This is just to remind TB owners, particularly TB20/21 owners, that I am running a small list here.
Each time I come across a part which comes in the original packaging, I add it in.
In general terms, there is no law which says you must have an 8130-3 or some other specific piece of paper. For private flight, the US regs, and I believe the EASA regs if not "financially creatively" interpreted, require a "traceability document". Most parts can be obtained with a Certificate of Conformity.
The Socata owners' site has a lot larger reference facility but it has been rigged so that the contents cannot be listed or viewed whole, so unless you have just the right search term, you may not find what you are looking for.
The main original writeup (if you have the patience 
) is here.
In general terms, there is no law which says you must have an 8130-3 or some other specific piece of paper. For private flight, the US regs, and I believe the EASA regs if not "financially creatively" interpreted, require a "traceability document". Most parts can be obtained with a Certificate of Conformity.
For N-register operating on Part 91, you do not need any traceability beyond the installing A&P mechanic's determination of fitness for service and conformance with the aircraft TC. Much of US private GA couldn't operate if it were otherwise, with parts for old certified aircraft stored and occasionally moving from individual to individual. "Installed used serviceable Widget, P/N 123456" is the preface to a typical A&P logbook entry.
For engine parts and other critical parts, the A&P may well be uncomfortable with inspecting them himself and instead he chooses to fall back on a yellow tag (8130-3) from a repair station. He doesn't have to if he properly inspects them himself - an FAA A&P can overhaul an engine in his hangar perfectly legally, with used serviceable parts if it suits him and if he determines that they are airworthy.
I smiled when noticing the first supplier on your list is Weiss Plastics. Very nice people who supplied me with a transparency, now installed, which I collected at their little factory.
For N-register operating on Part 91, you do not need any traceability beyond the installing A&P mechanic's determination of fitness for service and conformance with the aircraft TC.
I don't doubt you, but you will find it awfully hard to find a single A&P in Europe who believes that
You will find many more engineers willing to install a part (one that doesn't have a serial number on it) off the books - especially on EASA-reg.
For N-register operating on Part 91, you do not need any traceability beyond the installing A&P mechanic's determination of fitness for service and conformance with the aircraft TC.>
Are you sure? I read long time ago that the FAA demands 8130-3 for all N reg basedoutside of the US. Two years ago my shop had an issue with one of the control cables, I could not find any with 8130 and they refused any solution, evenMcFarlen was not good enough for them.
If this is wrong then it is very intresting. Yet, your A.P can refuse to sign.
Ben
"For N-register operating on Part 91, you do not need any traceability beyond the installing A&P mechanic's determination of fitness for service and conformance with the aircraft TC"
Are you sure? I read long time ago that the FAA demands 8130-3 for all N reg based outside of the US. Two years ago my shop had an issue with one of the control cables, I could not find any with 8130 and they refused any solution, even McFarlen was not good enough for them. If this is wrong then it is very interesting. Yet, your A.P can refuse to sign.
I can't comment on rules specific to N-register outside of the US, other than to say it sounds odd to me. I'm sure some FAA people would like it otherwise, but the reality of FAA regs and common practice for many decades 'is what it is'...
When I've discussed the issue with A&P IA friends, the typical response is "sure they'd like it that way... but that's not the way the Part 91 regs are, ever have been, nor the way they ever will be if guys like me have anything to do with it"
I can say that the US aircraft culture I live in installs used parts (and a lot of other parts) all day long without 8130-3 yellow tags. FAA Repair Stations issue them for parts they work on, but they are not required by A&Ps for installation on a Part 91 operated aircraft. Used parts do not go through repair stations, they go directly between hangars. Aircraft get built from parts in hangars using one of several available data plates that might be available etc. I actually have no idea if the logs since 1946 for one of my aircraft actually are for my airframe - the data plate has been mounted with sheet metal screws since new, and the aircraft were considered essentially common junk before 20 years ago!
Sorry for the slight digression at the end of all that, I got carried away. No point in erasing it now! The 'outside of the US' thing might warrant some research.
I read long time ago that the FAA demands 8130-3 for all N reg based outside of the US
That is wrong, for sure. Both parts of it. But I am not suprised somebody came out with it.
Two years ago my shop had an issue with one of the control cables, I could not find any with 8130 and they refused any solution
That's standard.
The other day, a major company in the business refused to accept that the FAA accepts an EASA-1 form (it does). They really should know better. They were EASA145 and could generate an EASA-1 for the part, but by saying it cannot be fitted to an N-reg they grounded the N-reg, at a cost of some thousands, until a part with an 8130-3 was obtained.
The reality however is that if you try to sell something in some "market" (e.g. Ebay) then without an 8130-3 you will get a derisory value for it. And a lot of stuff on Ebay is non-working junk anyway.
Yet, your A.P can refuse to sign.
Very true, which is why relationships have to be forged with the right people. An aircraft owner who fails to do that is going to be bent over the nearest barrel and shafted - as I know to my cost
But only a % of engineers are crooks. Many do not understand the regs, and I know some cannot read the regs. The FAA isn't much better; if you phone up 10 FSDO inspectors you can get 10 different answers.
Those working inside a company tend to just play it simple, and that always generates more money. Freelance engineers are smarter, which is why EASA hates the FAA system.
Used parts do not go through repair stations,
There is a related angle on that: can a part be removed from one plane and installed in another?
On N-regs, an A&P is able to inspect the part (IAW FAA guidelines) and install it in the receiving airframe. But then the problem is: what if the said A&P did not actually see where that part came from? An alternator from the local motor shop might look exactly like the aircraft one (it probably is the same one) but that doesn't mean the A&P can look at it and if it looks OK then install it, because that would drive a bus through the "approved" system.
I don't know the rules but I am sure they are well worn
I would bet that if the A&P has personally extracted it from the donor airframe, he is entitled to take the donor airframe's certification status on trust i.e. the alternator was an approved part. That is how certification works, and has to work (some Part M companies think otherwise).
On EASA-regs, the transplant procedure is more vague. One EASA145 owner, and on a different occassion a UK CAA inspector, told me he will transfer such a part only if the donor aircraft had a valid CofA at the time. That is obviously kind of difficult if the donor aircraft was scrapped - whether or not it was crashed! I don't know what the current situation is, but I see a position adopted where nothing can be used until it has passed through an EASA145 company which generates a fresh EASA-1 form.
On N-regs, an A&P is able to inspect the part (IAW FAA guidelines) and install it in the receiving airframe. But then the problem is: what if the said A&P did not actually see where that part came from? An alternator from the local motor shop might look exactly like the aircraft one (it probably is the same one) but that doesn't mean the A&P can look at it and if it looks OK then install it, because that would drive a bus through the "approved" system.
What happens in the case of that alternator is that the 'thinking A&P' knows about all the possibilities with alternators, and won't install one if there is cause for doubt. His decision is much influenced by the type of part.
It comes down to judgement, more specifically the A&P's FAA authorized judgement, and his ability to discern the airworthiness and applicability of the part by any means available to him. That is a difference between Part 91 and airline work that requires more paper: the go/no go judgement of the A&P is authorized.
In addition to the case of an A&P identifying the month of production of a 1946 part by visual inspection and personal knowledge (no exaggeration, it happens) there is equally the case in which its just impossible to be sure its the right part... in which case the A&P should use his authorized judgement not to install it. Either way he doesn't have to physically see it being removed from another aircraft - that might well have happened 40 years ago.
A few years ago I drove 300 miles to buy a set of used wings from a guy who had a pile of them. What happened long ago is that tail wheel aircraft were regularly ground looped and the wings were replaced with eligible later model wings, bought in pairs from the manufacturer. That left one good wing. In time all those wings accumulated and can be rebuilt by an A&P for use decades later as a 'new' pair.
Regardless of the practical applicability of all that to a Socata etc, I think its useful to look at the issue from purely the regulatory point of view. That said, I can imagine the fun might start when you push the FAA mechanic who is accustomed to cushy, cost no object work to do it the perfectly legal 'antiquers' way :-)
