Aviation Maintenance Free e-Mail Newsletter Free Aviation Job Alerts
Home Aviation Today's Daily Brief Avionics Aviation Maintenance Rotor & Wing Air Safety Week Aircraft Value News
View by Category:  Military | Commercial | Business & General Aviation | Rotorcraft | Air Traffic Control | Maintenance
Advanced Search


Aviation Today Market Leaders
Subscribe
Repair Center Directory
Industry Leader Profiles
Monthly E-letter
Follow Us On Twitter
Information
Aviation Industry Expo 2008
Twitter

Top Stories
BPA Statements
Commercial Media Kit
General Aviation Media Kit
Subscribe
Jobs
Podcasts
Webinars
Videos
Blogs
Databases &
   Buyer's Guides

White Papers/
   Technical Reports/
   Supplements

Research Reports
Article Archives
Press Releases
From the PR Wires
Industry Links



Top Stories
Aviation e-letter
Financial Center
Calendar
Media Kits
About Us
Contact Us

Thursday, January 1, 2009

New Technology Could Protect Against Parts Counterfeiting

Several years ago, the FAA estimated that unapproved parts played a role in 174 U.S. aircraft crashes or less serious accidents between May 1973 and April 1996, causing 17 deaths and 39 injuries, although none involved a major airline. Every year, with the help of the industry, FAA finds "suspected unapproved parts" in the supply chain. While the number of unapproved parts flagged by FAA’s unapproved parts program is fairly small, how many counterfeit parts escape notice? How much damage do they cause? Because crashes frequently destroy the parts that fail, it’s hard to know.

We haven’t heard much about the counterfeit parts problem since 1995, when then-FAA Inspector General Mary Schiavo sounded the alarm and triggered Congressional hearings. Speculating about the threat of bogus parts isn’t a favorite talking point for manufacturers, airlines or the FAA.

We do know that counterfeit parts makers are getting more sophisticated. For instance, in 2007, FAA issued an "unapproved parts notification" regarding counterfeit tail rotor hanger bearings electro-etched with fake Bell Helicopter part numbers.

So what more can the industry do about it? Benjamin Jun, VP for technology at Cryptography Research, is suggesting a high-tech solution the company first developed to prevent counterfeiting of consumer products: embedding tiny, 1-millimeter square, tamper-resistant silicone chips that signal their authenticity into key parts, particularly in the avionics systems in aircraft. The San Francisco-based firm designs the core of these "CryptoFirewall" chips to withstand sophisticated attacks by professional counterfeiters.

Here’s how the system would work: Mechanics would be given hand-held verifiers that could communicate with the embedded chip, which would respond, confirming who manufactured it and that it was FAA certified. The verifier would communicate an unpredictable challenge to the chip and verify the authenticity of the chip’s response. In some ways, the system resembles complex systems to defeat hackers.

The chip might also signal other information, like when it was manufactured, when it was installed or how many times it has been used, so that it could flag when it needed to be replaced, the way cars remind drivers when they need service.

Cryptography Research has already marketed its CryptoFirewall embedded-chip technology to protect several consumer products from counterfeiting. For instance, a chip in satellite TV systems verifies that the customer is authorized to use the signal. Chips in lithium batteries verify that they are appropriate for the cell phone they power. Another chip prevents counterfeiters from cloning the cell phones themselves. And chips in smart cards verify the identity of parties making large financial transactions.

What would such a system cost for aircraft parts? The cost depends on part volume. For high volume parts, like the ones used in consumer products, the added cost can be as low as 20 cents per part, according to Jun. For aircraft parts, which are manufactured in lower volumes, he projects that the cost would probably be more like a dollar or two per part. For components that already contain application-specific integrated circuits (ASICS), manufacturers could add CryptoFirewall logic to those circuits, which would be cheaper than installing stand-alone chips.

Since the technology has proven worthwhile to protect against counterfeit consumer products, where potential counterfeiting damages may be only a few hundred dollars per unit, Jun expects it would be cost-effective to authenticate aircraft parts whose failure can cause crashes and lead to fatalities.

Some aircraft manufacturers already incorporate radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) in aircraft parts. Although RFIDs can contain the same kind of information that could be included in CryptoFirewall chips, Jun says that counterfeiters have been able to copy RFIDs, as well as bar codes, holograms, and other passive security mechanisms. However, for non-security applications, Jun expects these technologies to remain popular since they can cost only a few cents per part.

Cryptography Research is just starting to explore the potential of the avionics market. Jun says that his firm hasn’t talked to the FAA yet. The company has not announced any deals with aircraft manufacturers, but then, it doesn’t usually disclose its customer base, giving an extra level of protection against potential counterfeiters.

According to Jun, it would probably take two to three years for a manufacturer to implement this embedded chip anti-counterfeiting technology.

Aircraft manufacturers could develop their own anti-counterfeiting computer chip systems without using Cryptography Research’s services and technology. But Jun cites several advantages of contracting out this specialized function, including Cryptography Research’s track record of security, bundled licenses for semiconductor security key patents, and faster time-to-market. 

Reader Comments

1.
This is a good idea, but would not be viable for all aviation parts. The industry would find that it is not cost effective for all parts and components. Best application would be on larger end units such as Avionic Boxes, computers, instrumentation and actuators. In reality the issue with counterfeit aircraft parts are very rarely associated with these types of components. Also may not be viable technically on components that are subject to high heat such as internal engine parts.
There is also a BIG difference between counterfeit (Fake, BAD) and suspected un-approved parts (could be BAD, such as improperly documented cycle documentation for cycle controlled parts such as those used internally to engines and on landing gear or could possibly be good parts, but without all pedigree documentation).

As far as identifying parts that can cause an incident a simple bolt or lockwasher that either is not the proper part or installed incorrectly can cause an incident. How would it be possible to identify every mission critical component on an airframe and tag it?
Posted by Al Zito on Friday, January 30, 2009 @ 05:49 PM
2.
Please help me find information in the e of Regulations stating only brand new parts may be used for repairs at aircraft maintenance stations. This is because I remember the regulation, but it looks as though the code has changed. How can this not be a regulation after the parts counterfeiting of faked new parts. Repaired parts should be outlawed. I thought these were illegal. After the parts fake, where counterfeiters repaired parts and painted them over to be passed off as new, why can\'t his rule be found in the code please? Thank you.
Posted by Susan E. Pattishall on Sunday, February 22, 2009 @ 04:19 PM
3.
Excuse me for editing my comment. I wish to be clear. Please help me find information in the Code of Regulations stating only brand new parts may be used for repairs at aircraft maintenance stations. This is because I remember the regulation, but it looks as though the code has changed. How can this not be a regulation, after the parts counterfeiting of faked new parts? Repaired parts should be outlawed. I thought these were illegal. After the parts fake, where counterfeiters repaired parts and painted them over to be passed off as new, why can\'t this rule be found in the code please? Thank you.
Posted by Susan Pattishall on Sunday, February 22, 2009 @ 04:28 PM

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:
Comments:

Please enter the letters or numbers you see in the image.

 
Your message will be reviewed before it is posted.

Copyright © 2009 Access Intelligence, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part
in any form or medium without express written permission of Access Intelligence, LLC is prohibited.
View Privacy Policy





121five.com