responsibility for the parts being legal and approved.

The FAA should increase the responsibility of the companies that provide replacement parts to technicians and aircraft repair companies. If an unapproved part is supplied, the parts distributor should be liable for civil and criminal prosecution. If a technician is working for a certified air carrier, the air carrier's parts procurement department must play a large role in ensuring that approved parts are obtained.

The use of unapproved parts in aircraft is indeed a very serious problem. One aircraft crashing as a result of this problem is one too many. Everyone in the loop -- manufacturers, suppliers, and technicians -- needs to be aware of the unapproved parts issue and know how to recognize a potential problem. But the primary responsibility must reside at a level above the technician doing the installing.

The views expressed in "Perspectives" are those of the writer and not necessarily Embry-Riddle's.

NOTE: In a plea bargain with the US Justice Department, cargo carrier Arrow Air, of Hialeah, Fla., agreed April 24 to pay fines and restitution of $5 million for flying planes with unapproved parts. Of that amount, $2 million went to Embry-Riddle. In consultation with the FAA, the University will use the funds to promote aviation safety through research, education and seminars, with special emphasis on the problems of unapproved parts in civil aviation.