Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PREPARED BY
E-mail
abbas.mahmoud@ecam-eg.com
Mobile: 01144777811
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgments are given to all those from the Egyptian Company for Aircraft Maintenance
(E.C.A.M), Egyptian Civil Aviation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), Aircraft manufacturers Boeing, Airbus, Engines manufactures General Electric (G.E),
CFM International (CFM), Pratt & Whitney (P&W), International Aero Engines(IAE). Last but not least,
acknowledgement is given to all those reading and applying the information contained in this document.
Aviation engineering
It is the science of designing, developing, and assembling aircraft. Aviation engineers focus on airspace
development.
But in the Maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) companies:
1. Maintenance program.
2. Reliability control program, report.
3. Engine condition monitoring.
4. Customized minimum equipment list.
5. Study the airworthiness directives, Service Bulletins and Service Information Letters
6. Issue the engineering order (E.O).
7. Make the troubleshooting if the Maintenance department failed to solve the defect.
8. Make communication with the manufacturers if necessary.
Definition of Planning
It is the fundamental management function, which involves deciding beforehand, what is to be done,
when is it to be done, how it is to be done and who is going to do it. It is an intellectual process which
lays down organization’s objectives and develops various courses of action, by which the organization
can achieve those objectives. It chalks out exactly, how to attain a specific goal.
Aviation planning:
1. Determine the next due date for checks.
2. Prepare the task cards and job instruction cards.
3. Prepare the package of the checks (airframe, engine, electric and avionics).
4. Prepare the due date for Life limited parts, time controlled parts
5. Prepare the due heavy checks for engines, APU and landing gear.
6. Prepare the materials and tools for the engineering order
7. Study Aircraft operating costs
8. Study maintenance cost reservation.
When a new aircraft is being designed and produced, the aviation authority, the manufacturer, and
selected industry participants form groups called maintenance steering groups (MSG) and industry
steering committees (ISC).
These groups, through numerous meetings determine the frequency and scope of aircraft inspections to be
performed. This information is provided to another group called the maintenance review board (MRB).
The MRB will issue their final recommendations to the manufacturer on how an aircraft should be
maintained.
The manufacturer then publishes this information in maintenance planning documents (MPD) to be
provided to the customer.
Caution: You must read the MPD in PDF Format first then in EXEL format
C. MAINTENANCE CHECKS
Many of the scheduled maintenance tasks listed in this document identify the frequency of
accomplishment in terms of a usage parameter and frequency. Transit and Service checks may be
augmented at the discretion of the operator. Operators deviating substantially from a normal type of
utilization (those accumulating less than 100 flight hours/month/airplane (1200 hours/year)), should
consider the application and employment of a Low Utilization Maintenance Program based on calendar
time. Upon request, Boeing will assist an operator with the development of a Low Utilization Program.
Task intervals are expressed in flight hours, cycles, calendar time or a combination of these with the note
"Whichever comes first." Individual operators may convert intervals (based on airplane utilization) to
their desired units provided such conversion does not result in exceeding the frequencies identified herein.
An operator may package any or all of the tasks into their own check intervals provided such packaging
does not exceed the interval shown for the task. Adjustments for training flights can be made by
considering a full stop landing or two touch-and-go landings equivalent to one full flight cycle each. The
737-600/700/800/900 MPD Boeing-recommended basic maintenance intervals are intended for new 737-
600/700/800/900 operators. Experienced 737-300/ 400/500 operators (with established maintenance
programs which exceed the 737-600/700/800/900 Boeing-recommendations) are not expected to use
lower intervals in their 737-600/700/800/900 maintenance program for similar and/or identical systems.
An individual operator may convert task intervals (based on airplane utilization) to their desired units,
provided such conversion does not result in exceeding the frequencies identified herein, without
substantiated interval escalations (see section D). An operator may package any or all of the tasks,
provided such packaging does not exceed the interval shown (or approved escalation) for the task. A
common denominator such as "days" may be appropriate to convert the task intervals to be used for the
packaging.
D. MAINTENANCE TASK INTERVAL ESCALATION
The Task intervals specified in this document may be escalated (increased) 10% in order to facilitate and
optimize maintenance scheduling in keeping with the operators existing regulations and practices. It is the
operator’s responsibility to justify an escalation of task intervals and other time limitations to their
regulatory authority, based on substantiating operating and maintenance experience. When task intervals
are to be escalated, the operator should carefully evaluate all items subject to escalation to ensure that
only qualified items are included in the escalated interval and CMR’s remain unchanged. For additional
information on task interval escalation for the Structures program, refer to Section 2 - STRUCTURAL
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
E. WARRANTY (VENDOR ITEMS)
The accomplishment, at specified intervals, of maintenance tasks as recommended in this document, does
not imply a warranty by The Boeing Company for service life of vendor components. If an operator is
concerned with a specific warranty for a vendor item, the vendor should be contacted regarding warranty
policy, overhaul times, and service information.
F. AUTOMATED CONFIGURED (AC) TASK CARDS
For most of the maintenance tasks listed in this 737-600/700/800/900 MPD Document, a corresponding
Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance Task Card has been prepared.
INTRO-4Jul 10/2009 D626A001 BOEING PROPRIETARY - Copyright Unpublished Work - See title
page for details
737-600/700/800/900 MAINTENANCE PLANNING DOCUMENT
"Automated Configured (AC)" is defined as follows: AUTOMATED the task cards are automated in that
all text and illustrations are computerized and, once properly identified, are automatically merged onto
the task card. The applicable procedures and illustrations from the Maintenance Manual are automatically
incorporated on the task cards and any revision to the Maintenance Manual automatically triggers the task
card revision as applicable. CONFIGURED (CUSTOMIZED) the task cards are configured to the same
degree that the Boeing Maintenance Manual is configured for each operator. They include the text and
illustrations pulled from the operator have configured Maintenance Manual. They cover all requirements
ATA chapter The Systems Maintenance Program task card numbers in most cases match the sequence
numbers found in this document.
G. REVISIONS
The MPD and task cards are revised on the same 120 day cycle as the 737-600/700/800/900 Maintenance
Manual. Both the MPD and the task cards are derived from the same computerized data base. Revision
bars on the data pages are computer generated and are marked to the left of the first line only of the
affected task. This bar indicates that something within the entire task has changed since the last MPD
revision. Changes are indicated on the List of Effective Pages (LEP). The pages which are revised will be
identified on the LEP by an R (Revised), A (Added), O (Over flow ,i.e. changes to the document structure
and/or page layout), or D (Deleted).Each page in the LEP is identified by section title, page number and
page date.
FAA AD;s
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida…/…/MainFrame…
EASA AD; s
https://ad.easa.europa.eu/
FAA AD Number
ADs have a three-part number designator. The first part is the calendar year of issuance”2017”. The
second part is the biweekly period of the year when the number is assigned”16”. The third part is issued
sequentially within each biweekly period “06”.
AD Content
Generally, ADs includes:
A description of the unsafe condition
The product to which the AD applies
The required corrective action or operating limitations, or both
The AD effective date
A compliance time
Where to go for more information
Information on alternative methods of compliance with the requirements of the AD
FAA AD Example
This document, or a similarly-named one, is used by manufacturers of aircraft, their engines or their
components to communicate details of advisory action or other ‘useful information’ about their products
which may enhance safety, reliability or reduce repetitive costs.
Description
MSG-3 (Maintenance Steering Group) ‘Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development’ is
a document developed by the Airlines For America (A4A) (formerly ATA). It aims to present a
methodology to be used for developing scheduled maintenance tasks and intervals, which will be
acceptable to the regulatory authorities, the operators and the manufacturers. The main idea behind this
concept is to recognize the inherent reliability of aircraft systems and components, avoid unnecessary
maintenance tasks and achieve increased efficiency. The underlying principles are that:
MSG-3 is widely used to develop initial maintenance requirements for modern commercial aircraft which
are published as a Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR). It has two Volumes (1 for Fixed Wing
Aircraft and 2 for Rotorcraft), and its application will proceed alongside the Type Certification process.
Background
MSG-1 was first published in 1968 and used for developing scheduled maintenance for B747.
Subsequently MSG-2 was developed and used for developing scheduled maintenance for 1970’s aircraft
such as L1011 and DC-10. MSG-2 was process orientated and used a bottom-up approach. It also
introduced ‘condition monitored maintenance’ concept.
Based on the experience and the identified weaknesses of MSG-2, the original version of MSG-3 was first
published in 1980 and it introduced a top-down approach by focusing on ‘consequences of failure’. MSG-
3 expected the assessment of functional failures and the assignment of the consequences of those failures
into two basic categories, ‘SAFETY’ and ‘ECONOMIC’. Unlike MSG2, MSG3 is a task orientated and
this eliminated the confusion associated with the different interpretations of ‘Condition Monitoring’, ‘On-
condition’ and ‘Hard time’. The other fundamental improvement was the recognition of ‘damage
tolerance rules’ and the ‘supplemental inspection programs’.
Since 1980, regular amendments have been made to MSG-3, the most recent in 2015 but, as yet MSG-4
has not followed. The latest version of MSG-3 introduced some elements related to Structural Health
Monitoring Systems (SHMS), which was the result of issue papers published by the International
Maintenance Review Board Policy Board (IMRBPB).
Application
A so-called Industry Steering Committee (ISC) appoint specialist Maintenance Working Groups who
carry out detailed analysis [using the MSG-3 process]. The latter then develop an appropriate series of
maintenance tasks for ISC approval.
As experience with an aircraft type accumulates, the Type Certificate Holder (or manufacturer) and the
various operators will seek to develop the MPD throughout the aircraft life. This is due to the fact that the
initial MPD may be conservative, and task intervals may be increased as experience is gained.
Maintenance periods may also be extended as components are modified to give longer life. However, all
extensions should be agreed in a controlled manner i.e. under regulatory oversight.
As a further step, the MPD will be adapted to suit a particular operator's requirements. Once it has been
approved by the appropriate regulatory authority, it becomes an Approved Maintenance Schedule (AMS),
but for that operator only.
The basic goal of MSG-3 is to identify maintenance tasks which are both effective and efficient in
enabling a new aircraft to be designed and operated in a manner which achieves a satisfactory level of
safety and reliability throughout its life. The process is applied for the following four sections:
Systems and Power plant (including components and APUs)
Aircraft Structures
Zonal Inspections
Lightning/High Intensity Radio Frequency (L/HIRF).
Each section contains methodology and specific decision logic diagrams. Specifically, the ‘Systems
&Power plant’ section requires the identification of Maintenance Significant Items (MSI) before the
application of logic diagrams to determine the maintenance tasks and intervals.
Similarly, in the ‘Aircraft Structures’ section the initial step is to divide the aircraft structure into
workable areas or zones. Within these Structural Significant Items (SSIs) will be selected within which
Principal Structural Elements (PSEs) can be identified. A failed PSE will be capable of causing a
catastrophic effect. The remainder of the structure is referred to as Other Structure (OS).
MSG-3 again provides methods and logic diagrams which are to be used for the development of structural
inspections tasks. Regulatory guidance concerning damage tolerance and the fatigue evaluation of
structure is also found in (FAR/CS 25.571)
In addition to the tasks and intervals identified by MSG-3, there will be other issues associated with
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR). These will be identified during an aircraft’s Systems
Safety Assessment (see FAR/CS25.1309), typically from latent failures or combined events. These may
demand additional tasks at different intervals to the MRB report [FAA, 2011].
For more details you can refer to this link: file:///C:/Users/PC/Downloads/MSG.pdf
Form 58
Form 58
Form 58
Maintenance Program
Contents
• 1Definition
• 2Description
• 3Content of Maintenance Programs
• 4Caution
• 5Related Articles
• 6Further Reading
Definition
Description
The maintenance program must be produced for each aircraft type by the Operator (AOC Holder) and
subsequently approved by the National Aviation Authority (NAA). For Commercial Air Transport (CAT)
and Large Aero planes with MTOW above 13000 Kg, Maintenance Program is initially developed based
on the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) and Maintenance Planning Document (MPD).
However, as the MRBR for such aircraft is developed based on MSG-3 Logic, the Operator must monitor
the effectiveness of its maintenance program(s) by developing and running a ReliabilityProgramd. This
requires the collection of item removal rate and failure data, plus analysis to identify trends and/or
substantiate assumptions. This will lead to the resolution of reliability issues by taking effective corrective
actions, such as amendments to the maintenance program to alter task frequencies. Therefore, over a
period of time, an Operator’s maintenance program evolves based on its own operational experience. In
terms of the actual work program, each package of work is prepared based on:
Maintenance programs and schedules will give a list of tasks, with intervals quoted in units of flight
hours, flight cycles or calendar time. These will be determined according to hard time, On-condition or
Condition monitoring criteria. The operator will use maintenance schedule to suit its own operations,
based on either a Block (Pyramid) system or Equalized (Progressive) system.
In Block (Pyramid) maintenance, often denoted by letter checks A, C and D, an example illustration
might be having one set of basic tasks done at say 200hrs. Then another set of tasks could be added at
Disadvantages include the relatively large gaps between checks, and potential uneven loading for staff
and other resources. The aircraft may also be out of service for long periods.
In the case of the Equalized (Progressive) system, checks are shorter and equal in size, but are carried out
more frequently. Sometimes these are referred to as E checks, but the tasks are the same, but packaged
differently. For example, D check work could be ‘equalized’ into C checks, e.g. C1, C2, C3, C4, which
are progressively deeper inspections/ component replacements.
Equalized (Progressive) system may suit short haul, low cost carriers and/or newer aircraft that do not
want / need their aircraft to be out of service for long periods of time. Many types of check are short
enough to be carried out overnight when the aircraft is not required.
Benefits include the equalization of resources and the workload for Maintenance personnel is more
constant. Disadvantages include additional cost as work to access the aircraft may need to be repeated,
and also the issue of “emergent work” that perhaps cannot be quickly remedied on discovery.
Caution: Sometimes operators use reliability data to justify the escalation of task intervals within
the maintenance programmed. This is perfectly acceptable as the escalation process requires
statistical evidence based on factual data collected from operational experience. However,
maintenance task escalations related to critical systems or components must be scrutinized from
system safety point of view. System design must be reviewed carefully and risk based decisions
must be made to avoid catastrophic failure. Alaska Airlines MD83 Crash in Jan 2000 [NTSB, 2002],
which was due to a failed stabilizer jackscrew, is a typical example of how such maintenance tasks
escalations crucially affect airworthiness of the aircraft.
Before certification of an aircraft, the aircraft manufacturer‐ the Type Certificate (TC)
holder‐mustprepareandsubmitforapprovaltotherelevantairworthinessauthoritiesthe initial minimum
scheduled maintenance requirements. The minimum scheduled requirements are outlined in the
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) following local regulatory authority approval ,the MRBR
issued as airframe work around which
eachaircarrierdevelopsitsownindividualmaintenanceprogram.Althoughmaintenance programs may vary
widely, the initial requirements for an aircraft will be the same for all. The tasks detailed in the MRBR
cannot be deleted nor can the task content be changed without approval of the MRB Chairman or
appropriate national regulatory authority. However, individual task intervals may be escalated based on
satisfaction or substantiation by the operator, and review and approval by the local regulatory authority.
1.2 210 Review Technical Log Book and cross-check with CFDS"PFR",
Undertake corrective actions as required.
1.3 210 Check each engine oil quantity, and add oil, if necessary, within a period
of 5 to 20 minutes after engine shutdown.
Top up, as required, through filler until oil is visible through plastic
transparent hose at remote overflow coupling location.
When oil flow from overflow hose stops, disconnect oil service
system and check for oil leakage from the coupling. Slightly
wet surface, insufficient to from a drop, is permitted.
2.2 Obtain water free fuel samples from bowzer prior to refueling.
2.3 620 Ensure refuel coupling caps are in place and secured after refueling
2.4 540 640 Ensure Magnetic fuel indicators are flushed and secured.
3 WALKAROUND
WALK AROUND
Perform a visual check to ensure that the overall condition of the A/C, the visible components and equipments are safe for the following flight.
SEQ.
Pilot probes………………………………………………………CONDITION
TAT probes………………………………………………………CONDITION
L/G doors……………………………………………………………CLOSED
AOA probes……………………………………………………..CONDITION
Antennas………………………………………………………...CONDITION
Drain mast……………………………………………………….CONDITION
Anticollision light…………………………………………………….CHECK
Landing light…………………………………………………….CONDITION
Slat 1…………………………………………………………….CONDITION
Cowl doors……………………………………………..CLOSED/LATCHED
Vent inlet……………………………………………………………...CLEAR
Vent inlet……………………………………………………………...CLEAR
Turbine exhaust……………………………………………………….CLEAR
Pylon/access panel………………………………….CONDITION/CLOSED
3.9 9 R.H WING LEADING EDGE :
Slats 2, 3, 4, 5…………………………………………………..CONDITION
Refuel coupling…………………………………………………….CLOSED
Navigation light…………………………………………………CONDITION
Surge tank air inlet……………………………………………….…CLEAR
Wing tip…………………………………………………………CONDITION
Static dischargers………………………………………………….CHECK
Control surfaces……………………………………………….CONDITION
Chocks…………………………………………………………..REMOVED
L/G structure………………………………………………………..CHECK
L/g doors……………………………………………………………CLOSED
Outflow valve…………………………………………………....CONDITION
Drain mast……………………………………………………...CONDITION
3.13 13 TAIL :
Static dischargers…………………………………………………..CHECK
3.14 14 APU :
Access doors……………………………………………………...CLOSED
Air intake………………………………………………………..CONDITION
Exhaust…………………………………………………………..….CLEAR
Navigation light………………………………………………...CONDITION
Chocks……………………………………………………….….REMOVED
Hydraulic lines……………………………………………………...CHECK
L/G structure………………………………………………………..CHECK
Downlock springs…………………………………………………..CHECK
L/G doors…………………………………………………………..CLOSED
Static dischargers………………………………………………….CHECK
Control surfaces……………………………………………….CONDITION
Wing tip…………………………………………………………CONDITION
Navigation light………………………………………………...CONDITION
Inner and outer cell magnetic fuel level L3, L4, and L5……..…..FLUSH
Slats 2, 3, 4, 5………………………………………………….CONDITION
Cowl doors…………………………………………….CLOSED/LATCHED
Vent inlet……………………………………………………………..CLEAR
Turbine exhaust……………………………………………………..CLEAR
Pylon/access panel……………………...………..CONDITION/CLOSED
Slat 1…………………………………………………………...CONDITION
Landing lights…………………………………………………..CONDITION
R.A.T doors……………………………………………………….CLOSED
4
ADDITIONAL ITEMS / FOLLOWING DAILY CHECK OR WEEKLY CHECK
Ensure all cabin doors cargo compartment doors and service panels
are properly closed and secured.
741 L.H and R.H MAIN L/G ground safety locks : removed
540 Drain water from all fuel tanks at water drain valves (preferably when
190 the aircraft has remained stationary for at least four hours), after
640 drainage ensure drain valves are properly seated and not leaking.
4.6 WHEELS :
700 FOLLOWING A DAILY CHECK
Check the pressure of the tire by the TIPS system (if applicable)
or by the pressure gage.
4.7 210 CHECK FOR PRESENCE OF LANDING GEARS LOCK PIN AND
SAFETY LOCKS IN COCKPIT STORAGE COMPARTMENT.
5.1 210 Carry out a safety check of flight compartment for proper position of
control and verify all C/Bs pushed-in.
5.2 210 Perform the Preliminary Cockpit Preparation and the Normal Cockpit
Preparation.
5.4 210 Endorse maintenance actions in technical LOG BOOK (if any) and
sign against each corrected/performed item.
5.5 210 Ensure Airworthy release LOG BOOK entry is signed by an authorized
individual.
Ensure A/C Technical LOG BOOK sign against Daily and Weekly check.
5.6 711 Ensure towing lever is in the normal (spring loaded) position and
towing pin is removed.
The aircraft technical log is the primary source for technical and operational data on each flight that occurs on an
aircraft. This data includes defects and malfunctions, block times and fuel consumption. It also records all maintenance
carried out on an aircraft between scheduled base maintenance visits
or
6. Reliability Programs
6.1 Applicability
(c) The aircraft maintenance program does not contain overhaul time periods for all significant system components
(a) the maintenance program is based upon the MSG-1 or 2 logic but only contains hard time or on condition items
(c) the aircraft maintenance program provides overhaul time periods for all significant system components.
6.2.2 The requirements for a reliability program is irrespective of the M.A. Subpart G organization’s fleet size.
6.2.4 One difficulty with a small fleet of aircraft consists in the amount of
available data which can be processed: when this amount is too low, the
calculation of alert level is very coarse. Therefore “alert levels” should be used carefully.
(a) The program should focus on areas where a sufficient amount of data is likely to be processed.
(b) When the amount of available data is very limited, the M.A .Subpart G organization’s engineering judgment is then a vital
element. In the following examples, careful engineering analysis should be exercised before taking decisions:
· A “0” rate in the statistical calculation may possibly simply reveal that enough statistical data is missing, rather that there is no
potential problem.
· When alert levels are used, a single event may have the figures reach the alert level. Engineering judgment is necessary so as to
discriminate an artifact from an actual need for a corrective action.
· In making his engineering judgment, an M.A. Subpart G organization is encouraged to establish contact and make comparisons
with other M.A. Subpart G organizations of the same aircraft, where possible and relevant. Making comparison with data
provided by the manufacturer may also be possible.
6.2.6 In order to obtain accurate reliability data, it should be recommended to pool data and analysis with one or more other M.A.
Subpart G organization(s). Paragraph 6.6 of this paragraph specifies under which conditions it is acceptable that M.A. Subpart
G organizations share reliability data.
6.2.7 Notwithstanding the above there are cases where the M.A. Subpart organization will be unable to pool data with other
M.A .Subpart G organization ,e.g. at the introduction to service of a new type. In that case the competent authority should
impose additional restrictions on the MRB/MPD tasks intervals (e.g. no variations or only minor evolution are possible, and with
the competent authority approval).
6.3.1 Engineering judgment is itself inherent to reliability programs as no interpretation of data is possible
without judgment. In approving the M.A .Subpart G organization’s maintenance and reliability programs,
the competent authority is expected to ensure that the organization which runs the program (it may be the
M.A. Subpart G organization, or an Part-145 organization under contract) hires sufficiently qualified
personnel with appropriate engineering experience and understanding of reliability concept (see AMC
M.A.706)
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Annex%20I%20to%20Decision%202016-011-R.pdf
6.4.1 Whereas M.A.302 specifies that, the aircraft maintenance program-which includes the associated
reliability program-, should be managed and presented by the M.A. Subpart G organization to the
competent authority, it is understood that the M.A. Subpart G organization may delegate certain functions
to the Part-145 organization under contract, provided this organization proves to have the appropriate
expertise.
6.4.4 The arrangement between the M.A. Subpart G organization and the Part-145 organization should be
specified in the maintenance contract (see appendix 11) and the relevant CAME, and MOE procedures.
6.5.1 Objectives
The extent of the objectives should be directly related to the scope of the program. Its scope could vary
from a component defect monitoring system for a small M.A .Subpart G organization, to an integrated
maintenance management program for a big M.A. Subpart G organization. The manufacturer’s
maintenance planning documents may give guidance on the objectives and should be consulted in every
case.
In case of a MSG-3 based maintenance program, the reliability program should provide a monitor that all
MSG-3 related tasks from the maintenance program are effective and their periodicity is adequate.
The significant terms and definitions applicable to the Program should be clearly identified. Terms are
already defined in MSG-3, Part-145 and
6.5.4.1 Sources of information should be listed and procedures for the transmission of information from
the sources, together with the procedure for collecting and receiving it, should be set out in detail in the
CAME or MOE as appropriate.
6.5.4.2 The type of information to be collected should be related to the objectives of the Program and
should be such that it enables both an overall broad based assessment of the information to be made and
also allow for assessments to be made as to whether any reaction, both to trends and to individual events,
is necessary.
6.5.4.3 In addition to the normal prime sources of information, due account should be taken of continuing
airworthiness and safety information promulgated under Part-21
Collected information may be displayed graphically or in a tabular format or a combination of both. The
rules governing any separation or discarding of information prior to incorporation into these formats
should be stated. The format should be such that the identification of trends, specific highlights and
related events would be readily apparent.
6.5.5.1 The above display of information should include provisions for “nil returns” to aid the
examination of the total information.
6.5.5.2 Where “standards” or “alert levels” are included in the program, the display of information should
be oriented accordingly.
6.5.6.1 Examination.
Methods of examination of information may be varied according to the content and quantity of
information of individual programs. These can range from examination of the initial indication of
performance variations to formalized detailed procedures at specific periods, and the methods should be
fully described in the program documentation.
The procedures for analysis and interpretation of information should be such as to enable the performance
of the items controlled by the program to be measured; they should also facilitate recognition, diagnosis
and recording of significant problems. The whole process should be such as to enable a critical
assessment to be made of the effectiveness of the program as a total activity .Such a process may involve:
(a) Comparisons of operational reliability with established or allocated standards (in the initial period
these could be obtained from in-service experience of similar equipment of aircraft types).
(b) Analysis and interpretation of trends.
(c) The evaluation of repetitive defects.
(d) Confidence testing of expected and achieved results.
(e) Studies of life-bands and survival characteristics.
(f) Reliability predictions.
(g) Other methods of assessment.
6.5.6.3 The range and depth of engineering analysis and interpretation should be related to the particular
program and to the facilities available. The following, at least, should be taken into account:
6.5.6.4 Where the M.A .Subpart G organization relies upon contracted maintenance and/or overhaul
facilities as an information input to the program, the arrangements for availability and continuity of such
information should be established and details should be included.
6.5.7.1 The procedures and time scales both for implementing corrective actions and for monitoring the
effects of corrective actions should be fully described. Corrective actions shall correct any reduction in
reliability revealed by the program and could take the form of:
(a) Changes to maintenance, operational procedures or techniques.
Note: Some of the above corrective actions may need the competent authority’s approval before
implementation.
6.5.7.2 The procedures for effecting changes to the maintenance program should be described, and the
associated documentation should include a planned completion date for each corrective action, where
applicable.
The organizational structure and the department responsible for the administration of the program should
be stated. The chains of responsibility for individuals and departments (Engineering, Production, Quality,
Operations etc.) in respect of the program, together with the information and functions of any program
control committees (reliability group), should be defined. Participation of the competent authority should
be stated. This information should be contained in the CAME or
MOE as appropriate.
The following information should be submitted to the competent authority for approval as part of the
reliability program:
6.5.10.1 Each Program should contain procedures for monitoring and, as necessary, revising the
reliability “standards” or “alert levels”.
6.5.10.2 Although not exclusive, the following list gives guidance on the criteria to be taken into account
during the review.
(a) Utilization (high/low/seasonal).
(b) Fleet commonality.
(c) Alert Level adjustment criteria.
(d) Adequacy of data.
(e) Reliability procedure audit.
(f) Staff training.
(g) Operational and maintenance procedures.
The competent authority may authorize the M.A .Subpart G organization to implement in the
maintenance program changes arising from the reliability program results prior to their formal approval
by the authority when satisfied that;
6.6.1 In some cases, in order that sufficient data may be analyzed it may be desirable to ‘pool’ data: i.e.
collate data from a number of M.A. Subpart G organizations of the same type of aircraft. For the analysis
to be valid, the aircraft concerned, mode of operation, and maintenance procedures applied should be
substantially the same: variations in utilization between two M.A. Subpart G organizations may, more
than anything, fundamentally corrupt the analysis. Although not exhaustive, the following list gives
guidance on the primary factors which need to be taken into account.
(a) Certification factors, such as: aircraft TCDS compliance (variant)/ modification status, including SB
compliance.
(b) Operational Factors, such as: operational environment/utilization, e.g. low/high/seasonal,
etc./respective fleet size operating rules applicable (e.g. ETOPS/RVSM/All Weather etc.) operating
procedures/ MEL and MEL utilization.
(c) Maintenance factors, such as: aircraft age maintenance procedures; maintenance standards applicable;
lubrication procedures and program; MPD revision or escalation applied or maintenance program
applicable.
6.6.2 Although it may not be necessary for all of the foregoing to be completely
common, it is necessary for a substantial amount of commonality to prevail.
Decision should be taken by the competent authority on a case by
case basis.
6.6.3 In case of a short term lease agreement (less than 6 month) more flexibility
against the Para 6.6.1 criteria may be granted by the competent
authority, so as to allow the owner/operator to operate the aircraft under
the same program during the lease agreement affectivity.
6.6.5 Whereas this paragraph 6.6 is intended to address the pooling of data
directly between M.A. Subpart G organizations, it is acceptable that the
M.A. Subpart G organization participates in a reliability program managed
by the aircraft manufacturer, when the competent authority is
satisfied that the manufacturer manages a reliability program which complies with the intent of this
paragraph.
Goals:
Operational:
Financial:
MRO:
Example for
fingerprint for
correction action
The study of Human Factors is about understanding human behavior and performance. When applied to
aviation operations, Human Factors knowledge is used to optimize the fit between people and the
systems in which they work in order to improve safety and performance.
file:///E:/Books/Human%20Factor/Human_Factor_Avaition.pdf
The model shows the interfaces between the human (the ‘L’ in the center box) and the other elements of
the SHEL
, e.g.: interpretation of procedures, illegible manuals, poorly designed checklists, ineffective regulation,
untested computer software (‘S’), not enough tools, inappropriate equipment, poor aircraft design for
maintainability (‘H’), uncomfortable workplace, inadequate hangar space, variable temperature, noise,
poor morale, (‘E’), relationships with other people, shortage of manpower, lack of supervision, lack of
support from managers (‘L’). However, the
model also accepts that sometimes the ‘L’ in the centre box can stand alone, and there can be problems
associated with a single individual which are not necessarily related to any of the L-S, L-H, L-E, L-L
interfaces
The following variable cost categories were obtained from The Aircraft Cost Evaluator for use in this
study:
Maintenance
Maintenance Labor
Parts Airframe/Engine/Avionics
Engine Restoration
Hangar Rental
Insurance
Hull
Single Limit Liability
Miscellaneous Overhead
Recurrent Training
Aircraft Modernization
Navigation Chart Services
Refurbishing
Computerized Maintenance Management Program
Weather Service
Other Fixed Cost
Fractional Cost/Year + Tax
The tables below illustrates the equations used to compute reserve rates for each of the major maintenanceevents.abd examples for some operators