On July 28, all CFM56 MRO providers received a notice from CFM International informing them about certain falsified documents had been identified for certain CFM56 engine component parts.
CFM noted that it had been recently contacted by an MRO provider regarding the authenticity of an EASA Form 1 document allegedly issued by Safran Aircraft Engines for a new CFM56 part. The MRO provider had received the document from AOG Technics Ltd. Following an immediate investigation, CFM confirmed that the EASA Form 1 in question “was not issued by Safran Aircraft Engines”.
The letter goes on to share that further EASA Form 1 documents provided to the MRO provider covering multiple CFM part numbers offer for sale were found to have “significant discrepancies” including EASA Form 1 documents attributed to Safran Aircraft Engines that were not issued by the company, as well as a memo of shipment documents that were also not issued by Safran.
As a result of these findings, Safran has filed a Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUP) notification with EASA that identifies 29 EASA Form 1 documents that were raised for 22 separate CFM56 component part numbers.
The CFM letter also reveals further findings of a "FAA Form 8130-3 document received by an MRO provider from AOG Technics LTD attributed to GE Engine Services Distribution LLC that accompanied GE CF6 engine parts but was not issued by GE Engine Services Distribution LLC"
The potential ramifications of this issue are serious and wide ranging. The use of unapproved parts in a CFM engine would invalidate CFM warranties and guarantees and other obligations. The scale of the work required to verify all parts in an CFM56 engine pertaining to the MRO identified or the parts supplier, which has not been identified, would be time consuming and an expensive undertaking.
CFM notes that its investigation is continuing and calls on any customer that has received parts from the named MRO to contact Safran or GE fleet support.
Airline Economics contacted CFM/Safran and AOG Technics today for comment but received no reply by the time this article was published.