LEGAL SPIN
BY JASON DICKSTEIN
Why Won’t My DAR Issue An 8130-3 For My Part?
n Mid-March, the FAA held a meeting in South Florida. Attendees were enticed to attend with the promise of an answer to the question “Why won’t my DAR issue an 8130-3 for my part?” Not long before the FAA meeting, I had published an article in the Aviation Suppliers Association newsletter that reminded the aviation community that the FAA does not require parts traceability in its regulations. Traceability is an industry commercial norm (not a regulation). I was prompted to publish this reminder by stories from South Florida companies who had heard from their DARs that “the local office is making me ask for back-to-birth traceability” as a condition of issuing an 8130-3 tag. It seems that article attracted some attention in South Florida. It was referenced in the very beginning of the FAA’s slide set when they gave their distributor training session!. I attended the meeting with some trepidation. What new policy might the South Florida FSDO be
I
rolling out? What new standard would they announce? Would they put an end to the 8130-3 tag in Florida? After all, we all know the joke about the FAA inspector who says “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” It turns out, that sometimes the FAA really is there to help. FAA inspector Jay Rodriguez opened the meeting by announcing that there would be no new policies and no new regulations announced at the meeting. He held true to his promise. In the 1990s, I was privileged to work with FAA safety leaders like Ernie Scardecchio, Roger Heard and Ken Gardner on a series of SUPs training classes that were designed to provide the industry with useful safety information about aircraft parts. I believe that those sessions did more to support aviation safety in the parts world over the following decade than any new regulation did. Those 1990s “SUP Trainings” educated the industry about previously obscure regulations and helped quality professionals know what to build into their quality systems to keep out the bad parts. Jay Rodriguez’ meeting was reminiscent of those SUP meetings and focused on providing useful information and on creating a dialogue with the South Florida Aircraft Parts distributors. The answer to the advertised question was a review of the FAA’s regulations and policy and a look at what standards the DAR must confirm in order to issue an export 8130-3 tag. The DAR must be assured that the part conforms to an FAA-approved design and is in a condition for safe operation. But there was a more important unspoken question. Rodriguez knew that the elephant in the closet was the issue of back-to-birth traceability as a condition for 8130-3 tags, and he wasted little time in stating the FAA’s position: The FAA does not require back-to-birth traceability as a condition of issuing an export airworthiness approval.
He made it clear that when it comes time for a DAR to look at a part and decide whether to issue an 8130-3 tag, the DAR can rely on any information that sufficiently demonstrate s that the parts meets the standards for airworthiness. The FAA is constantly vigilant about aircraft parts safety. That should not be news to anyone familiar with the FAA’s commitment to safety. Rodriguez told the story of a South Florida company that was prosecuted for parts fraud when it produced parts with no FAA approval and then used 8130-3 tags to provide a false appearance of validation for the parts. The parts were sold to the U.S. Air Force. The story was part of the FAA’s theme and helped explain why the FAA has concerns about aircraft parts. A few practices that were discussed included the importance of looking at the parts (and not just the paperwork). Rodriguez echoed one of my long-standing concerns, explaining that the FAA finds it unacceptable to issue an 8130-3 tag for a part that the DAR has never seen. Issuing an 8130-3 tag based solely on the paperwork runs the dual risks that the part may not match the paperwork, and also that some supervening event could have rendered the part unairworthy since the documentation was issued. Another concern raised was the importance of distinguishing owner-operator produced parts, because they are generally not eligible for an 8130-3 tag (because they were not produced under an FAA
60 Aviation Maintenance |
avm-mag.com | April / May 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64