SUP training needed to protect against regulatory, criminal and NOW civil liabilities

JDA Aviation Technology Solutions

Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUPs) are the most invidious aviation safety risks. The REGULATORY CONSEQUENCES can have serious consequences to airworthiness and operating certificates (especially Part 145). In some instances, CRIMINAL ACTION may befall the entity that falsified the FAA Form 8130‑3 with years of incarceration (below example 10 years).

Both of these potential impacts on those who intentionally defraud the buyers of these aviation safety critical parts are within the exclusive province of the government. Civil servants must ferret out these difficult-to-identify dangerous parts;

• even if someone from the private sector provides the evidence of the SUP, the decision to discipline by a civil penalty lies within the overworked bureaucracy.
• Criminal prosecution is a more taxing decision- first, the level of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) is higher.
• Second, the likelihood that a jury will be able to understand the highly technical nature of the SUP may also decrease THE LIKELIHOOD OF A GUILTY VERDICT.
• Finally, the CRIMINAL DOCKETS ARE OVERWHELMED by murder, drug and other serious crimes. If the above two considerations are not really solid, THE PROSECUTOR MAY NOT PLACE A PRIORITY OF FILING THE CHARGES. Delay is always a plus for defense counsels.

The instances of inadvertent SUPs (“never assume malice when incompetence is equally likely.” [paraphrase of Hanlon’s Razor]) are not of interest for regulatory or criminal responses by the government. However, the financial damage to an airline that has installed SUPs into its fleet can be substantial; the below article suggests that a civil damage case may be an option. Without having to obtain the concurrence of the Regulator (FAA) or a government prosecutor, the decision to be a “plaintiff” (and the budget to pay for it) is the decision of the harmed private company.

Other positive aspects of this legal strategy

• include a civil proof standard “preponderance of the evidence”, that is-
• The greater weight of the evidence; enough to tip the scale slightly in favor of one side. Threshold: >50% probability that the claim is true.

And

• Unlike prosecutions, defendants do not have a constitutional right to a jury. Judges are likely to be better at dealing with complicated technical evidence.

That said- this 3^rd option raise the need for increased attention of your QA/QC staff to assure that even inadvertent errors are not made in completing your FAA Form 8130‑3s. These days of tight aviation (P121, 135+145 plus part dealers) budgets may not be receptive to spending, but the risk of millions of dollars in damages may help justify reinforcing the skills needed to reduce this financial, insurance[1], and safety risks.

One effective option for training your parts team is the Suspected Unapproved Parts Training – Inspection Authorization (IA) renewal.

1. 1. 1. 1. SUP Environment and History
            Why should we be concerned about unapproved parts?
            3. Cost and impact of installing SUPs
            4. Parts Approval Processes Roles and Responsibilities
            5. Receiving Inspections and how unapproved parts enter the system
            6. Determining the status of parts and part substantiation
            7. Determining airworthiness of parts Involved In accidents
            8. Part Marking Requirements; new and used parts with updated materials
            9. Fabrication of parts during maintenance
            10. Military surplus parts and products
            11. Civil and Legal Impact of producing, selling, certificating, or installing Unapproved Parts (Aircraft Safety Act of 2000)
            12. What is being done to address SUPs problem?
            13. Reporting a SUP and interfacing with the FAA
            14. Setting up a SUP program and actions that you can take

Teaching resources :

• • • • Training material available online
      • Exercises and self-assessment MCQs available on the site
      • Asynchronous remote tutoring is available by e-mail in the event of particular learning difficulties

The 10 hour online course imparts extensive real-world experience, knowledge and recommendations to course participants to enable them to more successfully recognize, manage, report and help remove Suspected Unapproved Parts from the global aviation system. Students who pass the course get certificates of completion and credit towards the individuals’ Inspection Authorization A requirements. The FAA approved the online curriculum course for IA authorization requirements.. For organizations that would prefer live/interactive learning classroom on SUPs may schedule such a session by clicking on this LINK.

Prosecutors Allege UK Aircraft Parts Firm’s Fraud Caused Millions in Losses

February 23, 2026, by Sam Tobin

The director of a London-based airline parts company used forged documents to sell tens of thousands of engine parts, causing large losses for aviation industry giants including AMERICAN AIRLINES, GE AEROSPACE, AND SAFRAN, prosecutors said on Monday.

JOSE ALEJANDRO ZAMORA YRALA, 38, has admitted defrauding customers and potential customers of AOG Technics by falsifying documents regarding the source and condition of engine parts from January 2019 to December 2023.

The 2023 discovery of forged certificates, many relating to parts for CFM56 engines that power some Airbus and Boeing jets, led to planes being briefly grounded worldwide over safety fears.

Zamora Yrala, 38, pleaded guilty in December to FRAUDULENT TRADING, a charge which carries a maximum sentence of 10 YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT.

On Monday, he sat in the dock at London’s Southwark Crown Court as prosecutor Faras Baloch said his offenses resulted in more than 60,000 suspect parts entering the global aviation supply chain.

He is expected to be sentenced later today.

COMPANIES SUFFERED MILLIONS IN LOSSES

AOG Technics sold parts with falsified documents for a total of about 6.9 million pounds ($9.3 million), representing 90% of the company’s revenue, Baloch added.

The FRAUD CAUSED AROUND 39.3 MILLION POUNDS IN LOSSES, including about 23 million pounds suffered by American Airlines, which obtained parts from an AOG Technics customer, for the cost of repairing affected engines, leasing replacements, and for aircraft being out of use, Baloch said.

American Airlines did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside U.S. office hours.

Jet engine maker CFM International’s co-owners GE Aerospace and Safran suffered financial losses of around 3 million pounds and 580,000 pounds, respectively, as well as “reputational damage,” Baloch added.

GE Aerospace and Safran did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

2023 DISCOVERY PROMPTED WORLDWIDE HUNT

Zamora Yrala and AOG Technics were sued at London’s High Court by CFM International, GE, and Safran in 2023, shortly after European regulators began investigating reports that parts without valid certificates had been found inside CFM56 engines.

Baloch said the CFM56 is “the leading engine in commercial aircraft and powers Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 planes.”

CFM had launched a worldwide hunt for parts with suspected false documentation from AOG Technics, and fears over potentially false paperwork have prompted calls for extra regulation.

Baloch said Zamora Yrala’s fraud had caused “a loss of trust in the airline industry as a whole.”

Prosecutors are also asking for Zamora Yrala to be banned from acting as a company director and for the confiscation of the proceeds of his fraud.

($1 = 0.7410 pounds)

(Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

---

[1]Insurance carriers expect that the insured will have SUP training, documented parts‑control procedures, and evidence of compliance.