AnthonyQ wrote:
But EASA requires a Form 1 for repairs/overhauls…(although from a previous post apparently repairs by the OEM are ok with just an 8130-3).
This was the previouse situation. So was applicable years ago, which might be applicable to the topic starter if someone found an old certificate during an inspection by CAA for example. This was replaced by the dual release certificate.
The major difference between dual release and stand alone approvals are that for a dual release parts must be elgible for both FAA and EASA, while for a standalone approval these parts are acceptable when they are EASA or FAA as applicable. A dual release form can never use subcomponents where the subcomponent was overhauled without and dual release.
For example, for a janitrol cabin heater, if the heater needs overhaul incl combustion blower. If shop EASA shop A with FAA add-on overhauls the heater, and installs an overhauled combustion blower, overhauled by EASA company B . Company A can no longer issue an dual release.
If company A uses an overhauled combustion blower by FAA company C, it can not issue any release, as this part is not acceptable to EASA. As company A has an FAA add-on they can not issue a standalone 8130-3, even while their work, and the work of company C are acceptable to the FAA. In such situations two standalone (EASA and FAA) are in the advantage.
If company A uses a new combustion blower, of performs the overhaul themselfs, than they can issue a dual release.
The installing A&P must be certain of the provenance of any new or repaired part before he can install in an aircraft. An 8130-3 is an suitable form of traceability for this purpose….but so is a certificate of conformity or any other credible (in the opinion of the A&P) document…
I think this either is the situation for G-regs too, or maybe was till very recently, i.e. a cert of conformity etc is/was enough if one read the UK CAA regs (CAP747? – I wrote it up in that article).
As I said, for most aircraft owners this is moot because they have to go along with their maint firm, and they and the whole supply chain prefers the EASA-1 because they make more money out of the (more expensive) item, and it is generally seen as covering the installer’s back on an infinite range of fronts. I have read some astonishing points of view e.g. if a part comes from Socata with an EASA-1 then it can be installed on any Socata aircraft 
It would be good to see the actual reference for the EASA-1 form requirements (for new parts and used parts) and then I can update my writeup.
BTW there isn’t any post size limit like you encountered. Maybe some sort of copy/paste limit on the client device?
This was the previouse situation. So was applicable years ago, which might be applicable to the topic starter if someone found an old certificate during an inspection by CAA for example. This was replaced by the dual release certificate.
Is such a part, not installed in time, “orphaned” i.e. not usable on any EASA-reg?
BTW there isn’t any post size limit like you encountered. Maybe some sort of copy/paste limit on the client device?
I realize it was because I tried to include an emoticon from my iPhone instead of using the forum menu….
You can use textual emoticons e.g. :) :( :-) :P etc etc and you can use graphic images in the usual way (see Posting Tips) but some of the fancy modern “emo” stuff uses four bytes per character. That also used to break PMs but that was sorted a long time ago (by stripping them out, I believe).
Jesse wrote:
What does your current 8130-3 say, was this item repaired? Did you have this unit installed before or did you just buy it with this 8130?
Forgot to answer; The TKM was installed when the FM-immunity requirements were introduced around 2000. It was now broken and sent to the factory for repair, got it back with an 8130-3 (non dual). I do not have the 8130 here, so the exact wording I do not know. In retrospect should have sent it to Mendelsson which is the european repair center. However, factory repair was dirt cheap in US, until there came new owners recently. Now they have USD300 minimum charge.
G
I ordered parts from LASAR in the US and despite me asking, most came without 8130-3. I suggested to my Part 145 mx company that we could fit them in accordance with the following memorandum:
The parts are not life limited, part of the controls, or primary structure and meet all the requirements. He said that won’t fly and that as a part 145 organisation he has to have a Form 1 or 8130 to batch and fit parts. The document refers to being in accordance with 145 though. Any thoughts?
The URL above is Error 404 but this was posted here in 2014 and may be relevant.
This may also be relevant. That is still a proposal however.
I don’t know the current regs on this but others here do.
Also why use a 145 company? They are not only constrained by additional rules but have an additional need to make money to cover the cost of keeping their 145. I was “very familiar” with one such for 10 years and everything had to be gold plated 10x over; fortunately their work was King Airs and TBMs whose owners paid any size bill without a question.
What kind of paperwork did you get with the parts? Did you get an invoice, or something called “certificate of conformity”? Whatever concessions there are, you will need “something” to prove the parts are not fake, and this is regardless of the infinitely small possibility that anybody would bother counterfeiting these parts :smile
ELA2 has to be signed off by 145 right? In any case they were the only option with my annual about to expire. I got certificate of conformity from the dealer and packing slips from the original manufacturers of all items as well. All parts have batch numbers associated with them. He probably won’t budge so it looks like I’ll have to send the originals back and get new parts sent with the paperwork.
ELA2 has to be signed off by 145 right?
Definitely not 
In any case they were the only option with my annual about to expire
That’s happened to some others too… usually at the worst possible moment.
Sorry about the 404. Works on my phone. Your link is what it refers to though. I’d have thought that if the rule applies to the aircraft category then it shouldn’t matter who’s doing the signing but I sense I’ll be left unhappy!
