FAA alleges that GEE-BEE Aeroproducts sold Suspected Unapproved Parts-CONSEQUENCES

Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

FAA Proposes $203,100 Civil Penalty Against GEE-BEE Aeroproducts

SUPs pose a challenge to FAA for enforcement

Interdiction is hard due to deception

GEE-BEE alleged to have ignored warning

Suspected Unapproved Parts have been the bane of the FAA for decades. The essence of an SUP is that it closely resemble the product(s) being copied and consequently only a well-trained expert can identify these dangerous replicas.

As with many regulatory issues for which the detection is difficult, the Office of Inspector General and Congress frequently express their disappointment with the FAA’s lack of success in interdicting SUPs:



DoT OIG’s Audit Signals “What’s SUP”? You May Need To Improve Your FAA Knowledge, SOON.

OIG Report On SUPs Should Reenergize FAA & Remind Industry Of The Risk




What To Do About The Scourge Of SUPs—Some Thoughts






The FAA’s response to this repeated criticism was to bring a criminal action against the source of SUPs. The accused here pled guilty!

This is but one of a large number of criminal SUP cases

Pennsylvania Man Convicted in False Aircraft Inspection Scheme
Former Carson Helicopter Executive Indicted for Fraud and Endangering the Safety of Aircraft in Flight
Revoked South Florida Repair Station Shop Supervisor Sentenced to Prison for Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
IMPACT Magazine
Former Operations Manager Pleads Guilty to Recklessly Endangering Aircraft
Southern California Chemical Processing Company Sentenced for Providing False Statements Related to Aircraft Parts
Multiple Individuals Sentenced for their Roles in an Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Georgia Aviation Consultant Sentenced for Producing Fraudulent FAA Supplemental Type Certificates
South Florida Woman Sentenced for Her Participation in a Fraudulent Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Former Northern California Company Owner Charged in Superceding Indictment For Fraudulent Aircraft Repairs
Two South Florida Residents Sentenced in a Fraudulent Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Revoked South Florida Repair Station Shop Supervisor Convicted at Trial for Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Iowa Man Sentenced for Falsifying His Pilot Flight Log
Pennsylvania Aircraft Repair Company Indicted For Aircraft Parts Fraud; Company Official Arrested
South Florida Woman Pleads Guilty to Aircraft Parts Fraud Conspiracy
Revoked South Florida Repair Station President, Vice-President, and General Manager Plead Guilty to Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
California Man Guilty of Submitting a False Document to the FAA
South Florida Woman Pleads Guilty to a Fraudulent Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Aviation Consultant Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy
Three South Florida Residents Sentenced in a Fraudulent Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Southern California Chemical Processing Company Pleads Guilty
South Florida Aircraft Parts Inspector Pleads Guilty to a Fraudulent Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
Southern California Chemical Processing Company Charged for Falsification of Aircraft Parts
South Florida Individuals Plead Guilty to a Fraudulent Aircraft Parts Conspiracy
South Florida Men Sentenced To Jail Time and Ordered to Pay $1.45 Million in Restitution In Aircraft Parts Fraud Conspiracy
Sixteen South Florida Aircraft Company Employees Indicted In a Conspiracy To Commit Aircraft Parts Fraud
Former Cessna Employee Sentenced to 18 Months Incarceration for Selling Stolen Aircraft Parts on Ebay
Business Owner Sentenced for Sale of Counterfeit Integrated Circuits to the U.S. Government
South Florida Men Convicted in Connection with Aircraft Parts Fraud
FAA Certified Designated Airworthiness Representative and Aviation Mechanic Indicted For Conspiring To Falsify An Aircraft Inspection

The press release, below, involves repeated FAA warnings and it is alleged that the respondent failed to comply. The facts would appear to justify criminal actions.

”WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a $203,100 civil penalty against GEE-BEE Aeroproducts of Palm Desert, Calif., related to the alleged manufacturing, advertising and installation of unapproved parts.

GEE-BEE did not have required approvals or authorizations for producing parts for installation on FAA-certificated aircraft. Nevertheless, GEE-BEE produced at least four different types of such parts, the FAA alleges.

The parts included engine seals and landing gear door seal kits. The FAA in 2000 had issued an Unapproved Parts Notification for these products.

The FAA further alleges that GEE-BEE advertised on its website approximately 22 different types of unapproved parts for sale and installation on FAA-certificated aircraft.

In October 2017, the FAA issued a revised Unapproved Parts Notification to include these parts.

The FAA alleges that GEE-BEE continued to advertise five products after the agency had issued a Letter of Rejection and the revised Unapproved Parts Notification that included those products.

GEE-BEE has asked to meet with the FAA to discuss the case.”

This statement found on a website does not indicate that the author is trying to avoid repeating the FAA prohibition by pointing to your A&P/IA to make the final airworthiness determination.  


*Products in the GeeBee Store are not currently FAA/PMA approved, so consult your

A&P/IA for guidance regarding installation and use on certified aircraft.


Share this article: FacebooktwitterlinkedinFacebooktwitterlinkedin

2 Comments on "FAA alleges that GEE-BEE Aeroproducts sold Suspected Unapproved Parts-CONSEQUENCES"

  1. Gee Bee products are superior to the STC’d ones. It doesn’t take an expert to see it. Before you report on Gee Bee this way, compare what he is offering to the STC’s part. Or, better yet, perhaps you should call him and interview him before condemning him. The man knows more about Beechcraft than the FAA does–that is certain.

  2. Antifederalist Brutus, a careful reading of the post would demonstrated that all we did is report what the FAA did. We neither agreed with nor contradicted the allegations. The Gee Bee story was used as an example of SUPs and the need to comply with the complex FAR rules. Oh by the way Brutus, STCs were not sited as being superior to Gee Bee’s products. Brutus your rant exceeds your rave.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.