Is Parts Integrity Finally Having Its Moment?

Years from now, when seamless digital record transfers are as routine as clouds in the sky, many will cite the AOG Technics fraud in 2023 as the event that sparked a fundamental shift in how aviation keeps tabs on aircraft assets.

They will be right—sort of.

AOG Technics, a London-based company that passed off thousands of engine parts with fake documentation over several years, did not teach aviation supply chain stakeholders that simplistic records falsification is a risk (Inside MRO November 2023, p. MRO20). Nor were aircraft parts specialists caught off guard that their business, like most others, attracts criminals who exploit opportunities.

Rather, the hard lessons are that gaps in the asset exchange process are wide enough to permit a simple scheme to ground hundreds of aircraft and prompt a global outcry and steps to ensure it cannot happen again. And while regulators spread the word when fraud is suspected and promote initiatives such as accredited vendor programs, there is little they can do to prevent criminals from seeking opportunity.

“This is something that has happened in the past, but not on this scale or safety risk level,” GA Telesis Digital Innovation Group President Jason Reed tells Inside MRO. “That was the differentiator.”

Industry has responded in two ways.

The most visible action was the formation of the Aviation Supply Chain Integrity Coalition (ASCIC) to study how unauthorized parts enter the supply chain—and how to stop them. The group’s October 2024 final report is proving to be just the start of its efforts.

But behind the scenes, companies are accelerating asset tracking and tracing modernization initiatives that have been in the works for a decade or more in some cases. Crucially, and thanks in large part to the AOG Technics saga’s magnitude, manufacturers and aircraft operators —the key stakeholders at each end of the supply chain—are finally showing levels of interest that justify development efforts.

“Data transfer, blockchain, moving away from paper but still providing the level of confidence that paper brings—these were all being discussed,” Aviation Suppliers Association President Michele Dickstein says. “But now they’re being embraced on a much larger scale, and I feel that we may see many of these ideas come to fruition.”

The shifting landscape has prompted GA Telesis to go all in on an ambitious idea it had been considering for nearly a decade. The aftermarket services specialist publicly announced plans to develop a parts provenance and records (PPR) system at the 2024 Farnborough Airshow. An Ankara, Turkey-based development team began full-time work late last year on the system, called the Worldwide Integrated Lifecycle and Blockchain Unified Registry (Wilbur). A proof of concept was completed in May, Reed says.

The company then used its Flight Solutions group to test the system, populating Wilbur with component data from its Quantum enterprise resource planning (ERP) system.

“All the history, every ounce of engineering and maintenance that’s gone on job cards, everything in the history that a part has—it is now in the blockchain,” Reed says. “So now everything that’s in GA Telesis’ ERP system—hundreds of thousands of parts sitting in [our facilities]—they all now have a digital twin in Wilbur. We haven’t rolled it out to the world, of course, but we created the proof of concept with the digital twin.”

The next step is reporting and mapping other GA Telesis business processes and integrating them into Wilbur. “We’ve finished the whole reporting process,” Reed says. “We’re mapping it all into the blockchain right now.”

If all goes as planned, a minimum viable product version of Wilbur will be ready by year-end. The company then plans to round out the system’s capabilities by working with airlines and lessors to integrate their processes. Eight large airlines have asked to participate in the pilot program, and top-tier manufacturers are showing interest as well, Reed says.

“We will start working with some airlines to pilot, mapping their entire process on the flight line, in their [maintenance hangars and so on], throughout the rest of the year,” he adds. If all goes well, Wilbur could go live for external use in 2026. “We are rolling on quite quickly,” Reed says.

The concept behind Wilbur is both simple and ambitious. Every aircraft part has a non-fungible token (NFT), or digital twin. At birth, when it is created, the NFT contains manufacturing specifics, such as part and serial numbers, as well as the information found on an FAA 8130-3 or other approved airworthiness review certificate (ARC). As the part moves through its service life, every event—bills of material, maintenance records, service bulletins—is fed to the digital twin.

The result is a digitized version of paperwork for every part. Full articles, such as individual airframes and engines, have their own digital twins that include compilations of each part’s unique NFT. When assets change hands, the digital twin—and not boxes full of paper records or digital folders stuffed with PDFs—goes with them.

GA Telesis first broached the idea of building what it considers a Web3-based PPR system about 10 years ago, Reed says. In GA Telesis’ view, Web3’s blockchain-based protocols and user-owned data are a beneficial shift from Web2’s standards, where data control and ownership are more centralized.

Wilbur aligns with several of ASCIC’s recommendations, including long-term targets of developing a database of parts with back-to-birth records and more effective parts traceability systems. The benefits to industry include less fraud and more seamless transactions.

“Our No. 1 priority is safety and security in the industry,” Reed says. “That is the prime reason Wilbur was developed. Secondary to that, there is going to be an amount of efficiency that customers will gain from this.”

Others are on a similar path.

SkyThread has developed a blockchain-based system to track transactions at the part level. The company’s “4P” utility layer captures data in four general categories: planes, parts, people and places.

Digital twin records start with a part’s basic information. For new parts, that includes the part number, serial number, manufacture date and Commercial and Government Entity code. For parts already flying, operators’ systems provide additional data, such as installation dates and exact aircraft or engine serial number.

Such transactions as sales and repairs are added to the record, and stakeholders—an operator that purchases the part after it has been used and returned to airworthy condition, for example—can validate information.

“You have to bound the problem,” SkyThread co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer Chuck Marx says. “Pillar 1: Make the part. Pillar 2: Fly the part. And you must know the status and condition of every part flying today and the authentication of that part when it was manufactured. It’s as simple as that.”

Launched in September 2022, SkyThread has several customers. AFI KLM E&M and Parker Aerospace announced in the fall of 2024 that the airline engineering company would use SkyThread to track and trace Parker-made Boeing 787 spare parts.

Parker now populates SkyThread as parts are made, but it input a bunch of existing records as well. AFI KLM will have access to the information and update it as parts are installed and repaired.

Concern about data permission—specifically a part’s status visibility to others that may access the blockchain—has slowed the project, however. SkyThread and Parker are developing revised permissions to address that.

DATA DIFFICULTIES

The SkyThread-Parker-AFI KLM collaboration serves as a cautionary tale for PPR developers. Obtaining data will be challenging unless all stakeholders are confident that their information is both secure and visible only to those that need it. But it also underscores the benefits that tracking and tracing bring to the top of the supply chain.

Aircraft and engine manufacturers collect and share reams of data on their products through health monitoring programs. Knowing a component failed is not the same as knowing why it failed, though. For suppliers such as Parker, part-level data combined with aircraft- or engine-level information is critical to understanding the product life cycle and how to improve it.

Capturing every event a part goes through, from installation to retirement, is the key to ensuring reliable traceability. Credit: Lindsay Bjerregaard/Aviation Week Network

“In the parts track-and-trace world, the answers that we’re looking for live outside the four walls of our organization,” says Jeff Smith, head of digital product programs at Parker Aerospace. “That means I’ve got to work in collaboration with the people that have the part when it’s not in my possession to be able to fill in some understanding about it.” 

As a supplier to nearly every major aircraft program, Parker’s de facto customer base of end users is large. Data from any of them bolsters product support efforts, but creating a digital connection with all of them is impractical. SkyThread and similar efforts fill the gap by providing not only a purpose-built platform, but also an independent steward.

“It makes no sense for me to go through and have intimate data integrations with 140 operators. That’s just not going to be feasible,” Smith says. “Why would they share that with me and not with others? Having a third-party actor in this equation to be [an] intermediary . . . place to store this data” is more prudent, he adds.

A valid StandardAero ARC (top) for an overhaul fan blade notes the specific OEM repair manual referenced when performing the work. On the same ARC falsified (bottom) that was created to go with a propeller that StandardAero did not service, the repair manual reference was replaced with generic language. Credit: StandardAero via ASCIC

The falsified ARC’s signature block (top) used a scan taken from the original StandardAero form (bottom). But the falsified signature’s color on the forged ARC did not match the color of the original. Credit: StandardAero via ASCIC

Parker’s SkyThread-backed track-and-trace system is playing a key role in helping CFM International proactively manage a Leap product durability issue. Parker and GE Aerospace, a 50-50 partner in CFM alongside Safran, manufacture Leap fuel nozzles under their Advanced Atomization Technologies (AAT) partnership. The Leap nozzles have shown to be prone to accumulating hardened fuel deposits, or coking, under certain operating conditions. 

Redesigned fuel nozzles and installation of a new reverse bleed system component will address the issue long-term. But until engines are upgraded, they are prone to needing fuel nozzle swaps at irregular intervals, depending on operating conditions and other factors. By leveraging its track-and-trace operation alongside GE Aerospace’s vast data-gathering capability under the umbrella of their AAT collaboration, Parker can collect precise in-service details and help operators avoid unexpected downtime. 

In a perfect world, Parker would obtain not just a part’s most recent status, such as hours and cycles, but valuable insight like on which engine it was installed and the exact position. The usage data helps Parker build and refine models that help operators avoid surprise interruptions by telling them when nozzles will need to be swapped. 

When operators do not exchange part data, the ramifications often go beyond not having detailed insights. Smith says his team of four dedicated to the Leap program average a combined 11 hr. per day just tracking down in-service data-—copies of ARCs, nonincident reports, hours and cycles information—required to begin work on a part. 

“If I don’t have that, I can’t start the MRO process, so [the part] is in quarantine,” he says. “I have hundreds of nozzles sitting on a dock somewhere that I can’t do anything with because I have to go chase this information from operators.” 

The issue contributes to aftermarket supply chain bottlenecks, including extended turnaround times about which operators are quick to complain. “If you want me to improve my turnaround time, share this data with me,” Smith says. “I can have these nozzles move through the system faster. That means I have to have less product set aside in quarantine, and I can move them quicker to you.” 

Rolls-Royce has seen the light—and is sharing it with its customers. The engine OEM has used software from QOCO since 2018 as part of its IntelligentEngine digitization initiative. Finland-based QOCO’s software specializes in centralized data-exchange and integration among operators, MRO providers and manufacturers. Its Aviadex.io service moves data among the three groups, giving each stakeholder insights into engine performance, maintenance needs and other important variables. 

German airline Condor used Aviadex.io to automate engine data transfer, starting with its Rolls-Royce Trent 7000-powered Airbus A330neo fleet in May 2023. QOCO’s process replaced Condor’s manual email-and-PDF workflow to move information between the carrier’s AMOS maintenance software and Rolls, which uses the data to help direct customer support. 

DIVING INTO RECORDS 

The Condor example highlights the scale of the challenges in digitization and data-exchange. Before working with information technology (IT) departments to connect ERPs to external databases or hashing out access permissions, digital records management vendors need the basics: aircraft, engine and part data in a secure, digital form. And too often these days, that work starts with PDFs, spreadsheets or even paper. 

“Any time we need full traceability of material, where are you going to get it? It’s in documents,” says James Boccarossa, founder and CEO of ProvenAir Technologies. “That’s where it sits.” Boccarossa came to aviation in 2014, joining landing gear material provider Air Spares Unlimited after two decades in tech and software development. He was not prepared for the technological step-down that came with his career change. 

Parts awaiting shipment or service often sit idle awaiting validation of records—many of them still on paper. Credit: Lindsay Bjerregaard/Aviation Week Network

Despite aviation’s strict regulations and need to back high-dollar asset transactions with detailed records, it relied heavily on simple spreadsheets—or worse, boxes of paper documents. Human error—mistyped serial numbers and cycle counts, for example—was common. Validating records as part of asset sales or lease transfers means “box diving” through paper records, scanning documents and reviewing spreadsheets for perhaps days at a time, Boccarossa says. Often, third-party consultants are hired, adding more humans-—and more risk. 

“We’re talking about assets that might be worth millions of dollars, and their records are just getting emailed around or stored in the same cloud-based services where you keep wedding photos? That’s crazy to me,” he says. 

Boccarossa shifted his focus from running one aviation company to addressing an industry-wide problem. He spearheaded development of what he calls an “ingestion engine” with two primary functions. It needed to handle as many document formats as possible and use a proprietary algorithm to organize them and flag possible anomalies. Issues such as different serial numbers on service records for the same part, or a cycle count progression that jumps by a factor of 10, needed to be pointed out for human review. 

“Granted, most of the time it’s a typo,” Boccarossa says. “But I’ve never read a quality manual that says it’s OK to have typos in a few serial numbers.” His creation spawned ProvenAir, founded in 2018. The company has about 30 customers, including large airlines and MRO providers. 

Most of ProvenAir’s customer use cases revolve around asset transactions. One U.S. major airline selling off engines from a retired aircraft fleet turned to the company when would-be buyers repeatedly flagged possible records issues and demanded financial concessions to close deals. The carrier loaded records for every engine into Proven-Air, which both flags issues to rectify before a sale and provides an organized set of digitized documents to include in each deal. 

INDUSTRY COOPERATION 

While ProvenAir and other vendors work to drive digitization one customer at a time, a small informal working group is tackling a project with broader ramifications. Prompted by the AOG Technics case and backed by ASCIC, the group is developing a standardized electronic ARC (e ARC). 

The working group includes Boeing, one of its largest airline customers, and a digital materials transaction platform provider. Its goal: Take the same ARC that has been an industry staple for nearly 50 years and improve its data quality and security. 

“There is this desire in the industry to increase the amount of information that’s moving with a product, whether it’s an airplane or a component,” Mark Yerger, an MDY Services principal and former FedEx senior vice president of technical operations, said on a digitization webinar hosted late last year by the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading. “We want to try to make that easier to manage, not harder to manage. And I think this system gives us a really good start on how to do that.” 

The e-ARC contains the same data as the current 8130-3 and similar forms. But it captures and stores additional information, such as when and where repairs were made, and other relevant notes. 

“As an engineer, I’ve always wanted to . . . get more granular in those blocks about what happened in repair or what happened in manufacturing,” said Yerger, who is supporting the working group. “The rest of the players on the team have agreed that we’ve got to get better configuration [data], better repair history, better reliability information. So this new form and format has a container for all of that useful information, where today it says a repair is on file at a certain location.” 

Boeing is part of a team trialing electronic authorized release certificates that would capture and hold data about a part’s life. Credit: Sean Broderick/Aviation Week Network

Two of ASCIC’s recommendations mention e-ARCs specifically, and several others are related. The coalition’s one-year update planned for this fall is expected to include details on the e-ARC working group’s efforts. 

The working group’s goal is to create an e-ARC with no technological barriers, such as IT requirements, that would shut out smaller vendors and stakeholders. The coalition’s recommendations include other initiatives aimed at companies of all sizes. Among them is developing and improving industry training programs. 

During a mid-August ASCIC webinar, Brent Ostermann, StandardAero’s vice president of product assurance and quality, shared the framework for the company’s comprehensive training for employees who receive parts. The four-day course helps standardize receiving and quality inspection protocols for its 500 receiving clerks and 350 quality inspectors, plus some quality managers and installers across 50 sites, Ostermann said. 

StandardAero’s parts-receiving procedures differ based on the material’s source. New OEM parts are handled one way, and others—used serviceable material, parts manufacturer approval parts—have their own protocols. The manual process is backed by checks and balances, such as a database with an approved vendor list. But its role in preventing unauthorized parts from getting on aircraft is indispensable. 

The AOG Technics scam was exposed when a TAP Air Portugal mechanic sensed something was off with a part that its paperwork indicated was new. It turned out to be a used part that, like thousands of others, was passed off as new by the vendor with falsified records—scanned ARCs that were altered using nothing more than a laptop and some image-editing skills. 

Ostermann shared a similar example from Standard-Aero’s network. A French parts buyer purchased a propeller from a UK-based broker. A quality manager from the French company, which, like StandardAero, has a mandatory quality training program, handled the propeller. The manager knew StandardAero serviced propellers but was not sure about this particular model. The French vendor contacted StandardAero’s corporate quality team. 

“We determined that the [ARC] for the propeller was falsified,” Ostermann said. “It was a part that’s not on our capabilities list.” The part came with a falsified Transport Canada Form 1 seemingly issued by StandardAero. But a close inspection found several anomalies. The fake form lacked a repair or overhaul manual reference, and the work order number did not match StandardAero’s protocol. The part number is not on the company’s capabilities list, and the signature was in a different color than is usual. Someone had taken a valid StandardAero ARC for a GE Aerospace CF34 fan blade and modified it to appear as if it went with the propeller. 

“With a little bit of awareness and a little bit of education, we were able to avoid this one,” Ostermann said. “The original [ARC] was easily falsified in four different blocks, . . . and not all changes were easy to identify to the untrained eye. Having an educated and knowledgeable . . . staff [and] network of suppliers was very important to this situation.”