Sunteți pe pagina 1din 71

Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Egyptian Company for Aircraft Maintenance

TECHNICAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING COURSE

PREPARED BY

ENGINEER ABBAS MAHMOUD

E-mail
abbas.mahmoud@ecam-eg.com

Mobile: 01144777811

Date: Jan. 2019

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 1 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 2 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Table of Contents.
Time line
SUBJECT PAGE
Hours
Cover Page 1 0.00
Acknowledgements 2 1.00
Table of Contents 3 1.00
Glossary 4 1.00
Introduction 6 1.00
Differences between MRB & MPD 7 4.00
Maintenance review board example 7 2.00
Maintenance Planning Data 8 4.00
Manteca Planning Data for Boeing 737 8 4.00
ATA Chapter 12 1.00
ATA Subchapter 15 1.00
Differences between AD & SB 16 2.00
Airworthiness Directive 16 2.00
Example for FAA AD 17 1.00
Example for EASA AD 19 1.00
Service bulletin (S.B.) 22 4.00
GE Service Bulletins Categories 22 1.00
Example for Boeing SB 24 1.00
Service Information Letter 28 1.00
example for SIL 28 1.00
Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3) 29 4.00
Aircraft Structure Zoning System 31 1.00
example for Engineering Order (E.O) 32 4.00
Aircraft Delivery Check List 35 2.00
Maintenance Program 38 4.00
Example for A320 Pre-Departure check 44 2.00
Example for mater Task Card 54 2.00
Example for logbook page 55 2.00
Certificate of Release to Service 56 1.00
Reliability Program 57 4.00
Example for 2 pages from reliability program report. 65 2.00
Engine Health Monitoring 67 4.00
Example for Engine parameter 67 1.00
Example for fingerprint for correction action 68 1.00
Aviation Maintenance Human Factors 69 4.00
Aircraft Operating Costs 70 4.00
Maintenance Reserves 71 4.00
Course total hours 80.00

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 3 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Glossary of Terms
Appreciation Description
A Added
A/C Aircraft
AC Automated Configured
ACO Aircraft Certification Office
AD Airworthiness Directives
AMM Aircraft Maintenance Manual
AMOC Alternative Method of Compliance
APU Auxiliary Power Unit
ATA Air Transport Association
ATC Air traffic control
AWL Airworthiness Limitations
CMM Component Maintenance Manual
CMR Certification Maintenance Requirements
CVR Cockpit Voice Recorder
D Deleted
DDG Dispatch Deviation Guide
DS Data Services
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
ECAA Egyptian Civil Aviation Authority
EGT Exhaust Gas Temperature
ENG Engine
EO Engineering Order
EPR Engine Pressure Ratio
EXCEL Excel Spreadsheet Format
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FDR Flight Data Recorder
FF Fuel Flow
FIM Fault Isolation Manual
FRM Fault Report Manual
FTD Fleet Team Digest
IBR Incorporation by Reference
International Maintenance Review Board
IMRBPB
Policy Board
IPC Illustrated Parts Catalog
ISC Industry Steering Committees

JAA Joint Aviation Authorities

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 4 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
LEP List of Effective Pages
LOPA Layout Passenger Arrangement
MBD Maintenance Planning Data
MLG Main Landing Gear
MRB Maintenance review Board
MRBR Maintenance review Board Report
MSG Maintenance Steering Groups
N/A Not Applicable
N1 Low Pressure Fan Speed
N2 High Pressure Turbine Speed
National Archives and Records
NARA Administration
O Overflow i.e. changes to the document
structure and/or page layout
ODA Organization Designation Authorization
OHM Overhaul Manual
P/N Part Number
PDF Portable Document Format
PSEs Principal Structural Elements
QTY Quantity
R Revised
RC Required for Compliance
REV Revision
RII Required Item Inspection
RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
SB Service Bulletins
SHMS Structural Health Monitoring Systems
SIG Sign
SL Service Letters
SRM Structure Repair Manual
SRP Service Related Problem
SSIs Structural Significant Items
SSM System schematic Manual
STC Supplemental Type Certificate
TC Type Certificate
TCAS Traffic collision avoidance system
TCDS Type Certificate Data Sheet
U.S. United States of America
WDM Wiring Diagram Manual

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 5 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Introduction
Definition of engineering
1: The engineer is creative and innovates new ways to find solutions
2a: the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of
energy in nature are made useful to people
b: the design and manufacture of complex products software engineering
3: calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) social engineering

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 6 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Differences between MRB & MPD


What are the differences between the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) and Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) and which one should be used as a basis for an operator's maintenance program?

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.

Maintenance review board example

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 7 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

MAINTENANCE PLANNING DATA

Boeing and Airbus MPD Example

Caution: You must read the MPD in PDF Format first then in EXEL format

Maintenance Planning Data for Boeing 737


A. PURPOSE
This Boeing Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document provides maintenance planning information
necessary for each 737-600/700/ 800/900 operator to develop a customized scheduled maintenance
program. This document lists all Boeing recommended scheduled maintenance tasks and satisfies (in part)
the FAA requirement that a manufacturer provide "instructions for continued airworthiness" as specified
in FAR 25.1529 - Appendix H. Periodic (scheduled) maintenance tasks outlined in this document may
include, but are not limited to, the following sources: 737-600/700/800/900 FAA Maintenance Review
Board (MRB) Report - Latest Revision Boeing 737-600/700/800/900 Service Bulletins (SB)* Boeing
737-600/700/800/900 Service Letters (SL)* 737-600/700/800/900 FAA Airworthiness Directives
(AD’s)* 737-600/700/800/900 Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) 737-600/700/800/900
Structural Airworthiness Limitations NOTE: *Service Letters, Service Bulletins and Airworthiness
Directives must be reviewed by each individual operator and integrated into their maintenance plan where
applicable.

current production and existing 737-600/700/800/900 airplanes as follows: AIRPLANES - 737-


600/700/800/900 ENGINES - CFMI-CFM56-7 the scheduled maintenance tasks in this document should
not be considered as all-inclusive. Each individual airline has final responsibility to decide what to do and
when to do it, except for those maintenance requirements identified as "Airworthiness Limitations"
(AWL’S) or "Certification Maintenance Requirements" (CMR’S). Additional temporary requirements in
the form of Service Letters, Service Bulletins and Airworthiness Directives are the responsibility of the
individual airline to incorporate. Maintenance tasks recommended in engine, APU, and vendor manuals
should also be considered.
B. SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 8 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Most of the scheduled maintenance tasks outlined in this planning document were developed using the
process guidelines of the ATA Airline/Manufacturer Maintenance Program Development Document
(MSG-3). In addition this document includes all scheduled maintenance tasks recommended by Boeing
based on worldwide fleet experience, (with the exception of temporary requirements as described in
paragraph A). There are no additional Boeing recommended scheduled maintenance tasks.
INTRO-1Jul 10/2009 D626A001 BOEING PROPRIETARY - Copyright Unpublished Work - See title
page for details
737-600/700/800/900 MAINTENANCE PLANNING DOCUMENT
Some Structural inspection requirements arose from the Model 737-600/700/800/900 airplane
certification activities with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and are identified as
"Airworthiness Limitations" in Section 9 of this document. A few maintenance requirements were
developed as a result of the safety analysis for certification of the airplane. These tasks, called
"Certification Maintenance Requirements" (CMR’s), are listed in the systems section however, Section 9
(Airworthiness Limitations and Certification Maintenance Requirements) is the approved document for
all CMR’s. Section 9 is controlled separately from the rest of the MPD and is approved by the FAA
Aircraft Certification Office and is released as document number D626A001-CMR. Figure 1 illustrates
the process used to develop the 737-600/700/800/900 scheduled maintenance program, eventually leading
to the preparation of the individual airline job cards.
INTRO-2Jul 10/2009 D626A001 BOEING PROPRIETARY - Copyright Unpublished Work - See title
page for details737-600/700/800/900 MAINTENANCE PLANNING DOCUMENT

Figure 1 737-600/700/800/900 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT


INTRO-3Jul 10/2009 D626A001 BOEING PROPRIETARY - Copyright Unpublished Work - See title
page for details
737-600/700/800/900 MAINTENANCE PLANNING DOCUMENT

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 9 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 10 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
of the Boeing recommended scheduled maintenance program outlined in this MPD and are printed in a
Boeing standard format. Further customization of the cards is possible based on negotiation between the
operator and Boeing. TASK CARD NUMBERING The task cards are numbered sequentially within each

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 11 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
ATA CHAPTERS
ATA (Air transportation Association) published a numbering system to learn and understand the technical
features of an Aircraft. ATA chapters makes it easy to categorize technical information.
ATA Specification 2200
NUMBER CHAPTER
1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
3 STRUCTURE DEIGN CRITERIA
4 PERFORMANCE
5 TIME LIMITS AND MAINTENANCE CHECKS
6 DIMENSIONS AND AREAS
7 LIFTING AND SHORING
8 LEVELING WEIGHING
9 TOWING AND TAXIING
10 PARKING MOORING, STORAGE AND RETURN TO SERVICE
11 PLACARDS
12 SERVICING
13 WEIGHT
14 INTERCHANGEABILITY
15 HUMAN FACTORS
16 NOISE
17 FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS
18 VIBRATIONS AND NOISE ANALYSIS (HELICOPTER ONLY)
19 PERFORM WITH MISSING/ SERVICABLE EQUIPMENT
20 STANDARD PRACTICES AIRFRAME
21 AIR CONDITIONING
22 AUTO PILOT
23 COMMUNICATIONS
24 ELECTRICAL POWER EQUIPMENTS AND FURNISHING
25 EQUIPMENT/FURNISHINGS
26 FIRE PROTECTION
27 FLIGHT CONTROL

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 12 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
28 FUEL
29 HYDRAULIC POWER
30 ICE AND RAIN PROTECTION
31 INSTRUMENTS
32 LANDING GEAR
33 LIGHTS
34 NAVIGATION
35 OXYGEN
36 PNEUMATIC
37 VACUUM
38 WATER AND WASTE
ELECTRICAL – ELECTRONIC PANELS AND MULTIPURPOSE
39
COMPONENTS
40 MULTISYSTEM
41 WATER BALLAST
42 INTEGRATED MODULAR AVIONICS*
43 *RESERVED
44 CABIN SYSTEMS*
45 DIAGNOSTIC AND MAINTENANCE SYSTEM
46 INFORMATION SYSTEM
47 NITROGEN GENERATION SYSTEM
48 IN FLIGHT FUEL DISPENSING
49 AIRBORNE AUXILLARY POWER
50 CARGO AND ACCESSORY COMPARTMENTS
51 STANDARD PRACTICES AND STRUCTURES
52 DOORS
53 FUSELAGE
54 NACELLES AND PYLONS
55 STABILIZER
56 WINDOWS
57 WINGS

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 13 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
58 *RESERVED
59 *RESERVED
60 STANDARD PRACTICES – PROPELLER
61 PROPELLERS
62 ROTOR(S)
63 ROTOR DRIVE(S)
64 TAIL ROTOR
65 TAIL ROTOR DRIVE
66 ROTOR BLADE AND TAIL PYLON FOLDING
67 ROTORS FIGHT CONTROL
68 *RESERVED
69 *RESERVED
70 STANDARD PRACTICES – ENGINES
71 POWERPLANT
72 ENGINE
73 ENGINE FUEL AND CONTROL
74 IGNITION
75 ENGINE AIR
76 ENGINE CONTROL
77 ENGINE INDICATIONS
78 ENGINE EXHAUST
79 ENGINE OIL
80 ENGINE STARTING
81 TURBINES
82 ENGINE WATER INJECTION
83 ACCESSORY GEAR BOX
84 PROPULSION AUGMENTATION
85 FUEL CELL SYSTEMS
86 *RESERVED
87 *RESERVED

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 14 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
88 *RESERVED
89 *RESERVED
90 *RESERVED
91 CHARTS
92 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INSTALLATIONS
93 *RESERVED
94 *RESERVED
95 *RESERVED
96 *RESERVED
97 *RESERVED
98 RECURRING SYSTEM BULLETIN AND AD NOTE
99 ONE TIME SERVICE BULLETIN AND AD NOTE
115 FLIGHT SIMULATOR SYSTEMS
ATA SUBCHAPTER

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 15 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Differences between AD & SB
An Airworthiness Directive (A.D.)
It is a directive issued when the FAA or EASA realizes that a perilous condition exists in a product
(aircraft engine, airframe, appliance or propeller). ...

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 16 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

FAA AD Example

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 17 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 18 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
EASA AD EXAMPLE

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 19 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 20 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 21 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
The service bulletin (S.B.)
IT is a notice to an aircraft operator from a manufacturer informing him/her of a product improvement?
the manufacturers must have realized that there were different levels of seriousness or criticality to a
bulletin and began to further categorize them as
1. Alert
2. Mandatory
3. Recommended
4. Optional
5. Informational

GE Service Bulletins Categories


GE Service Bulletins are issued with different compliance categories and recommendations statements to
assist an operation/shop in assessments of the Service Bulletin priority. The category is located in
paragraph”1.D. Compliance.” These categories are only recommendations and are not mandatory unless
driven by Airworthiness Directives (AD). If the engine workscope is continued time (quick turn), i.e. no
modules are to be overhauled and next scheduled shop visit date is not affected, then service bulletins
compliance may be kept to a minimum, excepting
AD’s which must be complied with. Definition of these categories is as follows:
• Category 1
Usual Statement: Do before subsequent flight or before XX hours, YY cycles, or a specific end date or
specific interval.
Explanation: Compliance is mandatory and is the result of FAA action - AD, NPRM, or pending AD.
This category does require action within a specified time frame and must be complied with on all engines
presently in the shop.
• Category 2
Usual Statement: Do as soon as possible without effect on revenue service or before XX hours, YY
cycles, or a specific end date or specific interval.
Explanation: Compliance is recommended based on GE technical evaluation and when an aircraft can
stay at a line station or maintenance base with the capability to do the procedure. Justification for hour,
cycle, and end date requirements will be based on technical considerations only(safety, risk analysis, etc).
This category may cause non-routine operator action and must be complied with on all engines presently
in the shop.
• Category 3
Usual Statement: Do at next shop visit of the engine or module.
Explanation: Compliance is necessary regardless of shop visit reason. Disassembly of engine or module
may be required to incorporate bulletin. Incorporation of this SB will enhance engine reliability and
reduce the potential for operation disruptions. May cause further disassembly than planned.
• Category 4
Usual Statement: Do when area is exposed.
Explanation: Technical evaluation indicates that incorporation of this SB may enhance engine operational
reliability or improve time on-wing. Disassembly of a module to piece part may be required to
incorporate this bulletin.
• Category 5
Usual Statement: Do as soon as the effected part is removed from the engine
Explanation: Technical evaluation indicates that incorporation of this SB is expected to improve (reduce)
maintenance costs. This SB should be incorporated when the part is removed from the engine for other
reasons.
• Category 6
Usual Statement: Do when the part is routed for repair
Explanation: Do when the affected part is being routed for repair. Incorporation of this SB should
improve maintenance costs in the future.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 22 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
• Category 7
Usual Statement: Do at customer convenience/option
Explanation: An alternate configuration/part is being introduced into production that may have a different
appearance or may require unique assembly or maintenance practices.
• Category 8
Usual Statement: Spare parts information
Explanation: Use for release/introduction of spare parts that are fully interchangeable and are not
anticipated reliability or maintenance costs improvements.
• Category 9
Usual Statement: Information only
Explanation: Issued to announce specific name brand information (approved oils, etc.) or for
administrative purposes.

You will find the SB by credit subscribe in:


Boeing: My Boeing fleet site
https://www.myboeingfleet.com/ReverseProxy/Authentication.html

Airbus: Airbus world site


https://w3.airbus.com/H380/world/airbusworld/forms/airbus.sfcc?TYPE=33554433&REALMOID=06-
653aefcb-c624-47d3-bc0a-
85721530460f&GUID=&SMAUTHREASON=0&METHOD=GET&SMAGENTNAME=-SM-
t%2fTX88CtTFIPqQ15ugBfOME66PQGCWGuAAOSByMZUiVIJPozo431pS4LE4YuSGzU&TARGE
T=-SM-https%3a%2f%2fw3%2eairbus%2ecom%2fnewairbusworld%2f

I attached four pages only from the SB as a guide.


You will see that the FAA “AD” No. 2017-16-06 refers to the ALERT S.B No. 737 – 57A1327
By using AD and SB you can create the Engineering Order “E.O” according to the instructions.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 23 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
This is an example for SB

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 24 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 25 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 26 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 27 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Service Information Letter

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.

This is an example for SIL

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 28 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3)

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:

• Maintenance only effective if task applicable


• No improvement in reliability by excessive maintenance
• Needless tasks can also introduce human error
• Few complex items exhibit wear out
• Monitoring generally more effective than hard-time overhaul - Condition-based maintenance
(sometimes known as CBM)
• Reliability only improved by modification
• Maintenance may not be needed if failure cheaper

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 29 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
The Maintenance Review Board (MRB) consists of appropriate regulatory personnel to monitor
development and finally approve the Initial Maintenance Program. The ISC submit the complete schedule
to MRB for approval, and once approved, the MRB will approve it to as a Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD).

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 30 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Aircraft Structure Zoning System

Major zones are identified by three digit numbers as follows:


Major Zone Area
No.
100 Lower half of the fuselage to the rear pressure bulkhead (below the main cabin deck).
200 Upper half of the fuselage to the rear pressure bulkhead.
300 Empennage, including fuselage aft of the rear pressure bulkhead.
400 Power plants and struts or pylons.
500 Left wing.
600 Right wing.
700 Landing gear and landing gear doors.
800 Doors.
900 Reserved for uncommon differences between aircraft types not covered by standard series
numbers.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 31 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course
Maintenance Organization Technical
Expositiondepartment
(MOE)
This is an example for Engineering Order (E.O) Chapter: 5
Appendices

ECAA Approved Repair Station


No ECAA /AW/AI/C0009 Engineering Order (part 1)
1 of 2

Form 58

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 32 of 71


Maintenance Organization Exposition (MOE)
Chapter: 5
Appendices

Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

ECAA Approved Repair Station Engineering Order


No ECAA /AW/AI/C0009 (part 1)
2 of 2

Form 58

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 33 of 71


Maintenance Organization Exposition (MOE)
Chapter: 5
Appendices

Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

ECAA Approved Repair Station


E.O Materials
No ECAA /AW/AI/C0009 Required
(part 2)

Form 58

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 34 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Aircraft Delivery Check List

Item Description Remarks


A/C Type Certificate Data Sheet & Any Supplemental
1
Type Specifications
Included in A/C original delivery
2 Export Certificate of Airworthiness
document
Included in A/C original delivery
3 Non-Registration Certificate
document
Included in A/C original delivery
4 Engines Export Certificate of Airworthiness
document
Included in A/C original delivery
5 APU Airworthiness Tag or Release Form
document
Included in A/C original delivery
6 A/C Letter of Definition
document
Included in A/C original delivery
7 A/C List of Modification in addition to Type Design
document
Included in A/C original delivery
8 A/C Specifications
document
Included in A/C original delivery
9 List of Deviations from Design Standards
document
Included in A/C original delivery
10 List of Recordable concessions
document
A/C Production Completion Certificate Approval Included in A/C original delivery
11
(FAA/JAA) document
Included in A/C original delivery
12 A/C Conformity to Design Standards
document
A/C Supplemental Type Certificate for Additional
13 If Applicable
Components
14 AD's Status List
Compliance Statement that all Applicable AD's are
15
satisfied
16 A/C Modification Status List
17 A/C SB Status List
18 Customer Options Modification Incorporated List
Included in A/C original delivery
19 Production/Design Deviation Approvals
document
20 A/C ETOPS Configuration Certificate (If Applicable) N/A
21 A/C Insurance Certificate
22 A/C Weighing Report (Approved)
23 A/C Compass Swing Report

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 35 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
24 A/C Electrical Load Analysis
25 A/C Radio Station Conformity (Certificate)
26 A/C Noise (Limitations) Level Configuration
A/C Approved Lay-Out Passenger Arrangement
27
(LOPA)
28 A/C Routable Component List
29 A/C Avionics Equipment List
30 A/C Safety (Emergency) Equipment List
31 A/C & Engines Life Limited Component List
Included in A/C original delivery
32 A/C Equipment List (Readiness Log)
document
33 A/C TCAS II, RVSM, B-RNAV & Mod "S" Approval
34 A/C Approved Flight Manual
35 A/C Weight & Balance Manual
36 A/C Flight Crew Operating Manual & Check List
37 A/C Maintenance Manual & Engine Manuals
38 A/C Fault Isolation Manual (Trouble Shooting Manual)
39 A/C Wiring Diagram Manual
40 A/C Maintenance Planning Document
41 A/C Illustrated Parts catalog
42 A/C Structure Repair Manual
43 A/C Master Minimum Equipment List
44 A/C, Engines, & APU Log Books
Included in A/C original delivery
45 Production Ground System Test Results
document
Included in A/C original delivery
46 Production Flight Test Results
document
47 Engine Ground Test
48 Cabin Pressure Leakage Check, Hydraulic System Test
49 Final & Acceptance Ground Test Results
50 Final & Acceptance Flight Test Results
51 A/C Inspection Evaluation Report (ECAA) ECAA will provide
Included in A/C original delivery
52 Delivery Letter of Commitments

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 36 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
document
List of Deferred Defect to be corrected after issuance of
53
C of A (if applicable)
54 A Record of the Last Overhaul/Major Checks
A Dated Summary of Past Maintenance Inspections and
55
the Operating Hours since the Last Inspection
Maintenance Program including Previous & Future
56
Checks
57 Hard Time Components List
58 Life Time Components List
59 List of Major Repair
List of Modifications Made by the Operator & Previous
60 Owner
(if applicable)
Compliance with the Structural Inspection Program
61
including Details of any Structural Sampling
62 Last CVR Readout
63 Last FDR Readout
64 Engine Condition Monitoring Report (Sage)
65 Engines Bore scope Report
67 CDSS accomplishment
68 Enhanced Mode "S" ATC Transponder

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 37 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Maintenance Program

Contents

• 1Definition
• 2Description
• 3Content of Maintenance Programs
• 4Caution
• 5Related Articles
• 6Further Reading

Definition

Maintenance Program is a document containing the maintenance requirements/tasks that needs to


be carried out on an aircraft in order to ensure its continuing airworthiness.

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:

• Flight program i.e. schedule of the operator


• Maintenance program requirements – the approved maintenance schedule
• Routine work
• Component change
• Non routine work (deferred defects)
• Modifications and special inspections

Content of Maintenance Programs

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 38 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
first multiple of this basic interval, say 400hrs, then another at 600, 800 hours etc. Hence, as the hours
increase, the number of required tasks also increases. Block (Pyramid) maintenance may suit long haul
carriers and/or older aircraft which can be scheduled for longer on the ground. Benefits include fixed
preparation and completion times, a reasonably low variability in workload and fixed content, planning
and control.

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 Maintenance Program

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.

The tasks detailed in the MRBR:

•Developed by an Industry Steering Committee •Distributed by Aircraft Manufacturer


•Constitute Minimum Initial Requirements •cannot be deleted nor changed

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 39 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 40 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 41 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 42 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 43 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Example for A320 Pre Departure check

A320 PREFLIGHT/TRANSIT CHECK


A/C REG. : DATE : STATION :

OPERATION ZONE DESCRIPTION

1 ARRIVAL ITEMS FOR TRANSIT ONLY

1.1 700 Install wheel chocks..

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.

WARNING : DO NOT REMOVE THE FILLER CAP OF THE OIL TANK


IMMEDIATELY AFTER ENGINE OPERATION.
LET THE OIL PRESSURE DECREASE FOR A MINIMUM
OF 5 MINUTES.

Attach hose coupling to oil tank overflow connector.

Top up, as required, through filler until oil is visible through plastic
transparent hose at remote overflow coupling location.

CAUTION : REMOVAL OF DRAIN LINE BEFORE FLOW OF OIL FROM


OVERFLOW HOSE STOPS MAY RESULT IN AN
OVERSERVICED TANK

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.

Reinstall blanking cap on overflow connector.

Record ADDED OIL in log book.

2 REFUELING / FOR TRANSIT ONLY

2.1 Confirm FUEL quantity required for next flight.

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 44 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Operations are completed.

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.

WARNING: DO NOT ENTER THE R.A.T EXTENSION AREA.

3.1 1 LH FWD FUSELAGE :

AOA probes ……………………………………………………CONDITION

F/O, CAPT Static ports ………………………………………...…CLEAR

Avionics eqpt. vent air inlet valve …………………………….CONDITION

Oxygen bay ……………………………………………………….CLOSED

Oxygen overboard disc ind ……………………………………….GREEN

Toilet servicing door……………………………………………….CLOSED

3.2 2 NOSE SECTION :

Pilot probes………………………………………………………CONDITION

STBY Static ports………………………………………………… CLEAR

TAT probes………………………………………………………CONDITION

Radom and latches……………………………...CONDITION/LATCHES

Forward avionics compartment door…………………………….CLOSED

Ground electrical power door (if not required)………………………..CLOSED

3.3 3 NOSE L/G :

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 45 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Nose wheel chocks……………………………………………..IN PLACE

Wheels and tires………………………………………………CONDITION

Nose gear structure………………………………………….. CONDITION

Taxi, T.O, turn - off lights………………………………………CONDITION

Hydraulic lines and electrical wires…………………………..CONDITION

Wheel well………………………………………………………….. CHECK

L/G doors……………………………………………………………CLOSED

3.4 4 R.H FWD FUSELAGE :

R.H + AFT avionics compartment doors………………………….CLOSED

Avionics equipment vent air outlet valve……………………CONDITION

F/O, CAPT Static ports……………………………………………..CLEAR

AOA probes……………………………………………………..CONDITION

Forward cargo door & service panel……………………………….CHECK

3.5 5 LOWER CENTER FUSELAGE :

Antennas………………………………………………………...CONDITION

Drain mast……………………………………………………….CONDITION

RAM air inlet flap………………………………………………..CONDITION

LP and HP ground connection doors...………………………….CLOSED

Anticollision light…………………………………………………….CHECK

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 46 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

CTR TANK magnetic fuel level C1……………………………………..FLUSH

Pack air intakes and outlets………………………………………..CLEAR

3.6 6 R.H CENTER WING :

Yellow hydraulic bay door………………………………………...CLOSED

Refueling electric control panel…………………………………..CLOSED

Inner tank magnetic fuel level R1 and R2………………………....FLUSH

Fuel water drain valve inner tank…………………………………NO LEAK

Landing light…………………………………………………….CONDITION

Wing leading edge ventilation intake……………………………...CLEAR

Slat 1…………………………………………………………….CONDITION

3.7 7 ENG. 2 L.H SIDE :

Oil fill access door………………………………………………...CLOSED

Cowl doors……………………………………………..CLOSED/LATCHED

Drain mast………………………………………….CONDITION/NO LEAK

Vent inlet……………………………………………………………...CLEAR

Engine inlet and fan blades………………………………………...CHECK

3.8 8 ENG. 2 R.H SIDE :

Vent inlet……………………………………………………………...CLEAR

Starter valve handle access door………………………………….CLOSED

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 47 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Pressure relief door…………………………………………………CLOSED

Turbine exhaust……………………………………………………….CLEAR

Pylon/access panel………………………………….CONDITION/CLOSED
3.9 9 R.H WING LEADING EDGE :

Slats 2, 3, 4, 5…………………………………………………..CONDITION

Inner and outer cells magnetic fuel level

R3, R4, R5…………………………………………………………....FLUSH

Fuel water drain valves (outer cell, surge tank)……………..…NO LEAK

Refuel coupling…………………………………………………….CLOSED

Navigation light…………………………………………………CONDITION
Surge tank air inlet……………………………………………….…CLEAR

Wing tip…………………………………………………………CONDITION

3.10 10 R.H WING TRAILING EDGE :

Static dischargers………………………………………………….CHECK

Control surfaces……………………………………………….CONDITION

Flaps and fairings………………………………………………CONDITION

3.11 11 R.H L/G AND FUSELAGE :

Chocks…………………………………………………………..REMOVED

Wheels and tires……………………………………………...CONDITION

Brakes and brakes wear indications . ……(Parking brake applied) ….CONDITION


(MPD TASK 324227-01-1)
Hydraulic lines……………………………………………………...CHECK

L/G structure………………………………………………………..CHECK

Down lock spring…………………………………………………….CHECK

L/g doors……………………………………………………………CLOSED

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 48 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Yellow ground service panel………………………………………CLOSED

Water drain mast……………………………………………….CONDITION

Shroud fuel drain…………………………………...CONDITION/NO LEAK

3.12 12 R.H AFT FUSELAGE :

Cargo door and service panel……………………………………...CHECK

Bulk door (optional)………………………………………………..CHECK

Toilet service access door…………………………………….….CLOSED

Outflow valve…………………………………………………....CONDITION
Drain mast……………………………………………………...CONDITION

Flight recorder access door………………………………………CLOSED

3.13 13 TAIL :

Stabilizer, elevator, fin and rudder………………………...…CONDITION

Static dischargers…………………………………………………..CHECK

3.14 14 APU :

Access doors……………………………………………………...CLOSED

Air intake………………………………………………………..CONDITION

Drain ………………………………………………..CONDITION/NO LEAK

Oil cooler air outlet……………………………………………….…CLEAR

Exhaust…………………………………………………………..….CLEAR

Navigation light………………………………………………...CONDITION

Fire exiting. Overpressure indication (red disc.)……………....IN PLACE

3.15 15 L.H AFT FUSELAGE :

Stabilizer, elevator, fin and rudder…………………………...CONDITION

Portable water service door………………………………………CLOSED

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 49 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Blue and Green ground service panels………………………….CLOSED

Blue hydraulic system reservoir door……………………………CLOSED

3.16 16 L.H L/G :

Chocks……………………………………………………….….REMOVED

Wheels and tires………………………………………….…..CONDITION

Brakes and brakes wear indication…………………….CONDITION

Hydraulic lines……………………………………………………...CHECK

L/G structure………………………………………………………..CHECK

Downlock springs…………………………………………………..CHECK

L/G doors…………………………………………………………..CLOSED

3.17 17 L.H WING TRAILING EDGE :

Static dischargers………………………………………………….CHECK

Control surfaces……………………………………………….CONDITION

Flaps and fairings……………………………………………...CONDITION

3.18 18 L.H WING LEADING EDGE :

Wing tip…………………………………………………………CONDITION

Navigation light………………………………………………...CONDITION

Surge tank air inlet………………………………………………….CLEAR

Fuel water drain valves (outer cell surge tank)……………..…NO LEAK

Inner and outer cell magnetic fuel level L3, L4, and L5……..…..FLUSH

Slats 2, 3, 4, 5………………………………………………….CONDITION

3.19 19 ENG. 1 L.H SIDE :

Oil fill access door………………………………………………...CLOSED

Cowl doors…………………………………………….CLOSED/LATCHED

Drain mast………………………………………….CONDITION/NO LEAK

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 50 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Vent inlet……………………………………………………………..CLEAR

Engine inlet and fan blades………………………………………..CHECK

3.20 20 ENG. 1 R.H SIDE :

Vent inlet……………………………………………………………..CLEAR

Starter valve handle access door………………………………..CLOSED


Pressure relief door……………………………………………….CLOSED

Turbine exhaust……………………………………………………..CLEAR

Pylon/access panel……………………...………..CONDITION/CLOSED

WARNING : DO NOT ENTER THE RAM AIR TURBINE (RAT)


EXTENSION AREA

3.21 21 L.H CENTER WING :

Slat 1…………………………………………………………...CONDITION

Wing leading edge ventilation intake……………………………..CLEAR

Fuel water drain valves inner tank……………………………...NO LEAK

Inner tank fuel magnetic level L1 and L2………………………….FLUSH

Landing lights…………………………………………………..CONDITION

Blue hydraulic bay door…………………………………………..CLOSED

R.A.T doors……………………………………………………….CLOSED

4
ADDITIONAL ITEMS / FOLLOWING DAILY CHECK OR WEEKLY CHECK

4.1 CARRY OUT A GENERAL AIRCRAFT WALKAROUND :

walk Ensure no damage has been caused by ground equipment used in


around the case of maintenance operations (troubleshooting, unit
seq. replacement,...) being performed during the DAILY or WEEKLY.

Ensure all cabin doors cargo compartment doors and service panels
are properly closed and secured.

4.2 REMOVE ALL PROTECTIVE COVERS AND BLANKS FROM


AIRCRAFT.

4.3 811 AVIONICS COMPARTMENT ACCESS TO 80 VU AND 90 VU

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 51 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
824 Ensure all access doors are closed.

4.4 711 LANDING GEARS :

731 Nose L/G down lock safety pin : removed.

741 L.H and R.H MAIN L/G ground safety locks : removed

Main L/g wheel chocks: removed.

4.5 WATER DRAINAGE FROM FUEL TANKS

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.

FOLLOWING A WEEKLY CHECK

Check accordance of TIPS and pressure gage reading (if applicable)

4.7 210 CHECK FOR PRESENCE OF LANDING GEARS LOCK PIN AND
SAFETY LOCKS IN COCKPIT STORAGE COMPARTMENT.

4.8 210 CHECK FOR PRESENCE OF A/C LOG BOOK IN COCKPIT OR


FORWARD GALLEY.

5 COCKPIT PREPARATION AND FINAL ITEMS

5.1 210 Carry out a safety check of flight compartment for proper position of
control and verify all C/Bs pushed-in.

FOLLOWING A DAILY CHECK

5.2 210 Perform the Preliminary Cockpit Preparation and the Normal Cockpit
Preparation.

5.3 210 Check windshield and side windows for cleanliness.

5.4 210 Endorse maintenance actions in technical LOG BOOK (if any) and
sign against each corrected/performed item.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 52 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

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.

5.7 Carry out a final aircraft walkaround.

6 6.1 For RVMS Operation make sure that :


1. No impacts on the fuselage around angle of attack sensor (AOA),
Pitot probes and Static Probes
2. Static Probes are clear and not blocked.
3. AOA sensors are clear and not damaged.

On completion of preflight/Transit check certify in Tech. Log.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 53 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Example for Maintenance Task Card

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 54 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 55 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Certificate of Release to Service
A statement signed by an Licensed Aircraft Engineer (LAE), with the appropriate certifying approvals, which asserts that
the aircraft is airworthy to the degree appropriate for safe flight

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 56 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Reliability Program

You can refer to FAA AC 120-17B in the following link:


https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-17B.pdf

or

EASA Reliability Program Guidance

6. Reliability Programs

6.1 Applicability

6.1.1 A reliability program should be developed in the following cases:

(a) the aircraft maintenance program is based upon MSG-3 logic

(b) The aircraft maintenance program includes condition monitored components

(c) The aircraft maintenance program does not contain overhaul time periods for all significant system components

(d) when specified by the Manufacturer’s maintenance planning document


or MRB.

6.1.2 A reliability Program need not to be developed in the following cases:

(a) the maintenance program is based upon the MSG-1 or 2 logic but only contains hard time or on condition items

(b) the aircraft is not a large aircraft according to Part-M

(c) the aircraft maintenance program provides overhaul time periods for all significant system components.

Note: for the purpose of this paragraph, a significant system is a system


the failure of which could hazard the aircraft safety.

Notwithstanding paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 above, an M.A. Subpart G


organization may however, develop its own reliability monitoring program
when it may be deemed beneficial from a maintenance planning point of view.

6.2 Applicability for M.A. Subpart G organization/operator of small fleets of aircraft

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 57 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
6.2.1 For the purpose of this paragraph, a small fleet of aircraft is a fleet of less
than 6 aircraft of the same type.

6.2.2 The requirements for a reliability program is irrespective of the M.A. Subpart G organization’s fleet size.

6.2.3 Complex reliability programs could be inappropriate for a small fleet.


It is recommended that such M.A .Subpart G organizations tailor their reliability
programs to suit the size and complexity of operation.

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.

6.2.5 An M.A. Subpart G organization of a small fleet of aircraft, when establishing


a reliability program, should consider the following:

(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 Engineering judgment

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 58 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
6.3.2 It follows that failure to provide appropriately qualified personnel for the reliability program may
lead the competent authority to reject the approval of the reliability program and therefore the aircraft
maintenance program.

6.4 Contracted maintenance

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.

6.4.2 These functions are:


(a) Developing the aircraft maintenance and reliability programs,
(b) Performing the collection and analysis of the reliability data,
(c) Providing reliability reports, and
(d) Proposing corrective actions to the M.A. Subpart G organization.

6.4.3 Notwithstanding the above decision to implement a corrective action (or


the decision to request from the competent authority the approval to implement a corrective action)
remains the M.A. Subpart G organization’s prerogative and responsibility. In relation to paragraph
6.4.2(d) above, a decision not to implement a corrective action should be justified and documented.

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 Reliability program

In preparing the program details, account should be taken of this paragraph.


All associated procedures should be clearly defined.

6.5.1 Objectives

6.5.1.1 A statement should be included summarizing as precisely as possible


the prime objectives of the program. To the minimum it
should include the following:
(a) to recognize the need for corrective action,
(b) to establish what corrective action is needed and,
(c) to determine the effectiveness of that action

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.

6.5.2 Identification of items.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 59 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
The items controlled by the program should be stated, e.g. by ATA Chapters. Where some items (e.g.
aircraft structure, engines, APU) are controlled by separate programs, the associated procedures (e.g.
individual sampling or life development programs, constructor’s structure sampling programs) should be
cross referenced in the program.

6.5.3 Terms and definitions.

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 Information sources and collection.

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.

The following are examples of the normal prime sources:


(a) Pilots Reports.
(b) Technical Logs.
(c) Aircraft Maintenance Access Terminal / On-board
Maintenance System readouts.
(d) Maintenance Worksheets.
(e) Workshop Reports.
(f) Reports on Functional Checks.
(h) Reports on Special Inspections
(g) Stores Issues/Reports.
(i) Air Safety Reports.
(j) Reports on Technical Delays and Incidents.
(k) Other sources: ETOPS, RVSM, CAT II/III.

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

6.5.5 Display of information.

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 60 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
6.5.6 Examination, analysis and interpretation of the information. The method employed for examining,
analyzing and interpreting the program information should be explained.

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.

6.5.6.2 Analysis and Interpretation.

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:

(a) Flight defects and reductions in operational reliability.


(b) Defects occurring on-line and at main base.
(c) Deterioration observed during routine maintenance.
(d) Workshop and overhaul facility findings.
(e) Modification evaluations.
(f) Sampling programs.
(g) The adequacy of maintenance equipment and publications.
(h) The effectiveness of maintenance procedures.
(i) Staff training.
(j) Service bulletins, technical instructions, etc.

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 Corrective Actions.

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 61 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
(b) Maintenance changes involving inspection frequency and content, function checks, overhaul
requirements and time limits, which will require amendment of the scheduled maintenance periods or
tasks in the approved maintenance program. This may include escalation or de-escalation of tasks,
addition, modification or deletion of tasks.
(c) Amendments to approved manuals (e.g. maintenance manual, crew manual).
(d) Initiation of modifications.
(e) Special inspections of fleet campaigns.
(f) Spares provisioning.
(g) Staff training.
(h) Manpower and equipment planning.

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.

6.5.8 Organizational Responsibilities.

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.

6.5.9 Presentation of information to the competent authority.

The following information should be submitted to the competent authority for approval as part of the
reliability program:

(a) The format and content of routine reports.


(b) The time scales for the production of reports together with their distribution.
(c) The format and content of reports supporting request for increases
in periods between maintenance (escalation) and for amendments to the approved maintenance program.
These reports should contain sufficient detailed information to enable the competent authority to make its
own evaluation where necessary.

6.5.10 Evaluation and review.

Each program should describe the procedures and individual responsibilities


in respect of continuous monitoring of the effectiveness of the program as a whole. The time periods and
the procedures for both routine and non-routine reviews of maintenance control should be detailed
(progressive, monthly, quarterly, or annual reviews, procedures following reliability “standards” or “alert
levels” being exceeded, etc.).

6.5.10.1 Each Program should contain procedures for monitoring and, as necessary, revising the
reliability “standards” or “alert levels”.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 62 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
The organizational responsibilities for monitoring and revising the “standards” should be specified
together with associated time scales.

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.

6.5.11 Approval of maintenance program amendment

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;

(a) the Reliability Program monitors the content of the Maintenance


Program in a comprehensive manner, and
(b) the procedures associated with the functioning of the “Reliability Group” provide the assurance that
appropriate control is exercised by the Owner/operator over the internal validation of such changes.

6.6 Pooling Arrangements.

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 63 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
6.6.4 Changes by any one of the M.A. Subpart G organization to the above,
requires assessment in order that the pooling benefits can be maintained.
Where an M.A. Subpart G organization wishes to pool data in this way, the
approval of the competent authority should be sought prior to any formal
agreement being signed between M.A. Subpart G organizations.

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.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 64 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Example for 2 pages from reliability program report.

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 65 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 66 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Engine Health Monitoring

The manufacturer makes the analysis and reports.


Just the operator sends the engine parameter required by software or mail.
Refer to this link: https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/1970719973966228/Thesis.pdf

Goals:

Operational:

• Detect potential failures to avoid/reduce secondary damages


• Improve fleet management (removal and spare engine planning)

Financial:

• Reduce maintenance cost thanks to early detection


• Lower unscheduled downtime cost
• Optimize on-wing time

MRO:

• Better estimate shop visit cost


• Improve customize work scoping
• Increase knowledge about engine on-wing behavior
• Optimize shop capacity planning

Example for Engine parameter

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 67 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Example for engine parameter from ECAM in the cockpit.

Example for
fingerprint for
correction action

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 68 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department

AVIATION MAINTENANCE HUMAN FACTORS

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 69 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Aircraft operating costs

You can refer to the link:


https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/econ-value-section-4-
op-costs.pdf

The following variable cost categories were obtained from The Aircraft Cost Evaluator for use in this
study:

Fuel & Oil


Fuel Additives
Lubricants

Maintenance
Maintenance Labor
Parts Airframe/Engine/Avionics
Engine Restoration

Thrust Reverser Overhaul


APU Overhaul
Components/Life Limited Parts
Crew Salaries
Captain
Co-pilot
Flight Engineer/Other
Benefits
fixed costs:

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

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 70 of 71


Technical Engineering and Planning Course Technical department
Maintenance cost reserves
The importance of maintenance reserves to protecting asset value is a key consideration of lessons. In an ideal situation,
the reserves plus the residual condition of select high cost maintenance events would essentially keep the economic
condition of the aircraft whole.

The tables below illustrates the equations used to compute reserve rates for each of the major maintenanceevents.abd examples for some operators

For more details refer to


https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups/Documents/Paperless%20Supply%20Chain/Basics-AC-MR.pdf

Date: Jan. 2019 Page 71 of 71

S-ar putea să vă placă și