AS9110 - The practice of Cannabalisation of Aircraft parts - Missed chance

[Joy]

It may be an approach by IAQG standard writing team to cover all potenial problem areas under risk management but specific attention was given to address risks associated with counterfeit parts, suspected parts and human factors.As specific attention is given to these areas,attention could be given to the practice of cannabalisation.

I thought that this is being practiced by only military MROs in third world countries or the air forces dependent on Russian aircraft.However it is being practised world over-only amount differs.

Those who are not familiar with this term,it means practice of using a serviceable part or assembly from an unserviceable aircraft to make another serviceable.

Those who have experience in MRO activitis will agree that it is a dangerous practice and to be used as last option.

It could be an area which could be covered in the new version of AS9110-missed chance!

Your comments please.

 

[howste]

Re: AS9110-Missed chance

If the part is known serviceable, why would it be a dangerous practice? On the other hand, if you don't know it's a serviceable part, it shouldn't be used until it's been confirmed that it's serviceable.

 

[Joy]

There are some issues related to this practice.Preservation,de-preservation,FOD control,Documentation,traceability,mis-match of life are some of the issues which are always related.A bigger issue but not always seen is the fate of the aircraft from which spare or component is removed.Once it starts it goes on and with each cannabalisation the aircraft moves away from the early possibity to come back to service.

Another issue is the use of unserviceable part for blanking.This is done when a serviceable part is removed and no proper blanking is available.With each cannabalisation this goes up and a single miss during rebuild can create a catastrophic effect.
From my experience it can be equally dangerous as is human factors or counterfait parts.It could be better idea to address this area in the new version of AS9110.
Let us see what others say.

 

[BadgerMan]

It's done routinely and many certificated repair stations maintain procedures for salvaging servicable parts from unservicable articles. The FAA maintains a related advisory circular as well (AC21-62). Done properly, I see no issues with the practice. I am guessing that it was not prohibited by AS9110 because it is an accepted practice via Part 145.

Yeah, it would be great if every repair was done using a shiny new part produced by the OEM but that is not the real world. It's like trying to restore a '57 Biscayne......you might get lucky and find some NOS parts but you will also be spending a lot of time wandering around auto salvage yards.

 

[howste]

There are some issues related to this practice. Preservation, de-preservation, FOD control, Documentation, traceability, mis-match of life are some of the issues which are always related.

I don't see a problem mentioning cannibalization in the standard as something deserving consideration, risk management, and control. I believe that these are already addressed in AS9110 though.

 

[Randy]

The practice is alive and well in the US Military, if it weren't performed a whole lot of aluminum would be sitting in the sun as expensive dust catchers.

 

[AndyN]

I've visited a very well know organization who regularly contracts with customers and OEMs alike, to do just this very thing! It's also common place (increasingly) in the telecomms industry, where older equipment is being salvaged due to ever increasing costs of new items.

 

[howste]

If you ever get the chance, visit the AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona. Also known as "the boneyard" or "where aircraft go to die," there are acres of retired military aircraft parked in storage. There are 500+ people there, many employed with "parts reclamation" (or cannibalization) of the aircraft stored there. While I was there providing training I had a chance to do the grand tour of the site.

 

[AndyN]

I think I'd cry if I did...

 

[Blue Screw]

This is an Area that I am intimately familiar with both because I have a close friend who works at Davis Montham and because i was in earlier years, a military aircraft maintainer.

Cannibalization of parts is completely normal and acceptable. These parts are not simply removed from a dead aircraft and then attached to another. These parts go through a rigirous preservation process followed by numerous bench checks and testing to verify that the part is serviceable and safe.

The processes and tagging is first rate and as Howst has said, "why would there be any concern"
IMO it is a mute issue.
MY EXPERIENCE is that a cannibalized part is actually better! because these are parts that have been deemed acceptable and have been vigorously tested and they have a trait that other parts dont! - PROVEN SERVICE LIFE, meaning that they have and continue to prove that they work and work well.

Entire aircraft are rebuilt and modded to create "Q" models (Remote drones) that are used for target practice. These are flown with very little incident rates and save the government millions/billions of dollars by not having to create shiney, new drones that will only be used as an elaborate clay-pigeon.

No, I say that this area is already addressed and is a non-issue. no need to clutter AS9101 with this matter