Boeing. Maintenance Reliability. An Overview PDF

Maintenance
Reliability
An Overview
Presented by: Kupp Sridhar
Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Maintenance Reliability & Cost Analysis Seminar.
Section 1 1
Topics
Reliability Fundamentals
Reliability Program
Supporting Documentation
Summary

Section 1 2
Reliability
Failure Characteristics
Conditional Probability of Failure
Consequences of Failure
Inherent Reliability
Product Improvement
Reliability Centered Maintenance
3
Reliability Measures the Probability of Survival: Reliability is defined as:

The probability that a system or equipment will survive without failure to a
specified operating age, under specified operating conditions.
Quantitative In Its Terms Of Reference: Probability of survival is the

capability of the equipment to work correctly and is numerically the reciprocal of
the failure rate.
Probability is the chance for an event outcome.
Measuring Units defined as 0 to 1, where 0 is impossible and 1 is certain.
Measurable : Because it is quantitative Reliability is measurable.

Example: The probability of one generator failure is 1.3 x 10-5 = 0.000013 or
0.0013%
Therefore the probability of survival (P) is P (l - 0.000013) = 0.999987 or 99.9987%

Section 1 3
Reliability
Reliability Measures the

Probability of Survival
Quantitative In Its
Terms Of Reference
Measurable
Reliability Measures the Probability of Survival: Reliability is defined as:

The probability that a system or equipment will survive without failure to a
specified operating age, under specified operating conditions.
Quantitative In Its Terms Of Reference: Probability of survival is the

capability of the equipment to work correctly and is numerically the reciprocal of
the failure rate.
Probability is the chance for an event outcome.
Measuring Units defined as 0 to 1, where 0 is impossible and 1 is certain.
Measurable : Because it is quantitative Reliability is measurable.

Example: The probability of one generator failure is 1.3 x 10-5 = 0.000013 or
0.0013%
Therefore the probability of survival (P) is P (l - 0.000013) = 0.999987 or 99.9987%

Section 1 4
Failure Characteristics
Failure:
An Unsatisfactory
Condition
Functional Failure
Potential Failure
Failure: A loss of function, or a malfunction, of a system or part of a system
Functional Failure: Failure of an item to perform its normal or characteristic

actions within specified limits.
Potential Failure: An identifiable physical condition which indicates that a

functional failure is imminent.
Failure evidence/condition depends on three factors:

–1. Clear definition of the functions as they relate to the operation of the
equipment or system.
–2. Clear definition of what constitutes a functional failure.
–3. Clear definition of what constitutes a potential failure.

Section 1 5
Bathtub Curve
Age Reliability Patterns
The conditional probability of failure is the probability that an item will fail during
a particular age interval, given that it survives to enter that interval. In simpler
words it can be described as the relationship between probability of survival and
operating age.
Bathtub Curve: The bathtub curve used to be the corner stone of reliability
science until the 1970's when United Airlines developed a new perspective on age
reliability patterns.
Age Reliability Patterns: The conditional probability of failure curves

determines the age reliability patterns.

Section 1 6
The Bathtub Curve
Conditional Probability
of Failure (PF)
Infant
Mortality
Wear out
Useful Life
Age (T)
The typical bathtub curve has three distinctive regions or stages:

Infant mortality (burn in region) is characterized by an initial high failure
rate that diminishes slowly to a constant rate. Reasons for infant mortality
can be related to human error, inadequate quality control, substandard
materials, wrong start-up and installation, inadequate handling methods and
wrong packaging, etc.
Useful/Constant life region is the stage in which failure rate is relatively
steady. Reasons for the constant stage can be related to conditional
probability failure or the so called unavoidable failures.
The wear-out region is characterized by gradual increase of failure
probability and then by pronounced "wear out". The reasons for wear out
can be numerous but the most characteristic is friction wear and poor design.

Section 1 7
The Bathtub Curve: Infant mortality, followed first by a

constant or gradually increasing failure probability and then
4% by a pronounced "Wear Out" region. An age limit may be
desirable, provided a large number of units survive to the age
at which wear out begins.
Constant or gradually increasing failure probability,

2%
followed by a pronounced wear out region. Once again, an
age limit may be desirable.
Gradually increasing failure probability, but with no

5% identifiable wear out age. It is usually not desirable to
impose an age limit in such cases.
11% Might Benefit From A Limit On Operating Age 8

Section 1 8
Low failure probability when the item is new or just

7%
out of the shop, followed by a quick increase to a
constant level.
14%
Constant probability of failure at all ages

(exponential survival distribution).
68% Infant mortality, followed by a constant or very

slowly increasing failure probability (particularly
applicable to electronic equipment).
89% Cannot Benefit From A Limit On Operating Age 9

Section 1 9
Consequences of Failure
Safety
Operational
Non - Operational
Hidden - Functional
10
The consequences of a functional failure determine the priority of maintenance

effort.
Safety: Possible loss of equipment or injury of occupants.
Operational: Reduces the operating efficiency of the aircraft. Additionally it
involves economic losses as well as an increase in the direct maintenance costs.
Non-Operational: Does not reduce operating efficiency but contributes to the
added direct maintenance costs.
Hidden - Functional: No visible impact but increases the likelihood of a multiple
failure.

Section 1 10
Inherent Reliability
Inherent Reliability Level

ƒ(Design) + Maintenance
Changes to Inherent Reliability Level
Product Improvement
11
The design characteristics of an item or of equipment that is attainable with an

effective scheduled maintenance program.
Inherent Reliability Level: Scheduled maintenance cannot increase inherent

reliability, it can only maintain it.
‘Δ’ Inherent Reliability Level: In order to increase the inherent reliability level,
product improvement is required

Section 1 11
Product Improvement
Modification
Assessment of Added
Value
12
Modification: Design modification (Service Bulletin)of an existing item to

improve its reliability, usually comes in response to information derived from
operating experience after the equipment enters service.
Assessment of Added Value: Product improvement must show a positive tradeoff
between its benefits and cost.

Section 1 12
Reliability Centered Maintenance
Potential Failures are Detectable

Age Limit Applies to 4% to11% of
Equipment
Inherent Reliability Level will not Increase
with Maintenance
Inherent Reliability Level can be Increased
only by Product Improvement.
The Nature of Failure and its
Consequences Determines the Type of
Maintenance Task 13
Current maintenance program development is driven by these Reliability

concepts.
Potential Failures are Detectable: Most potential failures can be detected and
indicate a degradation of equipment or system

Section 1 13
Topics
Reliability Program
14

Section 1 14
Reliability Program
A reliability 1. Establishes
Operating norms for intervals,
program is a inspections and checks
set of rules and
practices for
managing 5. Monitors
RELIABILITY
2. Measures
Effectiveness of
maintenance those corrective PROGRAM Effectiveness of Maintenance
and controlling actions Program through continuous
audits and statistical analysis
the maintenance
program 4. Provides 3. Identifies
Corrective action to Problem areas and initiates
re-establish normal investigation
operating conditions
15
A Reliability Program is a tool for measuring the effectiveness of the maintenance

program and for adjusting that program when it becomes necessary.
The Reliability Program establishes normal operating parameters and measures
current performance against those standards.
Whenever problem areas are indicated, an investigation is initiated.
A corrective action plan is developed and implemented to re-establish the normal
operating conditions.

Section 1 15
Reliability Program
Advantages Disadvantages
Improves Inaccurate data
management of collection provides
airworthiness and misinformation
maintenance costs
Requires
A means to optimize additional
(adjust) maintenance manpower and
program tasks and resources
intervals
16
Reliability Programs can provide useful information to the airline for the purpose of
optimizing the maintenance program.
Reliability Programs, however, are not meant to be a substitute for management.
The program and statistical data are guidelines only.

Section 1 16
Reliability Program
Regulatory
Requirements
JAR OPS 1.910

AC120-16D AC 120-17A AC 120-42A
Leaflet No.25
Continuing Analysis Maintenance Event Oriented

Statistical Reliability
and Surveillance Operations Reliability
Program
Program (CASP) Exposition (MOE) Program
For operators with For operators with For JAR operators For ETOPS
small fleet unable to medium to large in EU operators in
generate large fleet generating addition to either a
amounts of data large amounts of CASP or a
data Comprehensive
Statistical Reliability
Program
17
There are three types of Reliability Programs:

-- Historical Reliability: looks at past history.
-- Statistical Reliability: looks at past history with the aid of statistical analysis.
-- Event Oriented Reliability: looks at each event as it occurs.
Mid-sized to large airlines use statistical reliability.
Airlines with small fleets (not enough data for statistical analysis) use historical
reliability.
Event oriented Reliability is used for Dispatch Reliability, for ETOPS operations,
for repeat items and whenever no historical data is available.
Abbreviations
CASP - Continuing Analysis and Surveillance Program
MOE - Maintenance Operations Exposition

Section 1 17
Reliability Program
Continuing Analysis and Surveillance
Program
People, Policies & Procedures Equipment & Hardware
Organization Structure
Administrative Procedures Daily Mechanical Failures
Maintenance Publications Deferred Maintenance Items
Maintenance Records Airplane, System and
Vendors / Contractors Component Reliability
18
Continuing Analysis and Surveillance Program (CASP) looks at airline’s maintenance

procedures. The very first thing a CASP audit should confirm is that everyone in the
maintenance organization, is following the same maintenance procedures in the company
manual. CASP procedural audits can be simple, like checking to see if the correct forms are
being used and properly filled out at each maintenance base or performing a monthly check to
see if the publications and tech data are current and available.
On the other hand, an audit can also be technically complex. For example, performing an in-
depth review of all of the maintenance manual procedures for performing a “D” check. The
audit can begin with reviewing how work is scheduled, to checking the work turn over
procedures between shifts, and ends with reviewing how the aircraft is approved for return to
service. If any holes are found, the maintenance manual procedures are changed. Audits also
examine the adequacy of equipment and facilities, parts protection and inventory control, and
efficiency and competency of personnel. Another important area not to be overlooked is how
each organizational element communicates with both the total organization and other individual
organizational elements within the airline.
The second part of CASP audit deals with performance analysis of the technical hardware side
of the organization. It looks at the daily maintenance problems, deferred maintenance items,
pilot reports, mechanical interruption summary reports, engine failures, component failures, and
a high number of unscheduled component removals. Summarizing,, the performance analysis
should raise flags or alerts for early warnings of equipment failure or an accident waiting to
happen.

Section 1 18
Reliability Program
Statistical Reliability Program
1.Organization
8. Reporting Requirements 2.Data Collection
7. Maintenance Program Optimization

Program
Program 3. Performance Standards
Elements
Elements
6. Corrective Action 4. Data Display & Reports
5. Data Analysis
19
Data collection and display are the starting points. The data collected can vary
according to the airline’s needs. Items listed below are typical.
Data is calculated as rates based on operational hours and cycles (usually based on
100 or 1000).ability section determines operating standards from Reliability section
determines operating standards from past performance and establishes alert levels to
indicate the need for investigation.
Engineering section investigates problem areas and determines appropriate
corrective action.
Reliability section monitors subsequent rates to determine the effectiveness of the
corrective action.

Section 1 19
Reliability Program
Organization
Reliability Control Board
Joe Smith
President
Pete Thomas Mary Ann Evans Tim Gonzales

Vice President Senior Manager Vice President
Policies and Procedures
20
The complexity and sophistication of the Program should be relative to the

operator’s operation. A small operator should not be expected to have a program
suitable for a large operator; however, all programs must have, as a minimum,
monitoring mechanical performance and audit functions. Procedures for
administering these two functions must be identified in the operator’s manual.

Section 1 20
Reliability Program
Data Collection
Flight Hours
And Landings
Check Findings
• Non-routines Delays &
Cancellations
Shop Findings
• Failures Engine Parameters
• Tear down report • ECM
• IFSD’s
PIREPS and • RTO’s
MAREPS • Oil Consumption
• Inspections
21
Most data are tallied in terms of event rates based on flight hours or flight cycles, therefore these
data must be collected. Delays & Cancellations over 15 minutes are tracked and event oriented
analysis is applied. Engine parameters are collected by airframe/engine combination. Flight and
cabin log write-up are tallied by ATA chapter (two and four digits for systems; six digits for
components). Reliability also keeps track of component failures and shop tear-down reports.
Significant findings from letter checks (A, C, etc....) are recorded and tallied by Reliability for use
in justifying check interval escalation.
Abbreviations
ECM - Engine Condition Monitoring

IFSD - In-flight Shut Down
SOAP - Spectroscopic Oil Analysis Program

Section 1 21
Reliability Program
Performance Standards
Alerting Parameters
(Before the fact)
• Alerting level based on
standard deviation
Performance
Performance
Standards
Standards Non-Alerting Parameters
(After the fact)
• Non-routine tasks
• Hidden failures
22
A performance measurement expressed numerically in terms of system or component failures, pilot

reports, delays or some other event serves as the basis for the standard. The alert parameters is
usually based on accepted statistical methods such as standard deviation or the poisson distribution.
However, some applications use the average or base line method. The standard should be adjustable
with reference to the operator's experience and should reflect seasonal and environmental
considerations. The program should include procedures for periodic review of, and either upward or
downward adjustment of, the standards as indicated. It should also include monitoring procedures
for new aircraft until sufficient operating experience is available for computing performance
standards.
Non-alerting parameters use data that is complied on a day-to-day operation of the fleet and serves
as a basis for continuous mechanical performance analysis. Mechanical interruption summaries,
flight log review, engine monitoring reports, incident reports, engine and component analysis
reports are examples of the types of information suitable for this monitoring method. For this
arrangement to be effective, the number and range of inputs must be sufficient to provide a basis for
analysis equivalent to the statistical standard programs. The operator's organization must have the
capability of summarizing the data to arrive at meaningful conclusions. Also, actuarial analysis
should be periodically conducted to ensure that current process classifications are correct.

Section 1 22
Reliability Program
Data Display and Reports

Top Ten Delay and Cancellation
FourthQtr-1994 ThirdQtr-1994 Systems Performance Review
Rev.Dept. 23611 Rev.Dept. 22550 0.300
Areas Requiring
ATA System #Events Rate %Events #Events Rate %Events 0.250 4th Qtr 1994
Delay/Canx Rate
24 ElectricalPower 47 0.198 13.3 63 0.281 14.8 3rd Qtr 1994
29 HydraulicPower 40 0.169 11.3 35 0.155 8.2 0.200
32 LandingGear 32 0.136 9.1 42 0.188 9.9
0.150
28 Fuel 32 0.136 9.1 47 0.207 10.9
27 FlightControls 31 0.131 8.8 21 0.091 4.8 0.100
34 Navigation 19 0.081 5.4 20 0.089 4.7
73 EngineFuel&Control 18 0.076 5.1 16 0.070 3.7 0.050
80 EngineStarting 16 0.069 4.6 21 0.093 4.9
0.000
21 AirConditioning 14 0.059 3.9 14 0.060 3.2 24 29 32 28 27 34 73 80 21 49
49 APU 12 0.051 3.4 17 0.075 3.9
ATA System
PERFORMANCE OF LAST 3 YEARS
ATA 34 - Navigation System Performance 2,500
2,000
MTBUR (Hours)
1.2 1,500
1,373 1,457
1,020
1,000
D e la y /C a n x R a te
1.0 500
0.8 9604-9703 9704-9803 9804-9903
XX REPORTING FLEET EXCLUDING XX LOWEST OPERATOR EXCLUDING XX HIGHEST OPERATOR EXCLUDING XX
0.6 ANALYSIS OF LAST 12 MONTHS

70 AIRPL
239 Total Removals T A IL F US E R E M O VA LS S H O P F IN D IN G
0.4
NUMBER OF UNITS REMOVE

60
XX49 X37 10 UNSCHED 5 CF - 5 NFF
REMOVAL TYPE INSTALLED DURATIONS XX20 X41 13 UNSCHED 8 CF - 5 NFF
50 (SCALE IS NONLINEAR AFTER 1,000 HOURS)
40 XX50 X17 5 UNSCHED 4 NFF
0.2 Unscheduled
92%
SHOP FINDINGS FOR 30
UNSCHEDULED
REMOVALS CF 20
0.0 46%
10
TOP FAILING UNITS:
S/N R E M O VA LS A VG T S I
468 3 UR ALL FAILURES 460
May-94 Jun-94 Jul-94 Aug-94 Sep-94 Oct-94 Nov-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 Convenience 0
0 -1 0 0 201- 401- 60 1 - 801- 1001- 3 0 0 1- 5001-
6%
299 499 699 8 99 1999 39 9 9 5999
NFF TIME SINCE INSTALLATION RANGE (HOURS)
Delay & Canx Rate Alert Level 45%

35 UNSCHEDULED REMOVALS UNDER 100 HRS TSI ARE CONFIRMED FAILURES
23
(1) Operators using alert type programs incorporating statistical performance standards should
develop a monthly report, with appropriate data displays, summarizing the previous month's
activity. The report should cover all aircraft systems controlled by the program in sufficient depth to
enable the recipients of the report to evaluate the effectiveness of the total maintenance program. It
should highlight systems which have exceeded the established performance standards and discuss
what action has been taken or planned. The report should explain changes which have been made or
are planned in the aircraft maintenance program, including changes in maintenance and inspection
intervals and changes from one maintenance process to another. It should discuss continuing over-
alert conditions carried forward from previous reports and should report the progress of corrective
action programs.
(2) Programs using non-alert type programs should consolidate or summarize significant reports
used in controlling their program to provide for evaluation of its effectiveness. These reports may be
in the form of computer printouts, summaries, or any intelligible form. A typical program of this
type reports the following information:

Section 1 23
Reliability Program
Data Analysis
Sort the data by various

data elements
Discrepancy can be
attributed to either an
airplane or system /
component(s) within
the system
24
(a) Mechanical Interruption Summary (MIS).

(b) Mechanical Reliability Reports (MRR).
(c) Listing of all maintenance process and interval assignment. (Master
specification)
(d) Weekly update to letter (c) above.
(e) Daily Repetitive Item Listing (by aircraft).
(f) Monthly Component Premature Removal Report (includes removal rate).
(g) Monthly Engine Shutdown and Removal Report.
(h) Quarterly Engine Reliability Analysis Report.
(i) Engine Threshold Adjustment Report.
(j) Worksheets for maintenance process and interval changes

Section 1 24
Reliability Program
Corrective Action
Reliability Control Board
• Investigate Problem
• Data Collection • Fleet Campaign • Implement E.O.
• Performance Standards • Pilot Study • Accomplish Routine Task
• Data Display & Reports • Cost Benefit Analysis • Report Completion
• Trend Monitoring • Engineering Order (E.O.)
• Issue Alerts
• Data Analysis
• Recommend Maintenance
Task
Maintenance
• Oversee Implementation
Reliability Engineering • Add Tasks

• Delete Tasks
• Escalate / De-escalate
Intervals
Maintenance Programs
25
The actions to be taken are a reflection of the analysis and should be positive
enough to effectively restore performance to an acceptable level within a reasonable
time. The system must include notification to the organizational element responsible
for taking the action. The system should provide periodic feedback until such time
as performance has reached an acceptable level. The mechanics of the corrective
action system normally encompass methods that have been established for the
overall maintenance program such as work forms, special inspection procedures,
engineering orders, technical standards, etc.... Special provisions should be included
for critical failures; i.e., failures in which loss of the function or secondary effects of
the failure impair the airworthiness of the aircraft.

Section 1 25
Reliability Program
Maintenance Program Optimization

What can be changed ............... What cannot be changed
Maintenance Processes Airworthiness Directives
MSG-2 (AD)
CM OC Min. Equipment List (MEL)
Config. Dev. List (CDL)

HT Life Limited Parts
Maintenance Tasks MSG3 Cert. Maint. Req. (CMR’s)
Add, delete or change MRB Sampling
task types Requirements
Maintenance Intervals
Individual tasks
26
Letter checks
Hard Time (HT) intervals & On-Condition (OC) checks & intervals may be
adjusted if data are available to justify the change.
Components can be transferred from one process to another if data are available to
justify the change.
Maintenance intervals (hours or cycles) can be changed for individual tasks with
justification.
Letter check intervals can be changed for individual items or for the entire check if
Reliability data can justify the change.
Abbreviations
AD - Airworthiness Directive
CDL - Configuration Deviation List
CM - Condition Monitoring
CMR - Certification Maintenance Requirements
MEL - Minimum Equipment List
MRB - Maintenance Review Board
OC - On Condition
HT - Hard Time

Section 1 26
Reliability Program
Reporting Requirements
Continuing Analysis Comprehensive Event Oriented
JAR OPS 1.910
and Statistical Reliability Reliability
Surveillance Program Program Leaflet No.25 Program
FAR 121.703
FAR 121.705 Does
FAA Form No.
Discrepancy affect
8070-1
Airworthiness ?
Mechanical
Interruption NO YES
Summary
Report
27
FAR 121.703 requires each operator report of occurrence or detection of each failure, defect or
malfunction during a 24-hour period must be mailed or delivered to the FAA within the next 72 hours
using FAA Form 8070-1.
FAR 121.705 requires that operators should provide a method where the pilot-in-command will
inform the operator of mechanical irregularities or defects that appear before, during, and after a
flight. The operator uses this information to let the maintenance personnel know of any suspected
problems so that corrective action can be taken. This method of reporting is the basis for the required
Mechanical Reliability Reports (MRR) and Mechanical Interruption Summary Reports.
Abbreviations
FAR - Federal Aviation Requirement

JAR - Joint Aviation Requirement
MISR - Mechanical Interruption Summary Report
SDR - Service Difficulty Report

Section 1 27
Reliability Program
Event Oriented Reliability Program
The following events are reported

to the regulatory authority above
and beyond the requirements of
CASP:
In-flight Shutdown
Diversions or air turn backs
Inability to control the engine
Problems with ETOPS systems
Any event detrimental to ETOPS
28
An event-oriented reliability program associated with ETOPS differs from

conventional reliability programs, which rely on historical data or alert levels to
determine when an item should be investigated for possible corrective action.
In an event-oriented reliability program, each event on an ETOPS-significant
system is investigated to determine if a problem could be reduced or eliminated by
changing the maintenance program. Examples of events include a failure, removal,
or pilot report. Events can also be monitored to detect long-term trends or repeat
items. Not all events warrant such detailed investigations; continual monitoring and
awareness of problem areas reflects the ETOPS real-time maintenance philosophy.
Abbreviations
ETOPS - Extended Twin Engine Operations

Section 1 28
Topics
Reliability Program
29

Section 1 29
Continuing Analysis Comprehensive Event Oriented

and Statistical Reliability Reliability
Surveillance Program Program Program
AC120-16D AC120-17A AC120-42A
General Maintenance
Maintenance Organization Reliability ETOPS
Manual Exposition Program Reliability
(GMM) (MOE) Specifications Program
30
The CAS procedures can be included as a separate chapter in the operator’s GMM/MOE.
The regulatory authorities require that a separate document containing procedures for a
comprehensive statistical reliability program be developed by the operator.
For ETOPS operators, procedures for an event oriented reliability program can be included in the
ETOPS Reliability Program manual.

Section 1 30
Summary
Reliability . . .
is a set of rules and guidelines when
implemented correctly, enhances safety of
flight during flight operations and optimizes
maintenance schedule tasks when the
airplane is on the ground for maintenance.
31
The Benefits of conducting Reliability Operations far out weigh the scenario of
reacting to unanticipated System and Component Failures. A proactive Reliability
Program will not only enhance Airworthiness but also contain Maintenance Costs.

Section 1 31
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Maintenance_Reliability_Overview.ppt | 32

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 1 32
Organizational
Structure & Policies
Presented By: Kupp Sridhar
Organizational Structure & Policies

Section 2 1
Topics
Reliability Department Size and Skill Level

Reliability Control Board Organizational
Structure
Summary

Section 2 2
Reliability Department Size and Skill
Engineering
Engineering
(Analysis
(Analysisby
byATA)
ATA)
Reliability
ReliabilityAnalysts
Analysts
(Reports by Model)
(Reports by Model)
Data
DataEntry
EntryPersonnel
Personnel
(Input
(InputAll
AllModels)
Models)
Size and Skill Levels
Organization structure and required skill levels are determined by the size of the
fleet. Small operator may choose to integrate engineering , analytical and data entry
functions into one department. Where the large operators will elect to expand data
collecting system to provide more accurate and timely data to support reliability
functions. The reliability department is typically under the umbrella of Quality
Assurance.
Abbreviations
ATA - Air Transport Association

Section 2 3
Topics

Structure

Section 2 4
Reliability Control Board Organization
Structure
RCB
Advisory Members Regulatory Authority

Permanent Members
(as needed) (Observer status)
• QA&QC • Line Maintenance • Principle

Maintenance
• Technical Services • Base Maintenance
Inspector (PMI)
• Maintenance Operations • Component Overhaul
Control Center (MOCC)
• Purchasing & Inventory
• Engineering Control
• Reliability • Production Planing &
Control
• Training
• Flight Operations
Reliability Program Administration
•The Reliability Control Board (RCB) is a matrix organization that includes members from different
departments. Members from the regulatory authority should be invited to participate.
•Administration of reliability programs requires a specific organizational structure within the operator’s
maintenance organization.
•The Director of Quality Assurance & Control usually serves as chairman if the RCB.
•The RCB has overall responsibility to ensure that all aspects of the Reliability Program are observed.
•There are permanent and temporary members with voting and non-voting rights respectively.
•The RCB meets monthly to review Reliability issues.
Abbreviations
MOCC - Maintenance Operations Control Center
PMI - Principal Maintenance Inspector
QA&QC - Quality Assurance and Quality control
RCB - Reliability Control Board

Section 2 5
Reliability Control Board Organization
Structure
RCB Duties and Responsibilities
Recurring
Responsibilities
• Conduct monthly meetings
• Review items in alert
Non-Recurring • Assign alert item
Responsibilities responsibility to cognizant
• Develop and approve the department/group
program • Review and approve
• Seek Regulatory Authority corrective action
approval • Monitor the status/progress
of alert items to determine if
corrective action is working
• Approve revisions to
reliability program
• Interface with regulatory
authority
Duties & Responsibilities
The RCB is responsible for establishing the Reliability Program and for obtaining
Regulatory Authority approval.
RCB reviews all actions and activities related to the program.
The Board approves all changes to the Reliability Program document. Some of
these changes may also require regulatory authority approval.
Continuous monitoring of alert status and effect of corrective actions.
Supervisor of Reliability maintains and publishes minutes to RCB meetings.

Section 2 6
Topics

Structure

Section 2 7
Header Reliability Program Manual

Table of Contents
Record of Revisions
List of Effective Pages
Program application
Organizational structure
Procedures for establishing and revising
performance standards
Data collection system
Data display and reporting
¡ Methods of data analysis
¢ Corrective action programs
£ Interval adjustment and process changes
¤ Reliability Program revision
Footer ¥ Definition of significant terms
Appendix - (samples of forms, reports etc.)
The Regulatory Authority requirements for a Reliability Program Manual based on

Aviation Inspector’s Handbook 8300.10 are as follows:
z Format of each page
Header - Airline Name, Document Title, Chapter/Section
Footer - Page No., Revision No., Revision Date
z Content of Manual
Describe processes to cover requirement of AC120-17A into logical
sections/chapters

Section 2 8
Regulatory Authority Approval
Procedures related to reliability

measurement/performance
standards
Any procedural & organizational changes Data collection system

concerning program administration
Program Data analysis methods &

Adding or deleting
application to the total
airplane types Changes maintenance program
Adding or deleting Process changes related to

components/systems alert-type performance standards
Changing systems or components
from one primary maintenance
process to another
Reliability Program Document Control

Regulatory Authority approval of the Reliability Document is indicated on the
Revision Control Page.
All revisions to the Reliability Document require RCB approval.

Section 2 9
Summary
Reliability Control Board (RCB) has overall

responsibility for establishing, overseeing and, if
necessary, changing the Reliability Program
Reliability Control Board (RCB) represents a
cross section of maintenance and engineering
Encourage Regulatory Authority participation in
RCB activities
The Reliability Program Document defines the
Reliability Program in detail and allows for
adjustment of the reliability and maintenance
programs
Summary
The Reliability Program is design to provide a means of identifying deficiencies in
maintenance processes and to correct the deficiencies. An effective means of
monitoring reliability must therefore be established so that the Scheduled
Maintenance Program that is most suited to the operation can be applied.

Section 2 10
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Organization_Structure.ppt | 11

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 2 11
Performance
Standards
Section 3 1
Topics
Classification of Performance Standards
Revision of Standards
Summary
Section 3 2
Fleet
Aircraft
System
Power Plant
Component
Structure
Airplane reliability can be monitored at any or a combination of the following levels. Airplane level,
System level, Power plant level and Component level.
When reliability of the airplane is monitored at airplane level the performance parameter used for
reflecting the airplane reliability will be whether the aircraft has made the next flight or not.
When reliability of the airplane is monitored at System level the performance parameters used are Pilots
reports per 100 landings and/or Mechanical delays/Cancellations per 100 Revenue Departures, the ATA
chapters considered when calculating the rate of these two parameters are ATA 21 through 36, 38, 49
and 52.
When the reliability is monitored at Power plant level the parameters used are In-flight shutdowns
events (IFSD) per 1000 engine hours and/or Unscheduled removal per 1000 engine hours, the ATA
chapters considered when calculating the rate of these two parameters are ATA 71 through 80.
When the reliability is monitored at component level the parameters used are Unscheduled component
removals rate per 1000 unit hours/ landings and/or the Confirmed failures per 1000 unit hours. The
ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these two parameters are ATA chapters 21
through 36, 38, 49 for systems and 73, 75, 77, 79 and 80 for power plant.
Section 3 3
The ability to
provide realistic
measure of
reliability
Sensitivity to
changes in
reliability levels
Availability of Data
Section 3 4
Level Performance Standard

Parameter
Fleet Dispatch Reliability
Whole Aircraft including Pilot Reports, Delay &
Power Plant Cancellations
Systems Pilot Reports, Delay and
Cancellations
Power Plant IFSD, Unscheduled
Removals
Structures Routine versus Non-
Routine
Components Unscheduled Removals,
Confirmed Failures
Section 3 5
Level Parameter
Fleet Dispatch Reliability
Airplane Tail Number PIREP’s, Delays and
Cancellations
PIREP’s, MAREP’s,
Systems
Deferred Items
Powerplant
IFSD, RTO’s
Structures
MAREP’s, Non-
Routines
Components MTBUR, MTBF, TSI
Section 3 6
Topics
Section 3 7
Classification of Standards
Alert Type Non-Alert Type

Before the fact, After the fact,
helps to introduce typically repair action
preventive satisfies the
maintenance or discrepancy
corrective action
Section 3 8
Parameters used
for obtaining alerts Average Event Rate
Average
Event Rate Standard
Deviation
Standard
Deviation
Control Limits Control Chart
Alerts
Section 3 9
Average
Monthly average is the performance parameter
determined by tracking the occurrence of an
event over a period of time (months) and is the
sum of all values divided by the total number
of months
A three month moving average smoothes out
seasonal fluctuations / variations and helps to
identify long term trends
Section 3 10
Rate
Is a performance parameter determined by
tracking the rate of occurrence of an event
over a period of time
For failure events, rates are calculated per
1000 hours or cycles
Total Events During the month

Event Rate = X 1000
(Flight / Engine Hours flown in the month)
Section 3 11
Rate…Continued
Component Removal Rates are calculated per

1000 hours or cycles and normalized to
account for the number of units per airplane
Total Number of Removals During the month

Removal Rate = X 1000
(No. of units installed per A/C) X (Flight/Engine Hours flown in the month)
Section 3 12
Standard
Deviation
Events and
Removal Rates
follow a pattern
based on Normal
Distribution
Standard
Deviation is a
measure of
dispersion of the
Event or Removal
Rates X ± 2σ , X ± 3σ
Section 3 13
Rate Control Chart
0.8 Monthly Rate 3 Month Rate LCL Mean UCL
0.7
0.6
0.5
Rate
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Month
Section 3 14
A le r t S ta tu s
70
YE LLOW RED
60
CLEAR
PIREPs per 100 Landings
50
40
30
20
M o n th ly R a te 3 -M o n th R a te M ean UCL
10
0
A ug -9 8 S e p -9 8 O c t-9 8 N o v-9 8 D e c -9 8 J a n-9 9 F e b -9 9 M a r-9 9 A p r-9 9 M a y-9 9 J un-9 9 J ul-9 9
CLEAR: Normal operating status. Clear status exists when both the monthly and the three
month average rates are below UCL, or when only one monthly rate is above with the three
month average rate below UCL.
YELLOW: When two consecutive monthly rates exceed the UCL while the three month
average remains below UCL
RED: When the three consecutive monthly average rates exceed the UCL
REMAIN IN ALERT: When two or more consecutive three month average rates exceed the
UCL
Section 3 15
Non-Alert Standards
After the fact, typically repair action satisfies
the discrepancy
Percentage of Non-Routine Versus the Routine
Task
Usually a benchmark of 10% is an accepted
standard in the industry or conversely 90% of
Routine Task has zero Non-Routines
Section 3 16
Topics
Performance Standards for different levels

Summary
Section 3 17
Performance Standards should be

evaluated periodically to determine the
effectiveness of Line, Base and Shop
Maintenance
Insufficient alerts indicate a need for
tightening standards (reduce the number of
standard deviations) and vice versa
Non-Alert System tests the applicability and
effectiveness of the Maintenance Program
The various performance standards need not be revised at the same time. However,
a periodic review of all the parameters should be evaluated periodically and
determined for it efficacy and revised upward or downward accordingly. Typically
the standards are reviewed on an annual basis and revised if necessary.
Section 3 18
Summary
Airline determines parameters to be

tracked
Maintenance effectiveness is measured by
tracking event rates for significant
systems and components
Current performance is compared with
past performance
Section 3 19
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Performance_Standards.ppt | 20

BOEING PROPRIETARY
Section 3 20
Data Collection
System
Data Collection System

Section 4 1
Topics
Objectives of Data Collection

Sources of Data
Types of Data
Minimum Data Requirements
Data Integrity
Summary

Section 4 2
Objectives of Data Collection System
Demonstrate
Reliability internally
and externally
Validation of Vendor
Supplied Items
Process Validation
Compare Designs
Compare Components
Compare Vendors

Section 4 3
Topics

Sources of Data

Section 4 4
Sources of Data
Flight Operations
Maintenance Operations
Production Planning & Control
Marketing
Accounting
Human Resources
Purchasing & Inventory Control

Section 4 5
Sources of Data
Flight Operations
Pilot Reports
Flight Statistics
System Faults &
Discrepancies
Engine Condition
Monitoring (ECM)
Parameters
Incidents
CAT II / III Reports
Abbreviations
ECM - Engine Condition Monitoring
CAT II/III - Category II and III for Autoland operators

Section 4 6
Sources of Data
Maintenance Operations Base Maintenance

Routine Checks
Non-Routine Checks
Component
Replacement
Elapsed Time
Task, Task Card,
Check

Section 4 7
Sources of Data
Maintenance Operations
Line Maintenance
(MOCC)
Component Removals
Delay & Cancellation
MEL/CDL Usage
Non-MEL Deferred Item
List
Abbreviations
CDL - Configuration Deviation List
MEL - Minimum Equipment List
MOCC - Maintenance Operations Control Center

Section 4 8
Sources of Data
Maintenance Operations Shop Data

Component Failure
Confirmed Failure
No Fault Found (NFF)
Component Tear Down
Report
Modification
Abbreviations
NFF - No Fault Found

Section 4 9
Sources of Data
Production Planning and Control
Check Schedules
Time Control / Life
Limit Part(s) Schedule
AD / SB Repetitive
Inspections Schedule
Abbreviations
AD - Airworthiness Directive
SB - Service Bulletin

Section 4 10
Sources of Data
Marketing
Flight Schedules
Flight Number
Origin City
Destination City
Scheduled Departure
Time
Scheduled Arrival Time

Section 4 11
Sources of Data
Accounting Maintenance Cost per

Flight Hour
Maintenance Cost
By Check
By Aircraft Registration
Number

Section 4 12
Sources of Data
Human Resources
Employee
Skills
Experience
Training

Section 4 13
Sources of Data
Purchasing and Inventory Control Purchase Orders

Rotables
Expendables
Consumables
Inventory
Main Warehouse
Satellite locations
Supplier Management
Vendor performance

Section 4 14
Topics

Sources of Data
Types of Data

Section 4 15
Types of Data
Data Type Data Format

Text Automatic Capture
Number Hard Copy
Date/Time Bar Code
Memo
Currency

Section 4 16
Topics

Sources of Data
Types of Data

Section 4 17
Date and Time of Failure

Operating Conditions
Description of Failure Mode
Repair Actions
Active Operating Time

Section 4 18
Topics

Sources of Data
Types of Data
Data Integrity

Section 4 19
Data Integrity
Garbage In, Garbage

Out
Computer System
Edits / Restricts
Data Format

Section 4 20
LINE
MAINTENANCE Delay / Cancellation
OPERATIONS
Install
Component
Discrepancy Dispatch Airplane
Airplane Arrival / Departure Fix Discrepancy
Gather
Log Pages
Send Component Remove

to Repair Component
Airline Inventory
1. Take Off / Landing Times
2. Delays & Cancellations
Unserviceable Component 3. Airplane Data
COMPONENT Repaired Component
4. Engine Data
5. Discrepancies
VENDOR REPAIR 6. Deferrals/MEL
SHOP 7. Component Part Off / On
8. Line Maintenance Checks
Input
Log Page
Data
1.Process Repair Order

2.Write Tear Down Report
SERVER
Input
Shop Data

Section 4 21
PLANNING
Create Work Package
Planner Issue
Work
MyBoeingFleet.com Work Package Package
Send Component Remove Record Work

to Repair Component Package in Log Book
Execute Work Package 1.Routine Task Cards

COMPONENT 2.Non-routine Task Cards
VENDOR REPAIR 3.Engineering Orders (E.O.)
Repaired Component Install Component 4.Airworthiness Directives (AD’s)
SHOP
5.Service Bulletins
HANGAR MAINTENANCE
Airline Inventory OPERATIONS Input
Log Page
Data
1.Process Repair Order
2.Write Tear Down Report
SERVER
Input
Shop Data

Section 4 22
Summary
Quality of data is paramount to Reliability operations.

Without checks and edits built in the data collection
system, the analysis of the data will be a wasted
effort.

Section 4 23
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. datacollection_sys.ppt | 24

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 4 24
Aircraft Flight
Statistics
Presented By: Coralee Hagopian
Speaker Biography:
Coralee Hagopian - Technical Specialist, Fleet Statistics
Served eighteen (18) years with major U.S. Airline: Worked 10 years in the capacity of
Manager, Aircraft Records. Participated in the design and implementation of a
comprehensive closed-loop Aircraft tracking system which included Flight Hours and
Landings, Aircraft Configuration, Maintenance Planning and Inventory Control.
Two (2) years Purchasing Agent/Analyst Responsible for the Purchase of all Rotable
Components; Arranged Interline Pooling Agreements with other Airlines; Delegate to
the IATA Parts Pooling Meetings.
Joined McDonnell Douglas / Boeing in 1985 and have worked the entire time in the
Fleet Statistics group as a Dispatch Reliability Analyst & Team Leader.
Aircraft Flight Statistics

Section 5
1
Collection and Processing of Aircraft Flight
Statistics
Significance of aircraft hours and landings

Collection of aircraft hours and landings
Required data elements

Section 5
2
Aircraft Hours and Landings are Used to
Compute Formulas for Many Reporting
Requirements
Component • Mean Time Between Removals (MTBR)

Component • Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removals (MTBUR)
Reliability
Reliability • Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)
z Dispatch Reliability
Aircraft
AircraftHours
Hoursand
and Reliability z Aircraft Utilization
Landings Data Reliability
Landings Data Information z Pilot Report Rates
Information
z Engine In-flight Shutdown Rates
Monitoring
Monitoringflight
flighthours
hoursand
and Information required to perform
landings on Airframe
landings on Airframe scheduled maintenance:
Assemblies
Assemblies • Aircraft Checks
Components
Components • Hard Time Components
and Assemblies
SIGNIFICANCE OF AIRCRAFT HOURS AND LANDINGS

Aircraft flight hours and landings are collected for use in component reliability computations:
Mean Time Between Removals (MTBR)
Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removals (MTBUR)
Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)
Aircraft flight hours and landings are also used to calculate Dispatch Reliability, Aircraft
Utilization, Pilot Report Rates, and Engine in-Flight Shutdown Rates.
Daily collection of flight hours and landings provide the means to monitor the flight hours and
landings accrued on the Airframe, Engines, APU, Landing Gears, and Line Replaceable
Components.
This information is required to perform Scheduled Maintenance Checks and the Scheduled
Replacement of Hard Time Components.

Section 5
3
Statistics


Section 5
4
Methods Used to Collect Aircraft Hours and
Landings
Main Frame or
Server Network
ACARS
Pilot Formatted Maintenance

Log Book Message Arinc Control Center
(Ground Station) Communication
Addressing and
Reporting Systems
METHODS USED TO COLLECT AIRCRAFT HOURS AND LANDINGS
AIRCRAFT LOG SHEET INPUT

Aircraft hours and landings are entered on the aircraft log sheet by the flight crew. Data must be
keyed into the computer at a later date.
FORMATTED MESSAGE
A formatted message containing the hours and landings can be entered directly into the computer
database from the city (station) the aircraft just departed. By using this method, the time
consuming process of sending the aircraft log to a control center for data input is eliminated and the
information is available in real time.
ACARS
Automatically receives on/off and block flight hours and landings and transmits the data to a
computer via ARINC.

Section 5
5
Statistics

Required data elements

Section 5
6
Basic Data Elements Required to Compile
and Produce Flight Statistic Information
AIRCRAFT NUMBER
FLIGHT NUMBER FLIGHT LENGTH
DATE CITY PAIR

Pilot Log Book
OUT TIME IN TIME
(Block Out) (Block In)
WHEELS OFF WHEELS ON
NUMBER OF LANDINGS
(Include Pilot Training)
Training)
BASIC DATA ELEMENTS FOR FLIGHT STATISTICS

OUT TIME - When the parking brake is released.
WHEELS OFF - When the nose wheel lifts off the ground on takeoff.
WHEELS ON - When the nose wheel contacts the ground on landing.
IN TIME - When the parking brake is set.
AIRCRAFT NUMBER - Operator's designated tail number.
DATE (DAY, MONTH, YEAR) - Date of each specific flight.
FLIGHT NUMBER - Sequence of numbers representing a specific flight segment or segments
CITY PAIR (Station) - From city and to city.

FLIGHT LENGTH - Number of hours and minutes for each flight segment.
NUMBER OF LANDINGS - Under normal operation the number of landings will be (1) for
each flight leg. The only exception would be Pilot Trainer flights, when there could be several
touch and go landings.

Section 5
7
Example: Daily Flight Activity Report
Aircraft No. 302
FROM TO FLIGHT NO. OF TOTAL TOTAL

DATE FLT NO. CITY CITY LENGTH LANDINGS ARPLN HRS ARPLN LANDINGS
09/01/00 0852 LAX SFO 1:05 1 8235:07 4520

09/01/00 0852 SFO LAS 1:12 1 8236:19 4521
09/01/00 0374 LAS JFK 5:07 1 8241:26 4522
09/01/00 0286 JFK LAX 6:15 1 8247:41 4523
DAILY TOTAL 13:39 4
Aircraft No.303
09/01/00 0701 LAX HNL 5:12 1 7532:25 3857

09/01/00 0920 HNL LAX 5:28 1 7537:53 3858
09/01/00 9001 LAX LAX 2:06 12 7539:59 3870
DAILY TOTAL 12:46 14

Pilot Trainer

Section 5
8
Example: Flight Statistics by Aircraft Number
AIRPLANE HOURS CYCLES TIME SINCE ACCOMPLISHMENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 C1 C2 C3 C4 D
901 123.70 4.61 0.00 128.31 38251.24 103 3 0 106 31876 3251.24 2251.24 5251.24 5751.24 8251.24
902 149.33 0.75 0.00 150.08 40440.62 124 0 0 124 33700 1940.62 4440.62 1940.62 1440.62 10440.62
903 153.35 0.00 0.00 153.35 71750.12 127 0 0 127 59791 1750.12 4250.12 250.12 250.12 11750.12
904 142.81 3.47 0.00 146.28 65140.98 119 2 0 121 54284 2140.98 2140.98 4640.98 140.98 5140.98
905 188.91 0.42 0.00 189.33 63667.52 157 1 0 158 53056 667.52 667.52 3167.52 5167.52 3667.52
906 125.21 0.20 1.37 126.78 45457.06 104 1 0 105 37880 3457.06 457.06 1457.06 6457.06 15457.06
907 192.36 0.00 0.00 192.36 67854.61 160 0 0 160 56545 1354.61 354.61 1854.61 2854.61 7854.61
908 194.56 0.72 0.00 195.28 86010.26 162 1 1 164 71675 2010.26 510.26 3510.26 1510.26 26010.26
909 131.17 0.00 0.00 131.17 45679.64 109 0 0 109 38066 179.64 679.64 1679.64 179.64 15679.64
910 179.38 2.06 0.00 181.44 48299.16 149 1 0 150 40249 2799.16 3299.16 4299.16 2799.16 18299.16
911 252.74 0.82 0.00 253.56 65009.91 210 1 0 211 54174 2009.91 2009.91 4509.91 9.91 5009.91
912 126.72 1.50 0.00 128.22 53652.14 105 1 0 106 44710 1152.14 4152.14 4152.14 1652.14 23652.14
913 219.06 0.00 1.32 220.38 60608.96 182 0 1 183 50507 1108.96 2108.96 108.96 2108.96 608.96
914 142.81 0.77 0.00 143.58 87684.86 119 1 0 120 73070 184.86 2184.86 5184.86 3184.86 27684.86
915 243.25 0.00 1.62 244.87 57998.99 202 0 1 203 48332 1998.99 3998.99 2998.99 5998.99 27998.99
916 170.40 4.25 0.00 174.65 63495.09 142 3 0 145 52912 495.09 495.09 2995.09 4995.09 3495.09
917 148.52 0.00 0.00 148.52 46957.62 123 0 0 123 39131 1457.62 1957.62 2957.62 1457.62 16957.62
2884.28 19.57 4.31 2908.16 1007958.77 2397 15 3 2415 839958
1 AIRPLANE NUMBER 7 REVENUE CYCLES

2 REVENUE FLIGHT HOURS 8 NON-REVENUE CYCLES
3 NON-REVENUE FLIGHT HOURS 9 TEST CYCLES (PILOT/TEST HOP)
4 TEST HOURS (PILOT/TEST HOP) 10 TOTAL CYCLES FOR MONTH
5 TOTAL FLIGHT HOURS FOR MONTH 11 TOTAL CYCLES SINCE NEW
6 TOTAL FLIGHT HOURS SINCE NEW
NOTE: See Handout CD “Slide View”

for clear chart.

Section 5
9
Example: Monthly Aircraft Report
MONTHLY FLEET STATISTICS

FLEET JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DE
TYPE 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 20
TOTAL HOURS
A300 2728 1994 2344 2490 2202 2224 2422 2468 2476 2826 2678 29
DC9-31 6694 6606 7841 7617 7748 7729 7882 7952 3120 5260 5752 55
DC9-51 4131 3787 4160 4039 4123 3940 3818 3667 2553 2908 3398 41
DC9 ALL 10825 10393 12001 11656 11871 11669 11700 11619 5673 8168 9150 96
DC10-30 114 105 127 118 92 112 64 20 52 71 74
TOTAL FLEET 13667 12492 14472 14264 14165 14005 14186 14107 8201 11065 11902 126
REVENUE DEPARTURES
A300 1364 997 1172 1245 1101 1112 1211 1234 1238 1413 1339 14
DC9-31 6694 6606 7841 7617 7748 7729 7882 7952 3120 5260 5344 55
DC9-51 4131 3787 4160 4039 4123 3940 3818 3667 2553 2908 3398 41
DC9 ALL 10825 10393 12001 11656 11871 11669 11700 11619 5673 8168 8742 96
DC10-30 114 105 127 118 92 112 64 20 52 71 74
TOTAL FLEET 12303 11495 13300 13019 13064 12893 12975 12873 6963 9652 10155 112
TOTAL LANDINGS
A300 1419 1101 1200 1281 1134 1153 1222 1257 1270 1420 1353 14
DC9-31 6789 6703 7944 7696 7900 7861 7963 8023 3339 5486 5752 57
DC9-51 4203 3897 4170 4066 4187 3955 3845 3711 2585 2942 3551 41
DC9 ALL 10992 10600 12114 11762 12087 11816 11808 11734 5924 8428 9303 98
DC10-30 126 106 127 119 110 112 76 61 52 83 80 1
TOTAL FLEET 12537 11807 13441 13162 13331 13081 13106 13052 7246 9931 10736 114
TOTAL ENGINE HOURS

A300 5456 3988 4688 4980 4404 4448 4844 4936 4952 5652 5356 58
DC9-31 13388 13212 15682 15234 15496 15458 15764 15904 6240 10520 11504 110
DC9-51 8262 7574 8320 8078 8246 7880 7636 7334 5106 5816 6796 82
DC9 ALL 21650 20786 24002 23312 23742 23338 23400 23238 11346 16336 18300 193
DC10-30 342 315 381 354 276 336 192 60 156 213 222 2
TOTAL FLEET 27448 25089 29071 28646 28422 28122 28436 28234 16454 22201 23878 254
TOTAL NUMBER OF ENGINES

CF6-50C 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
JT8D-7 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 116 124 124 124 1
JT8D-15 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 150 150 150 1
JT8D-17 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
TOTAL FLEET 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 380 380 380 3
10

Section 5
10
Summary
Flight hours and landings are needed to compute Dispatch

Reliability.
Flight hours and landings are also used to compute
component removal data; MTBR, MTBUR, MTBF.
Flight hours and landings are key data for preparing and
forecasting component, engine and landing gear removals.
Also used for scheduling aircraft checks.
Be sure to include all of the basic data elements when
designing a database.
Create reports which include basic information and also
enhance the report to include additional information.
Establish an Internal WEB site that shows current month /
past months flight statistic information.
11

Section 5
11
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Filename.ppt (add in Slide Master) | 12
BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 5
12
Aircraft
Dispatch Reliability
Presented By: Coralee Hagopian
Speaker Biography:
Coralee Hagopian - Technical Specialist, Fleet Statistics
Served eighteen (18) years with major U.S. Airline: Worked 10 years in the capacity
of Manager, Aircraft Records. Participated in the design and implementation of a
comprehensive closed-loop Aircraft tracking system which included Flight Hours and
Landings, Aircraft Configuration, Maintenance Planning and Inventory Control.
Two (2) years Purchasing Agent/Analyst Responsible for the Purchase of all Rotable
Components; Arranged Interline Pooling Agreements with other Airlines; Delegate to
the IATA Parts Pooling Meetings.
Joined McDonnell Douglas / Boeing in 1985 and have worked the entire time in the
Fleet Statistics group as a Dispatch Reliability Analyst & Team Leader.
Aircraft Dispatch Reliability

Section 6
1
Delay and Cancellation Data are Required
for a Reliability Program
Collecting the Data

Creating Data Elements
Processing the Data
REASONS FOR COLLECTING DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS
Technical delays, cancellations, and revenue departures are the data elements used to
calculate fleet dispatch reliability.
This data is important because the “Mechanical” on-time performance of the fleet is
measured by using a dispatch reliability computation.
The delay and cancellation data is published in the airline's monthly reliability report.
The report is used to inform airline management and applicable government agencies
the status or variances of the airline's maintenance reliability program.

Section 6
2
Methods Used to Collect Delay and
Cancellation Events
Main Frame or
Server Network
ACARS
Pilot Formatted Maintenance

Log Book Message Arinc Control Center
(Ground Station) Communication
Addressing and
Reporting Systems
METHODS USED TO COLLECT DELAY and CANCELLATION EVENTS
AIRCRAFT LOG SHEET INPUT

Delay and cancellation data is entered on the aircraft log sheet by the flight crew/mechanic.
Data must be keyed into the computer at a later date.
FORMATTED MESSAGE
A formatted message containing delay and cancellation events can be entered directly into the
computer database from the city (station) the aircraft just departed.
By using this method, the time consuming process of sending the aircraft log sheet to a
control center for data input is eliminated and the information is available in real time.
ACARS
Automatically receives on/off and block flight hours and landings and transmits the data to a
computer via ARINC.

Section 6
3
Collecting the Data

CREATING DATA ELEMENTS
Data Elements are essential for creating a flexible database. There are certain data
elements which must be identified during the design phase of a database.
Two Levels of Data Elements:
1) “Minimum Data Elements”
2) “Optional Data Elements”
“Minimum Data Elements” are the basic building blocks for a database. These data
elements identify the information which must be included in the database.
“Optional Data Elements” are extra pieces of information that can be added to the
database design. “Optional Data Elements” are a great asset that allows flexibility
and creates a storehouse of information that can be extracted to produce special
reports for specific requirements.

Section 6
4
Defining Minimum Dispatch Reliability Data
Elements
Station
Aircraft
Flight Number
Date
Minimum Data
Reason Length of Delay
Elements
Corrective Action ATA Code
Delay / Cancellation Technical / Non-Technical
DEFINING MINIMUM DISPATCH RELIABILITY DATA ELEMENTS
DATE OF EVENT - (Month / Day / Year) - Date when the delay or cancellation occurred.
AIRCRAFT - Operator’s designated tail number for the aircraft which incurred the delay or
cancellation.
STATION (CITY) - Name of the city where the delay or cancellation took place.
LENGTH OF DELAY - Length of the delay represented in minutes.
FLIGHT NUMBER - Outbound flight number when the delay or cancellation occurred.
REASON FOR DELAY OR CANCELLATION - Narrative description of the problem.

(Allow plenty of space for this data).
CORRECTIVE ACTION - Narrative description of maintenance performed to correct the

problem. (Allow plenty of space for this data).
ATA CODE - Assign an ATA code (2, 4, or 6 Digit) to each delay or cancellation.
DELAY OR CANCELLATION CODE - Assign a code to designate a delay or cancellation.
TECHNICAL / NON-TECHNICAL CODE - Assign a code to designate whether the event

was due to Technical or Non-Technical causes.

Section 6
5
Optional Data Elements Enhance the
Ability to Sort, Rank, Manipulate and
Analyze the Data
Optional Data Elements
4Air Return
4Flight Diversion
4Engine In-flight Shutdown
4Fix Code
4MEL / Placard
4Aircraft Late Out of Maintenance
4Personnel Error / Damage
OPTIONAL DATA ELEMENTS
CRITICAL CODES:
¾ Air Returns
¾ Fight Diversions
¾ Engine In-flight Shutdowns
FIX CODE:
¾ A designated code for each delay or cancellation which summarizes the
corrective action performed.
OTHER CODES:
¾ Delay caused when an aircraft system is deferred per MEL and placarded for
maintenance at a later date.
¾ Aircraft late out of maintenance.
¾ Delay taken due to personnel error / damage.

Section 6
6
Collecting the Data

Processing the Data
PROCESSING THE DATA
Processing the data requires (3) three steps.
Step 1 - Assign an ATA code (on a daily basis).

Step 2 - Analyze the data.
Step 3 - Prepare Charts / Graphics for reports and presentations.

Section 6
7
Processing the Data
Step 1: 2 Digit 4 Digit 6 Digit

System Sub System Component
Assign ATA Code Level Level Level
Step 2: Data Reports

Analyze Data Reports
Step 3: 0.300 Areas Requiring Attention
Delay / Canx
0.250 4th Qtr 1994
3rd Qtr 1994
Rate
0.200
Prepare Charts and Graphs for

0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
24 29 32 28 27 34 73 80 21 49
Reports and Presentations ATA System
ASSIGNING ATA CODES
An ATA code is assigned to each Delay and Cancellation to enable the capability of
categorizing and sorting the data. ATA coding can be assigned at the 2, 4, or 6 digit
level.
2 Digit - System Level

4 Digit - Sub System Level
6 Digit - Component Level
The 2 and 4 digit level are used by most airlines.

The 4 digit is beneficial because this level of ATA coding is identified to a specific sub
system in the aircraft.
The 6 digit level of coding is by far the most extensive method of coding.
When coding to the 6 digit level of ATA codes, the data can be analyzed and
substantiated with component removals and shop findings to identify specific
components which cause Delays or Cancellations.

Section 6
8
Processing the Data
2 Digit 4 Digit 6 Digit

Step 1: System Sub System Component

Step 3: 0.300
Areas Requiring Attention
Delay / Canx Rate

0.250 4th Qtr 1994
3rd Qtr 1994
0.200
Prepare Charts and Graphs for 0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
Reports and Presentations

24 29 32 28 27 34 73 80 21 49
ATA System
ANALYSIS OF DATA REPORTS
After all the Delays and Cancellations are loaded into the database, the information can be
analyzed to identify problem components and aircraft systems.
Identify the problems starting at the2 digit system level and drilling down to a specific 6 digit
component.
The process of extracting information from the database must be flexible; this is extremely
important.
Automate the choices for sorting the data, create as many sort options as you can think of.
Include optional codes and criteria that can be selected for specific reports.
The following reports show examples of how data can be selected and formatted into a report
that will guide you to the areas where problems exist.

Section 6
9
Example: Delay and Cancellation Report
Report Number: MX20 Run Date: 03 MAR 01, 11:59:30, Emp. No. 3458
Sort Sequenc e: Date
FLEET DELAY AND CANCELLATION REPORT: 02/01/01 thru 02/28/01
Data Selection: All Delay s and Cancellations. Inc ludes Tec hnic al & Non-Tec hnic al Events.
Includes all ATA's. Inc ludes all Jus t Codes & Fix Codes .
C EV ENT
FIX A TA EV ENT A CFT DELA Y TECH / R FLT EV ENT DA TE / FIX JUST
FA ULT A TA SPLIT STA NUM / CA NX NON-TECH I NUM MINS LOG NO. CODE CODE DESCRIPTION
215301 1 BIO 503 10 1 90 278 55 2/14/2001 F 43 Right pack overheats on ground. Fwd right pack to MEL,
2153 26814 21-50. Later on 2/15/01 rpld right pac k. Ran pack , no
leak s, c leared MEL.
272600 1 LAX 504 14 1 50 306 24 2/14/2001 Z 42 Rudder limiter fault illum on tax i out, gate return;
2726 26824 Changed to ac ft 501 to s horten delay .
****** No Fix Given ******
344201 1 SFO 503 20 1 90 245 cnx 2/15/2001 F 50 Radio Altimeter inop; No part available, had to be
3442 26833 shipped from main warehous e for AOG. Rpld Radio
Altimeter when part arrived.
Subs equently rpld broken coax cable.
344291 1 SEA 503 10 2 90 246 108 2/15/2001 G 41 Radio Altimeter inop; Rpld broken c oax c able......
3442 26834 ......downline
050000 1 POM 510 10 2 40 1287 35 2/19/2001 G 61 ** Air Return ** Gear door remained open with
0500 26846 gear handle in up pos ition; Returned to base, removed
gear pins.
561101 .500 YVR 513 10 1 90 1530 204 2/20/2001 F 46 Capt's windshield crack ed; Rpld Capt's
5611 26856 windshield.
304101 .500 YVR 513 10 1 90 1530 204 2/20/2001 F 46 Capt's windshield crack ed; Rpld L/H winds hield
3041 26556 temp c ontroller.
314301 1 SAN 507 10 1 50 1421 15 2/23/2001 J 46 IRS fail during tax i; Returned to gate. Perf rts on #1 VIA,
3443 no faults dis play ed.
11

for clear charts.

Section 6
10
Example: Summary Report of Fix Codes by 2
Digit ATA
SYS DESCRIPTION A B C E F G H J K M N P Q R S T U V W Z
05 MISC-INSP DEICE
21 AIR CONDITIONIN 2 6 1 160 16 1 1 1 14 1 18 25
22 AUTOPILOT 1 62 9 5 6 8 12
23 COMMUNICATIONS 9 1 84 3 2 2 1 6 12
24 ELECTRIC POWER 8 4 3 310 22 1 15 1 5 16 36
25 EQUP & FURNISH 1 21 37 19 1 6 1 1 2 11
26 FIRE PROTECTION 1 17 3 1 4
27 FLIGHT CONTROLS 29 6 11 1 182 22 1 5 1 5 3 5 31 1 2 1 28
28 FUEL 3 25 6 1 1 12 14
29 HYDRAULIC POWER 9 1 102 35 2 6 21 7 3 19
30 ICE & RAIN PROT 1 1 2 97 5 5 3 4 1 14
31 INSTRUMENTS 16 2 1 1 1
32 LANDING GEAR 15 7 5 323 54 4 4 8 17 17 29 11 1 2 21
33 LIGHTS 11 1 76 23 2 2 2 4 1 8
34 NAVIGATION 4 2 391 14 6 14 2 6 4 19 27
35 OXYGEN 12 1 1 2
36 PNEUMATIC 1 2 1 54 3 1 1 12 3 8
38 WATER / WASTE 8 3 2 10 20 2 2 1 1 17
49 AUXILIARY POWER 1 73 8 1 2 3 14 31
52 DOORS 22 14 2 27 27 2 1 5 4 11 1 1 14
56 WINDOWS 7 5 1 60 4 1 2 5
57 WINGS 1 6 5 9 1 7
71 GENERAL - POWER 1 3 2
72 ENGINE 1 50 6 2 17 16
73 FUEL & CONTROLS 26 2 1 1 88 6 1 2 1 19 8 15
74 ENG IGNITION 32 1
75 ENG - AIR 35 4 1 1 5
76 ENG - CONTROLS 6 1 1 25 1 1 2
77 ENG - INDICATNG 2 45 12 1 1 6 14
78 ENG - EXHAUST 1 2 18 6 1 1 2 16 4 4
79 ENG - OIL 2 2 80 19 1 5 1 8
80 ENG - STARTING 1 2 85 4 1 1 2 2 6
TOTALS 122 123 43 2 5 2584 361 30 63 10 21 32 132 4 2 235 23 3 8 5 388
12
EXAMPLE OF FIX CODES

A..........Adjusted
B..........Repaired
C..........Cleaned
F..........Remove & Replace
J..........Cycled / Reset Circuit Breaker / Power Up-Down
N..........Serviced (fluids, air, oxygen, nitrogen)
P..........Tightened / Re-torque/Secured
S..........Could Not Duplicate/No Trouble Found
Z..........Deferred - No Corrective Action Provided

Section 6
11
Example: 2 Digit ATA Ranking Report
NUMBER: MX-240
NAME:
PAGE NO: 2,4,6
1 DIGIT RANKING REPORT
RUN DATE: 02-10-95 (C319314)
SEQUENCE: (NUMBER OF EVENTS - DESCENDING) DATA PERIOD: 07-01-99 THRU 09-30-99 INCLUSIVE
************************************************** R E P O R T S E L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A *******************************
*
* DATA DESCRIPTION ALL OPERATORS ALL CRITICAL CODES ALL JUST CODES ALL FIX CODES *
* *
* DELAYS & CANCELLATIONS *
* DELAYS GT 15 MINUTES.......CHARGEABLE *
************************************************************************************************************************************
ATA ATA CHAPTER NO. RATE 100 % CUM % NO. HOURS 100 % HOUR HOURS/ %
SYS DESCRIPTION RANK EVENTS REV.DEPT RATE RATE HOURS REV.DEPT RATE EVENT RELIABILITY
32 LANDING, GEAR (LG) 1 486.167 .127 12.437 12.437 572.991 .150 13.005 1.18 99.873
34 NAVIGATION 2 443.167 .116 11.337 23.774 454.667 .119 10.319 1.03 99.884
24 ELECTRICAL POWER 3 365.668 .095 9.355 33.129 452.886 .118 10.279 1.24 99.905
27 FLIGHT CONTROLS 4 310.498 .081 7.943 41.072 409.559 .107 9.295 1.32 99.919
21 AIR CONDITIONING 5 221.916 .058 5.677 46.749 253.302 .066 5.749 1.14 99.942
29 HYDRAULIC POWER 6 196.833 .051 5.035 51.784 255.741 .067 5.804 1.30 99.949
73 ENGINE FUEL & CONTROL 7 159.166 .042 4.072 55.856 219.824 .057 4.989 1.38 99.958
52 DOORS 8 129.500 .034 3.313 59.169 110.608 .029 2.510 .85 99.966
49 AIRBORNE AUX PWR UNIT (APU) 8 129.500 .034 3.313 62.482 101.325 .026 2.300 .78 99.966
33 LIGHTS 9 125.167 .033 3.202 65.684 105.066 .027 2.385 .84 99.967
30 ICE & RAIN PROTECTION 10 116.750 .030 2.987 68.671 123.604 .032 2.805 1.06 99.970
23 COMMUNICATIONS 11 116.000 .030 2.968 71.638 99.283 .026 2.253 .86 99.970
79 ENGINE OIL 12 110.500 .029 2.827 74.465 127.016 .033 2.883 1.15 99.971
22 AUTO FLIGHT 13 98.334 .026 2.516 76.980 81.550 .021 1.851 .83 99.974
25 EQUIPMENT/FURNISHINGS 14 97.250 .025 2.488 79.468 63.029 .016 1.431 .65 99.975
80 ENGINE STARTING 15 97.000 .025 2.481 81.950 143.608 .037 3.259 1.48 99.975
72 ENGINE 16 90.834 .024 2.324 84.273 168.709 .044 3.829 1.86 99.976
77 ENGINE INDICATION 17 78.333 .020 2.004 86.277 82.535 .022 1.873 1.05 99.980
56 WINDOWS 18 77.000 .020 1.970 88.247 101.683 .027 2.308 1.32 99.980
36 PNEUMATIC 19 67.000 .017 1.714 89.961 79.491 .021 1.804 1.19 99.983
38 WATER/WASTE 20 63.584 .017 1.627 91.588 42.001 .011 .953 .66 99.983
28 FUEL SYSTEMS 21 62.000 .016 1.586 93.174 52.166 .014 1.184 .84 99.984
78 EXHAUST 22 53.000 .014 1.356 94.530 39.741 .010 .902 .75 99.986
75 ENGINE,AIR 23 41.500 .011 1.062 95.591 45.705 .012 1.037 1.10 99.989
76 ENGINE CONTROLS 24 35.500 .009 .908 96.500 64.750 .017 1.470 1.82 99.991
74 IGNITION 25 30.000 .008 .767 97.267 42.016 .011 .954 1.40 99.992
57 WINGS 26 29.000 .008 .742 98.009 44.033 .011 .999 1.52 99.992
26 FIRE PROTECTION 27 21.833 .006 .559 98.567 20.424 .005 .464 .94 99.994
31 INSTRUMENTS 28 19.500 .005 .499 99.066 12.333 .003 .280 .63 99.995
35 OXYGEN 29 15.500 .004 .397 99.463 9.858 .003 .224 .64 99.996
53 FUSELAGE 30 14.000 .004 .358 99.821 15.166 .004 .344 1.08 99.996
71 POWER PLANT 31 5.000 .001 .128 99.949 6.516 .002 .148 1.30 99.999
51 STRUCTURES (GENERAL) 32 1.000 .000 .026 99.974 2.500 .001 .057 2.50 100.000
55 STABILIZERS 32 1.000 .000 .026 100.000 2.316 .001 .053 2.32 100.000
ALL AIRCRAFT 3909.000 1.020 100.000 4406.017 1.150 100.000 1.13 98.980
TOTAL REPORTED DEPARTURES FOR THE PERIOD = 383048
This report shows the worst to the best at the ATA system level.
The data is in descending order and sorted by the number of events.

Section 6
12
Focus the Analysis on the “Top Ten”
Systems
ATA and System Rank

Description
32 Landing Gear 1
34 Navigation 2
24 Electrical Power 3
27 Flight Controls 4 “Top Ten” ATA’s
68%
14
FOCUS THE ANALYSIS ON THE “TOP TEN” SYSTEMS
2 Digit Ranking Report (Reference Previous Page)
The 2 digit ranking report can be used to concentrate on the “Top Ten” 2 digit ATA
systems.
In this sample the top ten 2 digit ATA's represent 68% of all ATA systems. In most
cases 65% to 75% of the 2 digit ATA's will be represented in the first ten ATA's listed on
the report.
4 Digit Ranking Report (Not Shown)

The 4 digit report ranks the Delays and Cancellations to the 4 digit ATA which
represents the sub-system level.

Section 6
13
Example: 6 Digit ATA Ranking Report
NUMBER: MX-240 PAGE NO: 1

RUN DATE: 02-10-95 (C319314)
SEQUENCE: (NUMBER OF EVENTS - DESCENDING) DATA PERIOD: 07-01-99 THRU 09-30-99INCLUSIVE
************************************************** R E P O R T S E L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A *******************************
DATA DESCRIPTION ALL OPERATORS ALL CRITICAL CODES ALL JUST CODES ALL FIX CODES
DELAYS & CANCELLATIONS
DELAYS GT 15 MINUTES........CHARGEABLE Sort
************************************************************************************************************************************
ATA DETAIL NO. RATE 100 % CUM % NO. HOURS 100 % HOUR HOURS/ %
DESCRIPTION RANK EVENTS REV.DEPT RATE RATE HOURS REV.DEPT RATE EVENT RELIABILITY
322402 RELAY,GROUND SENSING 1 55.167 .014 1.411 1.411 80.233 .021 1.821 1.45 99.986
324201 WHEEL & TIRE ASSY,NLG 2 51.250 .013 1.311 2.722 38.208 .010 .867 .75 99.987
792104 FILTER,OIL 3 49.334 .013 1.262 3.984 54.657 .014 1.241 1.11 99.987
242106 RELAY,AC POWER,AVB-79,XTIE 4 48.834 .013 1.249 5.234 56.309 .015 1.278 1.15 99.987
720015 POWER PLANT - ENGINE CHANGES 5 46.000 .012 1.177 6.410 98.083 .026 2.226 2.13 99.988
801101 STARTER,PNEUMATIC 6 45.000 .012 1.151 7.562 87.841 .023 1.994 1.95 99.988
291293 DUCTS,CLAMPS,BLTS,FLEX LINES 7 40.000 .010 1.023 8.585 58.291 .015 1.323 1.46 99.990
274110 MOTOR,PRIMARY TRIM 8 39.500 .010 1.010 9.595 53.608 .014 1.217 1.36 99.990
341901 COMPUTER,STALL WARNING 9 38.834 .010 .993 10.589 53.184 .014 1.207 1.37 99.990
324301 BRAKE,MAIN LANDING GEAR 10 35.500 .009 .908 11.497 31.983 .008 .726 .90 99.991
220101 COMPUTER,GDNCE,DIGITAL FLT 11 33.834 .009 .866 12.363 30.834 .008 .700 .91 99.991
801102 VALVE,STARTER SHUT-OFF 12 33.500 .009 .857 13.220 32.658 .009 .741 .97 99.991
732101 UNIT, ENGINE FUEL CONTROL 13 32.000 .008 .819 14.038 57.333 .015 1.301 1.79 99.992
291101 PUMP,HYD,ENGINE DRIVEN 13 32.000 .008 .819 14.857 42.200 .011 .958 1.32 99.992
342107 GYRO,DIRECTIONAL 13 32.000 .008 .819 15.675 21.708 .006 .493 .68 99.992
241301 DRIVE,CONSTANT SPEED (CSD) 14 31.001 .008 .793 16.469 34.322 .009 .779 1.11 99.992
342301 GYRO,VERTICAL 15 29.833 .008 .763 17.232 22.183 .006 .503 .74 99.992
243403 CHARGER,BATTERY 16 28.999 .008 .742 17.974 44.027 .011 .999 1.52 99.992
213101 CONTROLLER,CABIN PRESS 17 28.834 .008 .738 18.711 29.364 .008 .666 1.02 99.992
243401 BATTERY 18 28.498 .007 .729 19.440 35.827 .009 .813 1.26 99.993
278402 SWITCH,14 DEG FLAP/SLAT HAND 19 27.833 .007 .712 20.152 30.399 .008 .690 1.09 99.993
720010 POWER PLANT- ENGINE PROBLEMS 20 27.500 .007 .704 20.856 41.208 .011 .935 1.50 99.993
304101 CONTROLLER,WINDSHIELD TEMP 21 27.000 .007 .691 21.546 27.183 .007 .617 1.01 99.993
324101 WHEEL & TIRE ASSY,MLG 21 27.000 .007 .691 22.237 26.700 .007 .606 .99 99.993
326102 SENSOR,LAND GEAR PROXIMITY ( 22 26.500 .007 .678 22.915 39.308 .010 .892 1.48 99.993
491001 APU,PROBLEMS 22 26.500 .007 .678 23.593 23.583 .006 .535 .89 99.993
324493 DUCTS,CLAMPS,BLTS,FLEX LINES 23 26.000 .007 .665 24.258 27.616 .007 .627 1.06 99.993
732192 ENGINE TRIM, ADJUST, RIG 24 25.500 .007 .652 24.910 38.966 .010 .884 1.53 99.993
242102 PANEL,GENERATOR CONTROL 25 24.667 .006 .631 25.542 24.950 .007 .566 1.01 99.994
341601 COMPUTER,CENTRAL AIR DATA 26 24.500 .006 .627 26.168 18.166 .005 .412 .74 99.994
***** ETC. *****
ALL AIRCRAFT 3909.000 1.020 100.000 4406.017 1.150 100.000 1.13 98.980
15
This report shows Delays and Cancellations ranked by the 6 digit ATA at the
component level.
The report is in descending order and sorted by number of events.

Section 6
14
Example: Top Ten 6 Digit ATA Ranking
Report
NUMBER: MX-240 MECHANICAL DELAY and CANCELLATION ANALYSIS PAGE NO: 1
RUN DATE: 03-10-01 (C319314)
SEQUENCE: (NUMBER OF EVENTS - DESCENDING) DATA PERIOD: 02-01-00 THRU 02-28-00 INCLUSIVE
************************************************** R E P O R T S E L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A **************************************
*
* DATA DESCRIPTION ALL CRITICAL CODES ALL JUST CODES ALL FIX CODES
*
* DELAYS & CANCELLATIONS
* DELAYS GT 15 MINUTES
* INCLUDES ALL ATA'S
************************************************************************************************************************************************
ATA DETAIL NO. RATE 100 % CUM % NO. HOURS 100 % HOUR HOURS/ %
DESCRIPTION RANK EVENTS REV.DEPT RATE RATE HOURS REV.DEPT RATE EVENT RELIABILITY
322402 RELAY,GROUND SENSING 1 55.167 .014 1.411 1.411 80.233 .021 1.821 1.45 99.986
324201 WHEEL & TIRE ASSY,NLG 2 51.250 .013 1.311 2.722 38.208 .010 .867 .75 99.987
792104 FILTER,OIL 3 49.334 .013 1.262 3.984 54.657 .014 1.241 1.11 99.987
242106 RELAY,AC POWER,AVB-79,XTIE 4 48.834 .013 1.249 5.234 56.309 .015 1.278 1.15 99.987
720015 POWER PLANT - ENGINE CHANGES 5 46.000 .012 1.177 6.410 98.083 .026 2.226 2.13 99.988
801101 STARTER,PNEUMATIC 6 45.000 .012 1.151 7.562 87.841 .023 1.994 1.95 99.988
291293 DUCTS,CLAMPS,BLTS,FLEX LINES 7 40.000 .010 1.023 8.585 58.291 .015 1.323 1.46 99.990
274110 MOTOR,PRIMARY TRIM 8 39.500 .010 1.010 9.595 53.608 .014 1.217 1.36 99.990
341901 COMPUTER,STALL WARNING 9 38.834 .010 .993 10.589 53.184 .014 1.207 1.37 99.990
324301 BRAKE,MAIN LANDING GEAR 10 35.500 .009 .908 11.497 31.983 .008 .726 .90 99.991
ALL AIRCRAFT 3909.000 1.020 100.000 4406.017 1.150 100.000 1.13 98.980
16
TOP TEN 6 DIGIT RANKING REPORT
The report shown above is the same format as the 6 digit ranking report. The only
difference is this report shows the TOP TEN drivers for ALL 6 digit ATA’s.
This type of report can be used to select a specific ATA, such as ATA 32.
Consequently the report would rank the TOP TEN 6 digit ATA’s within chapter 32.

Section 6
15
Processing the Data
2 Digit 4 Digit 6 Digit

Step 1: System Sub System Component

0.300
Areas Requiring Attention
Step 3:
D e la y / C a n x R a te
0.250 4th Qtr 1994
3rd Qtr 1994
0.200
0.150
Prepare Charts and Graphs for 0.100
0.050
Reports and Presentations 0.000

24 29 32 28 27 34
ATA System
73 80 21 49
DESIGNING CHARTS AND GRAPHS
Graphics such as linear plots, scatter plots, vertical and horizontal bar charts, and
pie charts can be utilized to display the data from your reliability database.
Graphics can be used to paint a picture and quickly highlight problem areas in the
aircraft.
The following charts are just a few examples of how the data can be displayed in
graphic format using available software.

Section 6
16
Dispatch Reliability Chart

1997 - 2002
100.00
99.75
Dispatch Reliability (%)
99.50
99.25
99.00
98.75
98.50
98.25
98.00
97.75
97.50
Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02
Actual Fleet Fleet Goal

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Departures 93548 132546 178747 187212 180809 179805
Delays > 15 & Cancellations 1117 1482 1845 1899 1694 1513
Dispatch Reliability 98.81 98.88 98.97 98.99 99.06 99.16
18

Section 6
17
Top Ten Delay and Cancellation Systems
Performance Review
0.300 Areas Requiring Attention

0.250
Delay / Canx Rate
0.200 4th Qtr 2004

3rd Qtr 2004
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
24 29 32 28 27 34 73 80 21 49
ATA System
Fourth Qtr - 2004 Third Qtr - 2004

Rev. Dept. 23611 Rev. Dept. 22550
ATA System # Events Rate % Events # Events Rate % Events
24 Electrical Power 47 0.198 13.3 63 0.281 14.8
29 Hydraulic Power 40 0.169 11.3 35 0.155 8.2
32 Landing Gear 32 0.136 9.1 42 0.188 9.9
28 Fuel 32 0.136 9.1 47 0.207 10.9
27 Flight Controls 31 0.131 8.8 21 0.091 4.8
34 Navigation 19 0.081 5.4 20 0.089 4.7
73 Engine Fuel & Control 18 0.076 5.1 16 0.070 3.7
80 Engine Starting 16 0.069 4.6 21 0.093 4.9
21 Air Conditioning 14 0.059 3.9 14 0.060 3.2
19
49 APU 12 0.051 3.4 17 0.075 3.9

Section 6
18
Dispatch Reliability Performance for
ATA 34 - Navigation System
1.2
1.0
Delay/Canx Rate
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00
Delay & Canx Rate Alert Level
Month May-99 Jun-99 Jul-99 Aug-99 Sep-99 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-
Departures 2815 2965 2771 2966 2873 2918 2921 3484 2775 2737 3147 27
No of Events 19 18 15 12 12 12 9 24 15 13 8
Delay Rate 0.675 0.607 0.541 0.405 0.418 0.411 0.308 0.689 0.541 0.475 0.254 0.2
% Total Events 14.0% 14.0% 14.6% 10.4% 16.0% 15.2% 8.3% 19.7% 14.4% 11.4% 9.1% 10.3
20

Section 6
19
Summary
Enhance your database with additional data

elements to help streamline your analysis.
Consider coding the delays and cancellations to
maybe the 4 digit or 6 digit level.
Use ranking reports to research problem ATA’s
and improve aircraft systems and ultimately save
cost.
Create charts and graphs for the monthly
Reliability Report and presentations to
management.
Remember to include the numeric values
represented on your charts. 21

Section 6
20
BOEING PROPRIETARY

Filename.ppt (add in Slide Master) | 21
BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 6
21
Data Display and
Reports
Data Display & Reporting

Section 7
Agenda
Goals and Objectives

Reports
Format and Content
Summary

Section 7
Goals and Objectives
Shop Maintenance
Management
Planning
Line Maintenance
Technical Services
Quality Regulatory Agency

3
Responsibility for Analysis and Reporting
Analysis and Reporting. In the airline industry reporting is performed

by the Reliability Department which is either part of Quality Assurance
or Engineering or as defined in the airlines GMM or MOE. The
analysis is performed by Engineering and/or Quality Assurance.

Section 7
Reports
Management Reports
Management focus is in the daily pulse of airline
and maintenance operations
Charts, graphs and reports should be at the
macro level and refreshed live when data is
updated
Typical reports
No. of flights scheduled, No. of flights completed, No. of
flights delayed
Delays – Controllable vs Uncontrollable factors
Number of AOG Orders placed everyday
Work in progress of aircrafts that are undergoing heavy
maintenance
4
Fleet Reliability Report Contents
The Executive Summary: Provides a description of the overall

performance during the reporting period.
The Fleet Performance Report: The fleet performance report is the
detailed reliability report which contains all the relevant data sorted by
ATA for the reporting period.
Summary: This section contains the summary of items in alert and also
a short description of terms/abbreviations.

Section 7
Reports
Technical Services Reports
Delay & Cancellation

PIREPs / MAREPs
Shop Teardown Report
Unscheduled Component Removals
CAT II and CAT III reports
IFSD / RTO’s

Section 7
Reports
Regulatory Reports
Fleet Statistics
Service Difficulty Report
Mechanical Interruption Summary

Section 7
Reports
Maintenance Program Reports

PIREPs
Routine Vs Non-routine

Section 7
Reports
Quality Reports
Fleet Statistics
Service Difficulty Report
Mechanical Interruption Summary
Accomplishment of AD’s and SB’s
Accomplishment of scheduled maintenance checks
Delays & Cancellations
PIREPs / MAREPs
Shop Teardown Report
Unscheduled Component Removals
CAT II and CAT III reports
IFSD / RTO’s
Routine Vs Non-routine

Section 7
Reports
Line Maintenance
Delays & Cancellations
Delays caused by first flight of the day at
line stations
Delays by Line Stations
MEL Usage
Deferred Maintenance Items
Repeat Squawks or Defects

Section 7
Reports
Planning Reports
Deferred Maintenance Items
Accomplishment of AD’s and SB’s
Accomplishment of scheduled
maintenance checks
Forecast of
Scheduled maintenance checks
AD’s and SB’s
Life Limited Parts
Time control items
10

Section 7
Management Reports
Executive Dashboard
Status of Flight De parture s On Time Performance
140 160 90 91
120 180 92
100 200 93
94
80 220
95
60 240 96
97
40 260
98
20 280
99
0 300 100
Percentage
Delays by Station
Tech Non Tech
3
AOG
2
P/N 2338101-1
No. of Delays
1
Required for NXX1A
0
LAX SFO SEA SJC PDX
11
Executive Summary
Fleet Size: The size of the model fleet in the airline.

Airplane Utilization: is derived from flight hours and flight cycles accrued by the fleet for
any given month.
Dispatch Reliability: is calculated for all delays and cancellations over 15 minutes.
Technical Incidents: The number of incidents caused by a pre-determined criteria list for the
fleet.
In-flight Shut Down: The IFSD rate per 1000 engine hours.
Technical Occurrences: The number of incidents of turbulence, Lightning Strike, Bird Strike,
FOD, Hard Landing, Damage by Ground Equipment etc.
Consequence of Events: The number of incidents of Rejected Take off, Fuel Dumping, Ferry
Flight, Air Interruption technical, Ground interruption, technical as a consequence of technical
incidents and technical occurrences.
Engine Removals: The number of unscheduled engine removals for the reporting period.

Section 7
12

Section 7
CAT II / CAT III Reports
CAT II / III Landings - 2005

1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr
7
6
6
5
5
No. of Landings
4
4
3 3
3
2 2
2
1 1
1
0
NXX2B NXX1A NXX3C NXX4D
13

Section 7
Fleet Statistics
14

Section 7
Engine Statistics
15

Section 7
Utilization
16

Section 7
Repeat Squawks
17

Section 7
Repeat Squawk Analysis
18

Section 7
MEL Usage
19

Section 7
Component Reliability
20

Section 7
Component History
21

Section 7
Component Unscheduled Removal
Report
XYZ Airlines Component Unscheduled Removals

A/C Type: 757-200
Rate per 1000 Unit
ATA Component Part Quantity No of Hours 3 Mth 12 Mth
Nomenclature Number per A/C Rmvls Sep Oct Nov Rate UCL Avg
21 Manual press. cont. 05-2110-9-0011 1 2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.24
Auto cabin press cont. 05-2110-9-0014 1 6 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.33 0.28
Cabin outflow valve 05-2130-9-0022 1 2 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.07
Heat exchanger 05-2150-9-0001 4 17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.13
Water Separator 05-2170-9-0001 1 21 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.11 0.07
22 Autopilot Roll Cont. 05-2210-9-0001 1 17 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.34 0.27
Yaw Damper 05-2210-9-0002 1 11 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.08
Mach Trim Comp. 05-2220-9-0010 1 8 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.03
Auto Throttle Act. 05-2230-9-0011 1 7 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
Stall Sensor 05-2250-9-0020 1 2 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.04
23 HF Transceiver 05-2310-9-0010 2 14 0.16 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.14
VHF Transceiver 05-2320-9-0011 3 44 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.18 0.16
VHF Antenna 05-2320-9-0015 2 6 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.02
PA Amplifier 05-2330-9-0005 2 4 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.18 0.12
VHF Selector Panel 05-2380-9-0010 2 7 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.08
Tuning Control Comp. 05-2380-9-0015 1 3 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02
22

Section 7
Pilot Report Graph - ATA 21
Pilot Reports - ATA 21

12.00
10.00
PIREP's per 100 Landings
8.00
6.00
4.00
Monthly
3-Month
2.00 UCL
Mean
0.00
Dec 96 Jan 97 Feb 97 Mar 97 Apr 97 May 97 Jun 97 Jul 97 Aug 97 Sep 97 Oct 97 Nov 97
23

Section 7
Pilot Reports sorted by ATA
X Y Z A i r l in e s D e c . 9 7 R e p o r t P il o t R e p o r ts
A/C T y pe : 7 57 -2 0 0 N o . o f la n d i n g s ( f le e t ) : 2 ,9 1 7
N o . o f P I R E P R a te s Th re e 1 2 C u rre n t
A T A S y s te m R e p o r ts ( p e r 1 0 0 la n d i n g s ) M o n th U C L M e a n M o n th M o n th
(C u rr S e p O c t N o v A vg A vg S ta tu s
2 1 A i r C o n d i ti o n i n g 11 4 3 . 6 5 3 .7 7 3 . 9 1 3 .7 8 3 .7 5 2 .7 0 3 . 5 3 A L
2 2 A u t o F li g h t 4 3 1 . 8 0 1 .4 8 1 . 4 7 1 .5 8 1 .3 9 1 .2 1 1 . 5 9 A L
2 3 C o m m u n i c a ti o n s 6 9 2 . 7 7 2 .7 5 2 . 3 7 2 .6 3 2 .8 0 2 .3 0 3 . 0 7
2 4 E le c t r i c a l P o w e r 2 9 1 . 1 5 0 .8 7 0 . 9 9 1 .0 0 0 .9 4 0 .6 0 0 . 9 6 A L
2 5 E q u ip / F u r n is h i n g s 10 4 4 . 1 7 3 .6 9 3 . 5 7 3 .8 1 5 .4 3 4 .3 8 3 . 9 1
2 6 F i r e P r o te c ti o n 3 0 1 . 8 0 1 .3 0 1 . 0 3 1 .3 8 2 .1 9 1 .1 4 1 . 3 9
2 7 F li g h t C o n t r o ls 4 8 0 . 9 9 3 .0 7 1 . 6 5 1 .9 0 1 .9 4 1 .2 6 2 . 0 0
2 8 F u e l 3 6 0 . 6 5 1 .1 6 1 . 2 3 1 .0 1 2 .3 2 1 .2 7 0 . 9 2
2 9 H y d r a u lic P o w e r 1 7 0 . 7 3 0 .4 3 0 . 5 8 0 .5 8 1 .5 8 0 .8 2 0 . 7 7
3 0 I c e & R a in P ro t. 1 2 0 . 6 1 0 .6 5 0 . 4 1 0 .5 6 0 .7 2 0 .5 6 0 . 7 6
3 1 I n s tr u m e n ts 4 9 1 . 7 6 1 .4 8 1 . 6 8 1 .6 4 2 .4 6 1 .6 6 1 . 7 0
3 2 L a n d in g G e a r 6 7 2 . 4 1 2 .0 6 2 . 3 0 2 .2 6 2 .7 2 1 .7 6 2 . 1 8
3 3 L ig h ts 9 2 2 . 8 6 3 .0 0 3 . 1 5 3 .0 0 2 .6 4 2 .4 2 3 . 0 4 R A
3 4 N a v i g a ti o n 11 4 4 . 8 1 6 .6 2 3 . 9 1 5 .1 1 5 .5 8 4 .7 0 5 . 5 6
3 5 O xy g e n 1 9 0 . 3 1 0 .6 7 0 . 6 5 0 .5 4 0 .4 1 0 .2 3 0 . 5 0 A L
3 6 P n e u m a ti c s 2 5 1 . 1 1 0 .8 0 0 . 8 6 0 .9 2 0 .9 5 0 .7 7 1 . 1 0 C L
3 8 W a t e r & W a s te 1 6 0 . 4 2 0 .3 6 0 . 5 5 0 .4 4 1 .1 0 0 .5 6 0 . 6 4
4 9 A u x. P o w e r U n it 4 2 1 . 4 1 1 .4 8 1 . 4 4 1 .4 4 1 .6 3 1 .3 8 1 . 8 6
5 1 S tr u c t u r e s 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 .1 6 0 .0 9 0 . 1 1
5 2 D o o rs 3 1 1 . 4 1 1 .0 5 1 . 0 6 1 .1 7 1 .6 2 0 .9 2 1 . 0 8
5 3 F u s e la g e 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 .3 3 0 .1 5 0 . 1 4
5 4 N a c e l le s / P y lo n s 1 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 . 0 3 0 .0 1 0 .2 2 0 .1 0 0 . 0 9
5 5 S t a b i li z e r s 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 .1 6 0 .0 9 0 . 1 1
5 6 W in d o w s 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 4 0 . 0 0 0 .0 1 0 .0 9 0 .0 6 0 . 0 8
5 7 W in g s 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 . 0 0 0 .0 0 0 .3 3 0 .1 5 0 . 1 4
7 1 P o w e r p la n t 1 1 0 . 6 5 0 .5 4 0 . 3 8 0 .5 2 1 .3 0 0 .9 1 0 . 8 8
7 2 E n g in e 4 0 . 3 1 0 .2 9 0 . 1 4 0 .2 5 0 .4 7 0 .2 2 0 . 2 1
7 3 F u e l & C o n tr o l 1 7 0 . 9 6 0 .4 7 0 . 5 8 0 .6 7 0 .8 4 0 .6 1 0 . 6 8
7 4 I g n it io n 1 1 0 . 0 8 0 .4 0 0 . 3 8 0 .2 9 0 .4 6 0 .3 0 0 . 2 8
7 5 A ir 5 3 1 . 5 2 1 .6 3 1 . 8 2 1 .6 6 1 .1 1 0 .6 6 1 . 3 2 R A
7 6 E n g i n e C o n tr o l 3 0 . 2 3 0 .1 4 0 . 1 0 0 .1 6 0 .3 3 0 .1 5 0 . 1 8
7 7 E n g i n e I n d i c a ti n g 2 2 0 . 5 3 0 .7 6 0 . 7 5 0 .6 8 0 .9 6 0 .6 8 0 . 9 7
7 8 E xh a u s t 3 0 . 5 0 0 .4 3 0 . 1 0 0 .3 4 0 .9 0 0 .6 4 0 . 8 9
7 9 O il 5 0 . 1 9 0 .2 2 0 . 1 7 0 .1 9 0 .8 3 0 .4 8 0 . 4 1
8 0 S ta r ti n g 3 0 . 2 7 0 .2 9 0 . 1 0 0 .2 2 0 .2 8 0 .1 7 0 . 2 2 C L
T o t a ls 1 09 0 4 0.0 6 4 1 .9 0 37 .37 3 9 .7 8 4 7 .0 5 3 6 .1 0 4 3.2 7
S ta tu s C o d e : C L = C le a r A L = A le r t R A = R e m a i n s - i n - a le r t 24

Section 7
Delay & Cancellation Report - Sorted By
ATA
X Y Z A i r l in e s D ec . 1 99 7 R e port M e c h a n ic a l D e la y s & C a n c e ll a t i o n s
A i r c r a ft T y p e : 7 5 7 - 2 0 0 N u m b e r o f la n d in g s ( f l e e t ) : 2,95 1
N o . o f e ve n ts D e la y R a t e s
A TA S y ste m D e la y ( c u r r e n t m th ) (pe r 1 00 3 - m th UC L M ea n 1 2 - M th S ta tu s D i s p a tc h
H ou rs D e la y X nc l S ep O c t No v A vg A vg C o de R e l i a b i li ty
2 1 A i r C o n d it io n i n g 5 .4 6 1 0.2 3 0.11 0 .24 0.19 0 .3 2 0 .1 9 0 .2 3
2 2 A u to F li g h t 0 .0 0 1 0.1 5 0.04 0 .03 0.07 0 .0 7 0 .0 4 0 .0 6
2 3 C o m m u n i c a ti o n 0 .8 1 0 0.0 8 0.04 0 .03 0.05 0 .1 5 0 .0 9 0 .0 7
2 4 E le c t r ic a l P o w e r 3 .2 5 1 0.0 8 0.15 0 .20 0.14 0 .1 3 0 .0 8 0 .1 5 AL
2 5 E q u ip / F u r n i s h i n g 4 .8 7 0 0.0 8 0.18 0 .24 0.17 0 .2 9 0 .1 7 0 .1 8
2 6 F i r e P r o te c t i o n 0 .2 1 0 0.0 4 0.00 0 .03 0.02 0 .1 5 0 .0 8 0 .1 0
2 7 F li g h t C o n t r o l 7 .8 6 0 0.0 8 0.58 0 .20 0.29 0 .2 6 0 .1 2 0 .3 3 AL
2 8 F ue l 5 .1 4 0 0.0 4 0.15 0 .14 0.11 0 .3 3 0 .1 6 0 .1 0
2 9 H y d r a u li c P o w e r 1 .0 1 1 0.1 2 0.22 0 .07 0.14 0 .4 0 0 .2 1 0 .2 3
3 0 Ic e & R a in 2 .3 1 1 0.0 4 0.04 0 .07 0.05 0 .1 1 0 .0 7 0 .0 6
3 1 I n s t r u m e n ts 3 .9 3 0 0.1 9 0.18 0 .10 0.16 0 .2 0 0 .1 2 0 .1 4
3 2 L a n d in g G e a r 15 .5 8 1 0.5 4 0.11 0 .30 0.32 0 .3 3 0 .1 9 0 .3 2
3 3 L ig h t s 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .1 3 0 .0 7 0 .0 3
3 4 N a v ig a t io n 17 .2 21 0 0.6 9 0.71 0 .71 0.70 0 .6 8 0 .5 2 0 .2 6 A L:
3 5 O xy ge n 1 .3 1 0 0.0 0 0.04 0 .03 0.02 0 .0 4 0 .0 2 0 .0 2
3 6 P n e u m a ti c s 2 .8 3 0 0.2 3 0.00 0 .10 0.11 0 .2 2 0 .1 4 0 .1 7
3 8 W a te r / W a s t e 0 .5 2 0 0.0 4 0.00 0 .07 0.04 0 .0 7 0 .0 2 0 .0 4
4 9 A P U 0 .7 2 0 0.0 8 0.07 0 .07 0.07 0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .1 0 C L
5 1 S t r u c tu r e s 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .1 0 0 .0 6 0 .0 5
5 2 D o or s 1 .9 2 0 0.2 3 0.04 0 .07 0.11 0 .1 9 0 .1 1 0 .1 2
5 3 F u s e la g e 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .0 7 0 .0 5 0 .0 6
5 4 N a c e l le s / P y lo n 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .0 8
5 5 S t a b iliz e r s 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .0 8 0 .0 6 0 .0 6
5 6 W ind o w s 0 .4 1 0 0.0 4 0.04 0 .03 0.04 0 .2 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 4
5 7 W ing 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .0 5 0 .0 3 0 .0 3
7 1 P o w e r P la n t 2 .8 1 0 0.0 8 0.00 0 .03 0.04 0 .1 3 0 .1 0 0 .0 6
7 2 E n g in e 1 .8 2 1 0.0 8 0.04 0 .10 0.07 0 .1 6 0 .0 5 0 .0 4
7 3 F u e l & C o n tr o l 4 .8 3 2 0.0 4 0.15 0 .17 0.12 0 .1 9 0 .1 1 0 .1 6
7 4 I g n i ti o n 0 .0 0 0 0.0 0 0.04 0 .00 0.01 0 .0 5 0 .0 3 0 .0 1
7 5 A ir 5 .5 4 0 0.4 2 0.11 0 .14 0.22 0 .1 4 0 .1 2 0 .1 9 AL
7 6 E n g i n e C o n tr o l 0 .0 0 0 0.0 4 0.00 0 .00 0.01 0 .0 6 0 .0 1 0 .0 3
7 7 E n g in e I n d ic a t in g 1 .3 1 0 0.0 4 0.04 0 .03 0.04 0 .2 1 0 .1 0 0 .0 9
7 8 E xh a us t 2 .7 1 0 0.0 8 0.07 0 .03 0.06 0 .1 2 0 .0 7 0 .1 2
7 9 O il 3 .2 3 1 0.1 2 0.04 0 .14 0.10 0 .1 3 0 .0 8 0 .0 8
8 0 S t a r t in g 2 .6 2 0 0.1 5 0.22 0 .07 0.15 0 .0 6 0 .0 4 0 .0 9 AL
T o t a ls 92 .9 78 10 3.5 9 2.92 2 .98 3.16 4 .0 6 3 .2 3 3 .6 6 9 7 . 0 25
S ta tu s C o d e : C L = C le a r A L = A le r t RA = R e m a in s - in - a le r t

Section 7
A Typical Engine Performance Report
XYZ Airlines Dec. 97 Report Engine Performance

A/C Type: 757-200 Prev. Current Year Year-
Engine: RB211-xxx Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec to-date
Engine Hours 137732 11746 11142 11896 11282 11550 11156 11432 12072 12112 11488 11967 127843
Unscheduled Removals
# of Unsch. Rmvls 23 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 3 18
Removal Rate 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.17 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.14
Reason Failure 14 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 4
for Ext. cause 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 4
Removal FOD 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
Convenience 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
Basic failure 15 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 10
Findings Non-basic 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6
Unconfirmed 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
HSI 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 5
Action Heavy Maint 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 8
Other 8 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 5
Scheduled Removals
No. of Removals 7 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5.0
HSI 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3.0
Heavy Maint 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2.0
Inflight Shut-downs
No. of Shut-downs 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
Shut-down Rate 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.03
26

Section 7
Unscheduled Engine Removal Report
Summary
XYZ Airlines Dec. 97 Report Unscheduled Engine Removals

A/C Type: 757-200 Engine: RB211-xxx
Previous Year Current Year Year-to-date
No of Rate per No of Rate per
Primary Failure Mode Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
rmvls 1000 hrs rmvls 1000 hrs
#6 bearing oil pressure
3 0.04 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.04
line broken
Combustion chamber
5 0.04 1 1 1 1 4 0.03
distress
Combustion can cross-
1 0.01 1 1 2 0.02
over tube broken
Foreign Object Damage 4 0.03 1 1 0.01
Accessory case Leaking 2 0.01 1 1 0.01
TOTALS 15 0.11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 13 0.10
27

Section 7
In-flight Shutdown Summary
XY Z Airlines Dec. 97 Report Engine Inf light Shut-dow ns

A/C Type: 757-200 Engine: RB211-xxx
Previous Year Current Y ear Year-to-date
Primary Failure Mode # Shut Rate per # Shut Rate per
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
dow ns 1000 hrs dow ns 1000 hrs
Oil f ilter bypass light
1 0.01 1 1 2 0.02
sw itch
Oil leak - main accy case 2 0.01 1 1 0.01
# 6 bearing oil tube broken 1 0.01 1 1 0.01
V ibration - f an damage,
1 0.01 1 1 0.01
bird strike
TOTALS 5 0.04 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 0.04
28

Section 7
Component Unscheduled Removal Rate
Dec. 97 Report - Unscheduled Removals - Component in Alert

(VHF Transceiver P/N 05-2320-9-0011)
0.090
Monthly 3-Month UCL Mean
0.080
0.070
Unscheduled Removal Rate
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.000
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
29

Section 7
Significant Event Summary
XYZ Airlines Reliability Program Significant Events Report

A/C Registration Date A/C Type ATA
N969 Nov. 13 97 B757-200 34

Event Category Reporting Requirement
Accident/incident Structural Irregularity Regulatory Authority
Repeat Pilot Write-up Critical Failure Manufacturer
Malfunction/Defect Report ETOPS Critical Failure Other ______________
Service Difficulty Report Other _______________________
Description of Event
During flight, both compass systems froze with no flags. Switched both systems on compass #2. Both indicators spun
with no flags. Switched both systems to #1. Failed to stay on heading with reference to magnetic compass. Returned
to PEK
Maintenance Action
Found compass switching unit and compass control circuit breaker malfunctioning, replaced switching unit and circuit
breaker. Performed operational check
Engineering Investigation/Recommendation
Check condition and operation of circuit breakers for this system throughout the fleet. This check will be added to the
"C" check routine inspection at 1C interval
Prepared by: Date

Reliability Control Board Decision
Authorized Action
30
Board Chairman: Date
Significant Event
Significant Events. This display is used to describe major problems
during the reporting period.

Section 7
Corrective Action Status Summary
XYZ Airline s De c. 97 Re port Corre ctive Action Progra m Sta tus

Initial PIREP
A/C Type: 727-200 EO Dates Current PIREP Status
Status
Target
Release 3-Month % of Fleet 3-Month
EO Number Description Completion UCL UCL
Date Rate Completed Rate
Date
Rework gearbox
S49PW -
assembly by replacing May-96 Dec-96 1.89 1.63 59 1.28 1.63
K032-1A
generator scavenge tube
Passenger door
S52FJ-
emergency lockout cam Jun-96 Nov-96 1.76 1.62 61 0.9 1.62
G303-1D
replacement
Relocate AC cross tie
D24EW -
lockout release switch Jul-96 Sep-96 1.55 1.43 70 1.19 1.43
G064-1E
Flap primary control &

D27JW -
follow-up system (cable Aug-96 Sep-96 0.91 0.84 95 0.66 0.84
H363-1A
tension and system
Radar antenna - adds a
D34EF-
fuse to power line Mar-96 Dec-96 5.1 4.69 24 5.13 4.69
6113-1B
Pitch Computer - Improve

B34EJ-6271-
servo amplifier circuit Jul-97 Jun-98 5.86 4.69 5 5.83 4.69
1B
31

Section 7
Summary
A Reliability Report is
a statistical and
graphical
representation of
fleet performance
It is the responsibility
of many
organizations to
accurately enter the
data.
32

Section 7
System Reliability
System Reliability
Presented By: Kupp Sridhar
System Reliability
Section 8 1
Topics
System Reliability
Data Interrelationships
Sorting and Analyzing Data
MSG-3 Logic Diagram
Summary
System Reliability
Section 8 2
System Reliability
A system is a
combination of inter-
related items joined
together to form a
specific function
• A system is analogous to a chain link and when one link is snapped the chain will
break. Hence a system is a combination of components connected by inter-
connecting devices to perform a specific function.
• With the advent of digital technology the failure of system is evident to the flight
crew and displayed in the cockpit.
• Design evaluation techniques
• Glass cockpit and digital technology
• Maintenance philosophy needed to be changed with the design philosophy
• MSG-3 Maintenance
• Accordingly the Reliability Program needed to re-focus the analysis based on a
holistic approach and hence System Reliability
• To perform analysis on systems needs a thorough understanding of how the systems
are designed and built.
System Reliability
Section 8 3
System Reliability
Non-redundant System
INPUT OUTPUT
1 2 3
RS = R1× R2 × R3
RS = System Reliability
• Components connected together in series are non-redundant systems. If any one

of the components or interconnecting devices fails, the output of the system is
zero.
• Example: A system’s reliability can be much worse than any of its components
is illustrated by the the 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle disaster. The reliability
of a single ‘O’ ring (the failing component) had been estimated at 0.99.
However, there were eight of them in the shuttle and all had to work properly
because they were connected in series. The system reliability is given by
Rs = 0.998 = 0.89.
• Therefore the potential for failure is 0.11 or approximately 1 in 9. The
Challenger mishap occurred on the twelfth shuttle launch.
System Reliability
Section 8 4
System Reliability
Parallel System
11
22
Input Output
33
44
Reliability Of System RS = (1− QS)
Q Is the un-reliability of the system
S
• Parallel System
• Multiple redundancies
• Individual Component Reliability can be low and yet achieve a higher system
reliability
System Reliability
Section 8 5
System Reliability
Multiple Path System
1 2 3
Input Output
1’ 2’ 3’
NO. OF PATHS = 8
System Reliability
Section 8 6
System Reliability
SYSTEM EXPECTED EXPECTED

CONFIGURATION SYSTEM SYSTEM FAILURES COMPONENT FAILURES
RELIABILITY IN 10,000 FLIGHTS
Assume Ri=0.9 IN 10,000 FLIGHTS
.9 1000 1000
.99 100 2000
.999 10 3000
.9999 1 4000
• Hydro-Mechanical systems with redundancies have higher system reliability and

low individual component reliability but pays penalties by adding weight to the
aircraft.
• Electrical and Avionics Systems on the other hand are much lighter compared to
Hydro-Mechanical systems and support design of redundant systems.
• Depending on the type of system there is a trade off between reliability and
weight added to the aircraft.
System Reliability
Section 8 7
System Reliability
SINGLE NUMBER OF COMPONENTS IN PARALLEL (N)

COMPONENT
RELIABILITY
( R c) 2 3 4 5 6
0.80 0.9600 0.9920 0.99840 0.99968 0.999936

0.81 0.9639 0.9931 0.99870 0.99976 0.999960
0.82 0.9676 0.9942 0.99895 0.99982 0.999970
0.83 0.9711 0.9951 0.99916 0.99986 0.999980
0.84 0.9744 0.9959 0.99934 0.99990 0.999984
0.85 0.9775 0.9967 0.99949 0.99993 0.999989
0.86 0.9804 0.9973 0.99962 0.99995 0.999993
0.87 0.9831 0.9978 0.99971 0.99997 0.999996
0.88 0.9856 0.9983 0.99979 0.99992 0.999997
0.89 0.9879 0.9987 0.99985 0.99998 0.999998
0.90 0.9900 0.9990 0.99990 0.99999 0.999999
System Reliability
Section 8 8
System Reliability
Aircraft Maintenance System Teardown Reports

Log Book (PIREPS & Component Maintenance
MAREPS) Reliability
Data Scheduled Checks
Base Maintenance
Line Station
Maintenance
• Fault messages of functional failures displayed in the cockpit will be recorded by flight crew in
the aircraft log book (PIREPS).
• Recording of data in the log book is verbatim of the display.
• Recorded data is at system / sub-system level and hence analysis of data is also done at
the system / sub-system level.
• Component tear down reports are obtained from shop / vendor.
• Non-routine task data is obtained from base maintenance.
• Delay and cancellation data is gathered from line stations.
• If the corrective action results in the inclusion of a maintenance task to correct the discrepancy
or failure, the maintenance task has to be analyzed using the MSG-3 logic.
Abbreviations
PIREPS - Pilot Reports

MAREPS - Maintenance Reports
System Reliability
Section 8 9
System Reliability
INFLIGHT
PIREP
OR
AML
LINE STATION/GATE
DETERMINE MEL NO
MEL CONTROL
MEL
PROVISIONS
(O)
CATEGORY NO. PROCEDURES
YES
YES
MEL RELIABILITY
RELIEF? MOCC PERFORM
(O)
NO PROCEDURE
CORRECT
PIREP
PIREP
OR
AML
REPLACE
COMPONENTS 1.PIREP By ATA
2.Dispatch Reliability
YES/NO 3.Component Reliability NO
4.Power Plant Reliability (M)
PROCEDURES
NO DELAY/CANC. YES
YES
> 15 MIN.
DISPATCH PERFORM
AIRPLANE PLACARD (M)
PROCEDURE
• When an airplane experiences a system fault at the gate / terminal, the airplane can be dispatched
if the system at fault has a back up system.
• Airplane dispatched due to MEL relief
• Dispatch Reliability unaffected
• However System at fault is still considered reliability data
• If the system at fault does not have a back up and requires corrective action, the airplane may be
delayed.
• Dispatch Reliability affected
• Corrective action results in departure time greater than 15 minutes from the
published departure time
• System at fault becomes a PIREP
• Corrective action may involve
• Replacing LRU
• Repair
Abbreviations
LRU - Line Replaceable Unit
MEL (O) - Minimum Equipment List Operating Procedures
MEL (M) - Minimum Equipment List Maintenance Procedures
System Reliability
Section 8 10
Topics
System Reliability
System Reliability
Section 8 11
Discrepancy /
Fault
Airplane Airplane
Flight Landings/
Hours Departures
ATA
CODE
System Component Power Plant

Structures
Reliability Reliability Reliability
• Flight Statistics are collected by all airplane operators irrespective of the

reliability program
• Data is used to track time control components, life limited parts and safe
life parts
• Discrepant data is coded to (4 to 6 digits) according to ATA 100 specifications
and joined with the Flight Statistics data
• The resulting data attributes is examined for dispatch reliability impact and then
further dissemination is done by classifying them into four major groups
• System Reliability
• Component Reliability
• Powerplant Reliability
• Analysis of Structures
System Reliability
Section 8 12
Topics
System Reliability
System Reliability
Section 8 13
PIREPS Component
Reports
SORT
DATA
Problem
Problem
with
with
Airplane
Component
Delays & Check
Cancellations Data
System Reliability
Section 8 14
Sort by Airplane
PIREPS
COMPONENT REPORTS
SORT
Sort By
DATA
A/C Reg. No.
by Scattered
ATA Data
Is
YES There A NO NO
Discrete
Factor? Is
Single Scattered Sort There A Sort By
A/C Reg. No. Data By Station Discrete Flight No.
Factor?
YES
Is
Single There A YES
Station Discrete
Factor?
NO
Is
Scattered NO There A Sort By Scattered
Data Discrete Position Data
Factor?
YES
Single Single
Position Flight No.
System Reliability
Section 8 15
Troubleshooting a VOR Navigation System
Abbreviations
VOR - Very High Frequency Omni-Range Radar
System Reliability
Section 8 16
Troubleshooting a VOR Navigation System
System Reliability
Section 8 17
ort by Component
PIREPS
COMPONENT REPORTS
SORT Sort By
DATA Components
by In System
ATA
Is
No There A Yes
Discrete
Factor? Is
Scattered Single Sort By There A Yes Single
Data (NFF) Component Serial No. Discrete Serial No.
Factor?
No
Scattered
Data
Training Procedure Test Eqpt. Software Fleet Campaign Redesign Scheduled Tasks
System Reliability
Section 8 18
Topics
System Reliability
MSG-3 Logic Diagram
System Reliability
Section 8 19
MSG-3 Logic Diagram
Is
Isthe
theoccurrence
occurrenceof ofaafunctional
functional
Level 1 failure
failureevident
crew
evidentto
crewduring
duringthe
tothe
theoperating
operating
theperformance
performanceof of
normal
normalduties
duties
yes
no
Does
Doesthe
thefunctional
functionalfailure
failure
or
orsecondary
secondarydamage
damageresulting
resulting
from
fromthe
thefunctional
functionalfailure
failurehave
have
aadirect
directimpact
impactononoperating
operatingsafety
safety
no
yes Does
Doesthe thecombination
combinationof ofaa
hidden
hiddenfunctional
functionalfailure
failureand
and
one
oneadditional
additionalfailure
failureofofaa
system
systemrelated
relatedor
orback-up
back-up
Does
Doesthe
thefunctional
functionalfailure
failure function
have functionhave
haveananadverse
adverse
haveaadirect
directadverse
adverse affect
affecton
onoperating
operatingsafety
safety
effect
effecton
onoperating
operatingcapability
capability
yes no yes no
Hidden
Hidden
Evident
Evident Evident
Evident Evident
Evident Hidden
Hidden
CATEGORY
CATEGORY Non-Safety
Non-Safety
Safety
Safety Operational
Operational Economic
Economic Safety
Safety Economic
Economic
5 6 7 8 9
• If a system or component is in alert for three successive months and analysis reveals that a
preventive maintenance task will alleviate the discrepancy, then the following procedure is adopted
for determining the interval and type of maintenance task according to MSG-3 guidelines.
• A system in alert is considered an MSI, if answered “YES” to at least one of the following (4)
questions.
• The system could affect safety (on ground or in flight), and/or
• The System could be undetectable or are not likely to be detected during operations, and/or
• The System could have significant operational impact, and/or
• The System could have significant economic impact.
• Systems that fall under category 5 and 8 could be changed through the ISC / MRB process. Systems
that fall under categories 6, 7 and 9 will be assigned the most applicable and effective task using
MSG-3 (Level 2) Logic diagram.
Abbreviations
MSG-3 - Maintenance Steering Group 3
MSI - Maintenance Significant Item
System Reliability
Section 8 20
MSG-3 Logic Diagram
5 6 7 8 9
Evident
Evident Evident
Evident Evident
Evident Hidden
Hidden Hidden
Hidden
Safety Operational Economic Safety Non-Safety
Level 2 Safety Operational Economic Safety Non-Safety
Is
Islubrication
lubricationor
orservicing
servicingtask
task
applicable
applicableand
andeffective
effective??
Lubrication/Servicing
Lubrication/Servicing
Yes No
Is
Isan
aninspection
inspectionororfunctional
functional
check
checkto todetect
detectdegradation
degradationofof
function
functionapplicable
applicableand
andeffective
effective??
Inspection/Functional
Inspection/FunctionalCheck
Check Yes No
Is
Isrestoration
restorationtask
taskto
toreduce
reduce
failure
failurerate
rateapplicable
applicableand
andeffective?
effective?
Restoration
Restoration No
Yes
Is
Isaadiscard
discardtask
tasktotoavoid
avoidfailures
failures
or
ortotoreduce
reducefailure
failurerate
rateapplicable
applicable
and
andeffective?
effective?
Discard
Discard
Yes No 5.
5. Mandatory
Mandatory
No 6.
Is
Isthere
thereaatask
taskor
orcombination
combinationofof
Re-design/
Re-design/ 6. Desirable
Desirable
tasks Modification 7.
7. Desirable
Desirable
tasksapplicable
applicableand
andeffective?
effective? Modification
8.
Task 8. Mandatory
Mandatory
Taskcombination
combination 9.
9. Desirable
Desirable
Yes
• If a task is assigned it will be incorporated in the Maintenance Program. The

RCB may decide that selected task type may not lead to economic savings. In
such instances unscheduled maintenance will be used to correct discrepancies.
Maintenance tasks inclusion or elimination from the Maintenance Program
through this process are approved by the RCB and does not require FAA
approval (This will only apply to MSG-3 category 6, 7, and 9).
System Reliability
Section 8 21
Summary
System Reliability is a holistic approach of

analyzing discrepancies / faults for MSG-3
based Maintenance Programs. The system
reliability focuses on the consequences of
functional failure and determines corrective
action based on airworthiness and
economics.
System Reliability
Section 8 22
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. System_Reliability.ppt | 23

BOEING PROPRIETARY
System Reliability
Section 8 23
Component
Reliability
Presented by: Bill Kulungian
Section 9 1
Enhancing Your Component Reliability
Program
Overview
Program Development
Data Analysis
During the Overview Section we will begin by defining what we mean by component reliability,
explore some reasons to have a component reliability program and select a strategy to begin a
component reliability program. We will conclude with a discussion on current operator practices and
future developments.
In the Program Development Section we will build a component reliability program together. We will
start with Data Elements, we’ll look at Data Sources, and Reliability Calculations. We will examine
the process of Data Reporting which incorporates all previously discussed elements of program
development. Program development is very useful to new operators or operators beginning their own
reliability programs. For operators that have an existing component reliability program discussions are
provided that can lead to cost saving enhancements.
In the Data Analysis Section we will analyze actual operator component removal data. We will work
together as reliability analysts and look at some techniques to identify areas of opportunity. We will
also look at the Digital Flight Guidance Computer that Coralee passed to us in her Dispatch Reliability
Presentation.
Section 9 2
Component Reliability is the Statistical
Measurement of a Component’s Performance in
Hours or Cycles
Program Objective:
Set Standards 6000
5000
Evaluate Performance 4000
MTBUR
3000
Identify Trends 2000
1000
Take Action/Monitor 0
Optimize Utilization/
Reduce Costs
Component reliability is defined as the statistical measurement of a components performance

expressed in hours or cycles.
The objective of a component reliability program is to set standards, evaluate performance, identify
trends, take corrective action and continuously monitor performance. The results are to insure optimum
aircraft utilization, and reduce maintenance costs.
Section 9 3
Reasons for Tracking Component
Reliability
Most
Most civil
civil
authorities
authorities
require
require airline
airline Operators
Operators that
that maintain
maintain and
and
operators
operators to to utilize
utilize a
a component
component
maintain
maintain a a reliability
reliability program
program obtain
obtain
reliability
reliability benefits
benefits such
such as:
as:
program.
program. •• The
The ability
ability to
to identify
identify poor
poor
component
component performance
performance
•• Repetitive
Repetitive aircraft
aircraft problems
problems
•• Improper
Improper bench
bench procedures
procedures
•• Maintenance
Maintenance training
training
deficiencies
deficiencies
4
Section 9 4
Steps to Developing a Component
Reliability Program
Identify
Identify
component
component
data
data
elements
elements to to
be
be collected
collected
Identify
Identify
component
component
data
data sources
sources
Establish
Establish aa
system
system toto
collect,
collect,
analyze
analyze and
and
report
report the
the data
data
5
Section 9 5
Where the Industry is Heading in the Area
of Component Reliability
Current Reporting Practices
•Reporting
•Reporting unscheduled
unscheduled
removals
removals only
only
•Reporting
•Reporting all
all types
types of
of
removals
removals and
and limited
limited shop
shop
findings
findings Future Industry Practices
•Reporting
•Reporting all
all types
types of
of •Use
•Use of
of bar
bar code
code
removals and full shop
removals and full shop •Use
•Use of
of RFID
RFID (Radio
(Radio
findings
findings Frequency Identification)
Frequency Identification)
•Reporting
•Reporting all
all types
types of
of
findings
findings economically
economically
•Electronic
•Electronic data
data transfer
transfer
•Internet
•Internet access
access
6
We see three levels of detail being reported by operators in the industry today.
• 1st LEVEL
Operators track and report Unscheduled Removals. Most operators report this minimum level.
• 2nd LEVEL
Operators track all types of removals (unscheduled, scheduled, convenience etc...) plus report shop
findings. Shop findings might include a one-character field for confirmed failure, Y or N. Fewer
operators report at this level.
• 3rd LEVEL
Operators track all types of removals and shop findings. Shop findings include maintenance narrative
of repairs performed and part numbers of shop replaceable items replaced internally to the line
replaceable unit.
Section 9 6
Program
Overview
Program Development
In the Program Development Section we will build a component reliability program together. We will
start with Data Elements, we’ll look at Data Sources, and Reliability Calculations. We will examine
the process of Data Reporting which incorporates all previously discussed elements of program
development. Program development is very useful to new operators or operators beginning their own
reliability programs. For operators that have an existing component reliability program discussions are
provided that can lead to cost saving enhancements.
Section 9 7
Identifying Component Reliability Data
Elements
•• Airplane
AirplaneIdentification
Identification
•• Manufacturer’s
Manufacturer’sPartPartNumber
Number
•• Operator’s
Operator’s ComponentIdentification
Component
Data Identification
Elements •• ATA
ATANumber
Number
•• Manufacturer's
Manufacturer'sSerial
SerialNumber
Number
•• Station
Station
•• Date
DateRemoved
Removed
•• Time
Time SinceInstallation
Since Installation
•• Part
PartPosition
Position
•• Reason
ReasonforforRemoval
Removal
Additional •• Shop
ShopCompletion
CompletionDate
Date
Shop Data •• Justified
JustifiedRemoval
Removal
Elements •• Shop
ShopAction
Action
8
• AIRPLANE IDENTIFICATION - Operator’s tail number or fuselage number
• MANUFACTURER’S PART NUMBER - Part number assigned by the component manufacturer

• OPERATOR’S COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION - Internal airline code which identifies components
• ATA NUMBER - Air Transport Association Specification 100 system identifier
• MANUFACTURER’S SERIAL NUMBER - Serial number assigned by the Component Manufacturer or operator-
assigned unique component serial number
• STATION - Station at which component was removed
• DATE REMOVED - The date on which the component was removed from the aircraft
• TSI - The time accumulated on the component since installation
• PART POSITION - Position of the part on an aircraft at the time of removal
• REASON FOR REMOVAL - The maintenance narrative or code describing the reasons for the removal of an item.
Some reasons for removal are: Unscheduled, Scheduled, Convenience, Modification, Pool loan, Other
• SHOP COMPLETION DATE - The date of final disposition
• JUSTIFIED REMOVAL - Yes or No. A removal where a defect or failure is found, irrespective of whether or not
the defect or failure substantiates the reason for removal.
• SHOP ACTION - The maintenance narrative or code describing the action taken to make the component
serviceable. Some action taken categories are: Check, Adjustment, Modification, Overhaul, Repair, Service, Other
Section 9 8
Locating Component Reliability Data
Sources
Airplane Log Book Serviceable Part Tag
SERVICEABLE UNIT UNIT REMOVED
OPCID S/N OPCID S/N
MFG P/N MFG S/N MFG P/N MFG S/N
PART NAME AC # POS.
MO. DAY YEAR STA
AFTER FLT# TIME (24 HR)
REMOVED BY: EMP #
REASON FOR REMOVAL

MADE SERVICEABLE & TSO
ENTER PILOT REPORT (VERBATIM IF APPLICABLE)
SHOP RECORDS COMPLETED BY:
SHOP
WO#
MO. DAY YEAR STA
ROBBED RETURN TO STOCK
A/C REMOVED
ENGINE POSITION
OR APU #
UNIT INSTALLED
AC # POSITION
INSTALLED BY: EMP # DELAY PILOT REPORT MAINTENANCE
Part History Card Online Transaction

OPCID IC SERIAL# MFGS/N MANUFACTURER'SPART# LIMIT HC TSO LSO
INSTALLED DATEREMOVED ACFT POSITIONONA/C POSITIONONASSEMBLY SHOP DUEDATE
REMOVALCODE DSI PARTNAME
REASONFORREMOVAL A. DAMAGEDBYMISHANDLING F. CLEANED

B. FAILEDINCOMINGTESTS G. ADJUSTED/CALIBRATED
C. PASSEDINCOMINGTESTS H. REPLACEDPARTS
D. BEYONDECONOMICALREPAIR I. CHECKEDHISTORY
E. ENVIRONMENTALLYTESTED J. FINALTEST
LABOR OVERHAULED SHOPFINDINGS

UNJUSTIFIED EO/EA
JUSTIFIED
YES NO
MECHANICSIGNATURE SERVICEABLEDATE
Section 9 9
Additional Data Elements to Include on
Your Serviceable Part Tag
Example: Serviceable Part Tag
SERVICEABLE UNIT UNIT REMOVED
OPCID S/N OPCID S/N
MFG P/N MFG S/N MFG P/N MFG S/N
PART NAME AC # POS.
MO. DAY YEAR STA
REMOVED BY: EMP #
REASON FOR REMOVAL

MADE SERVICEABLE & TSO
ENTER PILOT REPORT (VERBATIM IF APPLICABLE)
SHOP RECORDS COMPLETED BY:
SHOP
WO#
MO. DAY YEAR STA
ROBBED RETURN TO STOCK
A/C REMOVED
ENGINE POSITION
OR APU #
UNIT INSTALLED
AC # POSITION

10
INSTALLED BY: EMP # DELAY PILOT REPORT MAINTENANCE
10
The serviceable part tag is a multi-copy multi-use form consisting of one to three copies
attached to a stiffer backing card. The tag contains a section for serviceable information and a
section for unserviceable information. The tag is attached to a serviceable or unserviceable line
replaceable unit (LRU).
When only the serviceable portion of the tag is filled out the tag identifies a unit that is
airworhty and acceptable for installation on an airplane. Three conditions must be met:
•The serial number on the serviceable tag must match the serial number on the unit
•The unserviceable portion must not be filled out
•A certified mechanic’s signature certifies airworthiness
When the unserviceable portion of the tag is filled out the unit is not acceptable for installation
on an airplane. This occurs when the component has been removed from service. The
unserviceable portion of the tag contains removal information about the unit coming off and
about the airplane from which the component was removed. The serviceable portion of the tag
describes the unit that was installed. The serial number of the unit matches the unserviceable
portion of the tag but not the serviceable portion.
Section 9 10
Part History Card Retained as a Permanent
Record of Repairs Made on the Component
Example: Part History Card
OPCID IC SERIAL # MFG S/N MANUFACTURER'S PART # LIMIT HC TSO LSO
INSTALLED DATE REMOVED ACFT POSITION ON A/C POSITION ON ASSEMBLY SHOP DUE DATE
REMOVAL CODE DSI PART NAME
REASON FOR REMOVAL A. DAMAGED BY MISHANDLING F. CLEANED

B. FAILED INCOMING TESTS G. ADJUSTED/CALIBRATED
C. PASSED INCOMING TESTS H. REPLACED PARTS
D. BEYOND ECONOMICAL REPAIR I. CHECKED HISTORY
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY TESTED J. FINAL TEST
LABOR OVERHAULED SHOP FINDINGS

UNJUSTIFIED EO/EA
JUSTIFIED
YES NO
MECHANIC SIGNATURE SERVICEABLE DATE
11
The part history card is retained by the operator as a permanent record of work accomplished on the
component.
Section 9 11
Typical Repair Cycle for Unserviceable
Components
Maintenance Records
UNSERVICEABLE HISTORY CARD SERVICEABLE

TAG TAG
Control Center
Outside
OutsideRepair
Repair
Electric
ElectricShop
Shop
Important!
Removed Instrument Parts
Perform Instrumentshop
shop
Part Depot
Data
Verification Engine
EngineShop
Shop
Unserviceable Component is
Accessory
AccessoryShop
Shop Ready for Issue
Component
Removal Shop
Information Findings
12
The Repair Cycle is the time span that begins when an unserviceable component is removed from the airplane
and ends when the unit is made airworhty and ready to re-install into the airplane. Factors that influence the
repair cycle are: the time for an unserviceable part to be returned from outlying stations, in-house shop repair
time, outside vendor repair time, transportation time, and wait time. Efforts to reduce the repair cycle time will
result in cost savings of spares, AOG ordering and loan/borrow charges.
Unserviceable parts are routed to the control center located at the main base in close proximity to the operator’s
repair shops. The Control Center verifies the information on the serviceable part tag and forwards the top copy
to the Maintenance Records department. Verification of data elements prior to data entry is highly
recommended. The Maintenance Records department records the removal and installation event to maintain
current airplane configuration.
The unserviceable part is sent to the in-house repair shop or to the outside vendor for repair or overhaul. Shop
findings are forwarded to the maintenance records department for retention. A new serviceable part tag is
generated and attached to the component.
Data quality - the Control Center must properly verify the information . This means removing oil, dirt,
grease,etc.... to properly verify component information. Automated systems should implement valid checks on
key fields to ensure data quality.
Data security - Operators with automated computing systems should implement security. This includes
protecting the data with periodic backup copies, as well as restricting write access to those within the reliability
department. Read access should be granted to related disciplines such as maintenance engineering, production
control,etc...
Section 9 12
Evaluating Component Performance
6000
5000
4000
M TBUR
3000
2000
Reliability
Calculations
1000
0
13
Once we have defined the data sources and created a mechanism for collecting and
maintaining the integrity of the data, we can begin to evaluate component
performance.
We measure a component’s performance in hours or cycles based on the flight

hours or cycles of the airplane.
If there are multiple like units installed on an airplane the units together
accumulate more hours than the airplane. For example, if there are three fans on an
airplane and the airplane flies 1,000 hours, then the three fans altogether have
accumulated 3,000 unit hours or 1,000 hours each.
Section 9 13
The Four Most Commonly Used Reliability
Calculations in the Industry
MTBR
MTBR Mean Time Between
Removals
MTBUR Mean Time Between

MTBUR Unscheduled Removals
URR
URR Unscheduled Removal
Rate
Mean Time
MTBF
MTBF Between
Failure
14
Section 9 14
Assumption for Component Reliability
Calculations
Assume:
Fleet Size …………………………… 74 Airplanes
Fleet Hours in the Period……....... 151,799 Hours
Component........................…..……. Cabin Pressure Controller
Quantity Per Aircraft (QPA)........... 2
Removal Types Shop Findings
Unscheduled Removals 47 Failures 21
Scheduled Removals 6 No Fault Found 34
Precautionary 2
Total 55 Total 55
15
Section 9 15
Calculating MTBR
Removal Types Assumption:

Unscheduled Removals 47 74 Airplanes
151,799 HRS/Year
Scheduled Removals 6 Cabin Pressure Controller
QPA=2
Precautionary 2
Total 55
MTBR = Fleet Flying Hours X QPA

Total Number of Removals
151,799 X 2 5,520 Hours

MTBR =
55
16
Mean Time Between Removals considers all types of removals including removals for planned
activities, modifications, convenience, and all other reasons. Its measure is a reflection of the total cost
associated with all activities centered around removing a component from the airplane.
Section 9 16
Calculating MTBUR
Removal Types
Assumption:
47 74 Airplanes
Scheduled Removals 6 151,799 HRS/Year
Cabin Pressure Controller
Precautionary 2 QPA=2
Total 55
Fleet Flying Hours X QPA

MTBUR =
151,799 X 2
MTBUR = = 6,460 Hours
47
17
Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removals considers only unscheduled removals.
Section 9 17
Calculating URR
Removal Types Assumption:

Unscheduled Removals 47 74 Airplanes
Scheduled Removals 6 151,799 HRS/Year
Cabin Pressure Controller
Precautionary 2 QPA=2
Total 55
URR = 1,000 X Unscheduled Removals

Flight Hours X QPA
1,000 X 47
URR = 151,799 X 2 = 0.155
.
18
The Unscheduled Removal Rate is expressed as a rate per 1000 hours.
There is an inverse relationship between the MTBUR and the URR.
1,000
URR = -----------
MTBUR
1,000
MTBUR = -----------
URR
Section 9 18
Calculating MTBF
Assumption: Shop Findings

74 Airplanes Failed Functional Test
21
151,799 HRS/Year
Cabin Pressure Controller No Fault Found 34
QPA=2
Total 55
MTBF = Fleet Flying Hours X QPA

Failures
MTBF = 151,799 X 2 = 14,457 Hours

21
19
To calculate Mean Time Between Failures the operator must track shop findings.
Section 9 19
Commonly Used Alert Calculation
6000
5000
4000 Alert
M TBUR
3000
Level
2000
1000
0
20
Operators set reliability standards or limits which will depict their particular operation. This is done by
taking a years worth of reliability data to determine a performance level for each component. With the
use of the Standard Deviation method we can set an operational tolerance which if exceeded, will
trigger an alert for us to investigate.
There are many methods of setting alerts. Some airlines set a standard for a component that is adjusted
quarterly, semi- annually or annually. Whatever method is in use, its purpose is to cause us to take
notice that reliability is degrading and to investigate the cause.
Section 9 20
Mean + 2 Standard Deviations
Removal Rates
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP O C T NO V DEC SUM AVERAGE
0.25 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.20 0.28 0.19 0.20 2.86 2.86/ 12 =0.24
MONTH-AVG
DIFFERENCE
MONTH DIFFERENCE SQUARED Average = 0.0132/12 = 0.0011
JAN
JAN 0.25-0.24
0.25-0.24 0.01
0.01 0.0001
FEB 0.27-0.24 0.03
FEB 0.27-0.24 0.03 0.0009 Standard Deviation: = AVERAGE
MAR
MAR 0.27-0.24
0.27-0.24 0.03
0.03 0.0009
APR 0.29-0.24 0.05 0.0025 = 0.0011 = 0.033
APR 0.29-0.24 0.05
MAY
MAY0.23-0.24
0.23-0.24-0.01
-0.01 0.0001
JUN 0.22-0.24 -0.02 1 Deviation = 0.033
JUN 0.22-0.24 -0.02 0.0004
2 Deviations = 0.066
JUL 0.21-0.24
JUL 0.21-0.24-0.03
-0.03 0.0009
AUG
AUG 0.25-0.24
0.25-0.24 0.01
0.01 0.0001 New Alert
SEP 0.20-0.24 -0.04
SEP 0.20-0.24 -0.04 0.0016
OCT
Mean + 2 STD DEV
OCT0.28-0.24
0.28-0.24 0.04
0.04 0.0016
NOV 0.19-0.24 -0.05 = 0.24 + 0.07
NOV 0.19-0.24 -0.05 0.0025
DEC
DEC 0.20-0.24
0.20-0.24-0.04
-0.04 0.0016 New Alert = 0.31
21
Sum = 0.0132
Section 9 21
Operator Component Reliability Report
Expressed in Rates
28/07/99 REHIST
MONTHLY COMPONENT REMOVALS
TYP: AIRLINE: XX PAGE: 1
ENS/ ATA IDN PART NR. QTY JUL - JUN JAN - JUN APR - JUN APR MAY JUN
SHOP LCD PART NAME UA RC 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99
FH 141819 74198 38762 13015 13009 12648
AC 28896 14666 7751 2624 2562 2565
NBR RATE NBR RATE NBR RATENBR RATE NBR RATE NBR RATE
KLM 2108 485070 4059023-904 001 TOT 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
CONTROLLER ESC CM 3 USR 2 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
TAEA 2108 485503 4059023-903 001 TOT 24 0.17 12 0.16 5 0.13 3 0.23 1 0.08 1 0.08
CONTROLLER ESC CM 3 USR 21 0.15 11 0.15 5 0.13 3 0.23 1 0.08 1 0.08
KLM 2108 465752 605457-8 004 TOT 9 0.02 3 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00
FAN GASPER AIR CM 3 USR 9 0.02 3 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00
TAEM 2122 474645 P012583 007 TOT 20 0.02 13 0.03 5 0.02 1 0.01 2 0.02 2 0.02
SWITCH ASSY-FLOW CM 2 USR 18 0.02 11 0.02 5 0.02 1 0.01 2 0.02 2 0.02
TAEM 2122 474654 3920-1 006 TOT 5 0.01 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
OUTLET CM 1 USR 5 0.01 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
KLM 2123 740000 898396-3 002 TOT 9 0.03 2 0.01 2 0.03 1 0.04 1 0.04 0 0.00
VALVE PRESS REGULATOR OC 2 USR 9 0.03 2 0.01 0 0.03 1 0.04 1 0.04 0 0.00
TAEM 2124 474584 29680 000 TOT 62 0.15 43 0.21 30 0.28 5 0.14 7 0.20 18 0.53
FAN MAIN AVIONICS COOLING HT 3 USR 7 0.02 6 0.03 4 0.04 2 0.06 1 0.03 1 0.03
TAEM 2126 758240 ABM7290-1 001 TOT 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
VALVE ASSY-INS COOLING CM 2 USR 1 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
TAEM 2127 770460 72D54 001 TOT 10 0.07 1 0.01 1 0.03 0 0.00 1 0.08 0 0.00
VALVE PRESS REGULATOR HT 1 USR 6 0.04 1 0.01 1 0.03 0 0.00 1 0.08 0 0.00
TAEM 2128 474986 034964 000 TOT 98 0.14 60 0.16 47 0.25 10 0.16 17 0.27 20 0.32
FAN COOLING/HEATING HT 3 USR 17 0.02 8 0.02 5 0.03 0 0.00 3 0.05 2 0.03
TAEM 2131 471252 2740156-1 001 TOT 5 0.04 1 0.01 1 0.03 0 0.00 1 0.08 0 0.00
ACTUATOR OUTFLOW VALVE CM 1 USR 5 0.04 1 0.01 1 0.03 0 0.00 1 0.08 0 0.00
22
Monthly reports are published for each airplane fleet type. The purpose of the report is to provide airline
management and local civil authorities with a summary of fleet reliability for the time period under
review. The format compares current information with performance of previous reporting periods.
This operator’s reliability report expressed in rates calculates the performance of the last 12 months in 12-
month, 6-month, and 3-month increments up to the latest period and also shows the last three months
individually.
Section 9 22
Operator Component Reliability Report
Expressed in Whole Numbers
MD-80 PERFORMANCE TREND OF COMPONENTS

ATA 77 - ENGINE INDICATING PERIOD JUL96-JUN97 JUL97-JUN98 JUL98-JUN99
DENOMINATION I/N QTY UR MTBUR UR MTBUR UR MTBUR MAINT UM ALERT

MAIN P/N J MTBF J MTBF J MTBF PROC
TACHOMETER GENERATOR 687703 5 37 16918 35 20548 42 19083 8000 H

2CM9ABH7 34 18411 34 21152 29 27261
INDICATOR-TACHOMETER 697704 4 0 0 0 5000 H

8DJ81LXF2 0
N1 INDICATOR 697708 2 15 18086 31 9374 33 10440

8DJ81WCW4 15 18086 31 9374 33 10440
INDICATOR 697709 2 18 15428 20 14720 37 9637

8DJ81WCT4UMODU 18 15428 20 14720 37 9637
EPR INDICATOR 697710 2 72 3756 60 4697 73 4296

2E+06 58 4662 53 5317 61 5110
EPR TRANSMITTER MD80 AA/CC 697711 2 38 7327 22 13510 27 13391

LG80E1 14 19889 6 49538 10 36155
EGT INDICATOR
12451410INDICATOR
697712 2 0
0
0
0
0
0
ALERT
EGT INDICATOR 697713 2 16 14782 14 16511 23 12556
12451412 12 19709 8 28894 14 20280
EGT INDICATOR MD-80 A/C 697718 2 1 58383 7 11224 14 9104 ∗

12412741 1 58383 5 15714 5 25041 *
23
Monthly reports are published for each airplane fleet type. The purpose of the report is to provide
airline management and local civil authorities with a summary of fleet reliability for period under
review.
This format compares current information with performance of previous reporting periods.
Section 9 23
Boeing Generated Fleet Reliability Report
Report No. LGMD-250 PAGE 4

THE BOEING COMPANY
COMPONENT REMOVAL SUMMARY
ATA / MCL RANKING
07/01/1999 THROUGH 06/30/2000
* * * * * * * * * * * REPORTING FLEET STATISTICS * * * * * * * * * * *
ATA/MCL 12 MONTHS PCT 3 MONTHS PCT 12 MONTHS PCT 12 MONTHS PCT

NUMBER NOM E NCLA TURE MTBUR FLEET MTBUR FLEET MTBR FLEET MTBF FLEET
221901 ACCELEROMETER,DUAL 3-AXIS 28,978 39 43,291 38 24,838 39 97,834 12
221902 ACCELEROMETER,DUAL LATERAL 104,062 30 116,089 29 93,656 30 119,657 4
222102 ACTUATOR,YAW DAMPER 17,060 40 16,579 40 12,752 40 23,542 13
222201 ACTUATOR,MACH TRIM 48,213 40 105,002 40 22,792 40 97,834 12
223101 SERVO,AUTOTHROTTLE 10,272 39 9,355 39 9,268 39 20,597 12
231101 TRANSCEIVER,HIGH FREQUENCY 27,764 9 75,658 10 23,136 9 103,938 7
231102 ADAPTER,HF 20,869 1 6,275 1 20,869 1 NODATA
231104 UNIT,LIGHTNING ARRESTOR AND RELAY 207,876 7 NODATA 207,876 7 207,876 7
231107 COUPLER,HF-ANTENNA 116,161 7 NODATA 116,161 7 207,876 7
232101 TRANSCEIVER,VHF 7,385 41 7,008 41 4,968 41 25,063 12
232102 PANEL,VHF COMM 5,507 41 6,185 41 4,066 41 4,403 7
232103 ANTENNA,VHF COMM 12,000 31 13,222 31 9,363 31 9,061 5
232106 PANEL,NAV/DME COMM CONTROL 24,445 1 17,348 1 24,445 1 NODATA
232201 DECODER,SELCAL 53,079 32 62,694 32 38,788 32 54,367 5
232202 PANEL,SELCAL CONTROL 33,793 31 22,037 31 10,769 31 16,310 5
232401 UNIT,ACARS MANAGEMENT 3,970 32 3,918 32 3,442 32 32,620 5
232402 CONTROL UNIT,ACARS 4,368 26 3,730 25 3,909 26 NODATA
232404 PRINTER,ACARS 2,047 32 2,162 31 1,843 32 163,100 5
233101 UNIT,PA RELAY & INTERLOCK 16,146 30 12,851 29 16,146 30 39,850 4
233102 AMPLIFIER,PASSENGER ADDRESS 2,805 39 2,597 39 2,661 39 4,882 13
**************************************************************
* THESE DATA SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIVE LEGEND ON THE TITLE OR FIRST PAGE *
**************************************************************
24
Boeing fleet reports are generated from operators providing component removal data electronically.
This report is now available to Boeing Field Service Representatives via the Boeing Intranet.
Section 9 24
Boeing Generated Fleet Reliability Report
777 UNSCHEDULED COMPONENT REMOVAL TRENDS 1997-1999 PAGE 1

SUMMARY REPORT
========= CURRENT YEAR 1999 ========= === CUMULATIVE 1997 THROUGH 1999 ===
A S N N O M E N C L A T U R E QPA REMS TESTD JREMS UNITHRS MTBUR EMTBF REMS TESTD JREMS UNITHRS MTBUR EMTBF
21-00-091-201 CARD, ECS MISC CONTROL 2 3 2 0 864918 288306 . 9 5 0 1217246 135250
.
21-25-210-391 FAN, ACOND UPPER RECIRCULATION 2 3 2 0 375800 125267 . 5 4 0 488832 97766
.
21-27-008-431 ACTR, EQPCL SMOKE CLEARANCE VALVE 1 0 0 0 43682 . . 0 0 0 52220 .
.
21-27-144-201 CONTROLLER, ELECT EQMT COOLING 1 3 0 0 445965 148655 . 8 4 0 731344 91418
.
21-27-168-011 DTCTR, EQPCL LOW FLOW / HIGH TEMP 2 0 0 0 193120 . . 0 0 0 289076 .
.
21-27-460-941 SENSOR, ELECT EQUIP COOLG PRES 4 2 2 0 386240 193120 . 6 5 0 619376 103229
.
21-27-576-093 VALVE, BCKUP CONVR COOLG CHECK 1 0 0 0 140242 . . 0 0 0 196758 .
.
21-27-576-852 VALVE, EQPCL SMOKE CLRNC OVRD 1 6 2 1 222144 37024 74048 7 3 1 278660 39809 19426
21-29-576-143 VALVE, LWRLB ATTND REST CAIR SOV 1 0 0 0 43682 . . 0 0 0 52220 .
.
21-31-008-561 ACTR, CABINPR OUTFLOW VALVE CON/U 2 2 0 0 916206 458103 . 19 3 0 1511060 79529
.
21-31-248-011 GEARBOX, CABPR OUTFL VALVE CONT/U 2 0 0 0 193120 . . 1 1 0 289076 289076
.
21-31-344-171 MOTOR, CABPR OUTFLOW VALVE CONT/U 4 17 1 0 680292 40017 . 35 16 0 944072 26973
25
Boeing fleet reports are generated from operators providing component removal data electronically.
This report is now available to Boeing Field Service Representatives via the Boeing Intranet.

for clear charts.
Section 9 25
Boeing Ranks Fleet MTBUR for Design
Improvements and Service Engineering
Information
Report No. LGMD-250 PAGE 1
THE BOEING COMPANY
COMPONENT REMOVAL SUMMARY
MTBUR RANKING
07/01/1999 THROUGH 06/30/2000
* * * * * * * * * * * REPORTING FLEET STATISTICS * * * * * * * * * * *
ATA/MCL 12 MONTHS PCT 3 MONTHS PCT 12 MONTHS PCT 12 MONTHS PCT

NUMBER NOM E NCLA TURE MTBUR FLEET MTBUR FLEET MTBR FLEET MTBF FLEET
*324201 WHEEL AND TIRE ASSY,NLG 159 55 145 54 120 55 149 13
*324101 WHEEL AND TIRE ASSY,MLG/CLG 222 55 207 54 170 55 231 13
233505 PROJECTOR,REAR SCREEN 1,040 5 749 5 1,011 5 NODATA
351101 CYLINDER,CREW OXYGEN 1,047 54 1,210 56 975 54 2,948 5
*324430 MANIFOLD ASSY,BRAKE SYSTEMS 1/2 2,114 16 1,336 16 1,762 16 NODATA
*324320 BRAKE ASSEMBLY,MLG/CLG 2,190 55 1,805 54 1,589 55 22,336 12
243402 BATTERY,NICKEL-CADMIUM 2,238 54 2,520 54 844 54 2,930 13
*255743 MOTOR,FORWARD LATERAL GUIDE 2,243 5 1,709 5 2,243 5 NODATA
*323801 CYLINDER ASSEMBLY,CLG RETRACT 2,441 6 1,677 5 2,441 6 NODATA
215405 COALESCER,CONICAL 2,950 5 8,983 5 546 5 NODATA
346301 COMPUTER,FLIGHT MANAGEMENT 2,980 54 3,160 54 2,671 54 6,770 13
220103 COMPUTER,FLIGHT CONTROL 3,287 54 2,928 54 3,037 54 39,266 13
*334101 LIGHT ASSY,FUSELAGE LANDING 3,456 38 3,513 37 3,336 38 14,470 11
*324604 TRANSDUCER,NLG TIRE PRESSURE 3,524 16 2,137 16 3,524 16 18,282 7
280801 CONTROLLER,FUEL SYSTEM 3,532 53 3,647 53 3,408 53 21,846 12
495101 VALVE,APU LOAD CONTROL 3,572 41 3,867 40 3,449 41 10,333 13
243403 CHARGER,BATTERY 3,576 53 3,687 54 3,045 53 14,765 12
232401 UNIT,ACARS MANAGEMENT 3,842 37 4,583 37 3,586 37 NODATA
*324603 TRANSDUCER,MLG/CLG TIRE PRESSURE 3,844 33 3,367 34 3,776 33 9,141 7
*783108 VALVE,DIRECTIONAL PILOT 3,959 29 5,762 29 3,167 29 29,316 8
**************************************************************
* THESE DATA SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIVE LEGEND ON THE TITLE OR FIRST PAGE *
************************************************************** 26
Boeing fleet ranking report generated from operators providing component removal data
electronically. The report is ranked by ascending MTBUR.
Section 9 26
Program
Overview
Program Development
Data Analysis
27
In the Data Analysis Section we will analyze actual operator component removal data. We will work
together as reliability analysts and look at some techniques to identify areas of opportunity. We will
also look at the Digital Flight Guidance Computer that Coralee passed to us in her Dispatch Reliability
Presentation.
Section 9 27
Techniques to Identify Areas of
Opportunity
Components Affecting Dispatch Reliability
Repair Procedures Components Exceeding Alert
Repeat Serial Numbers Station Problems
Airplane Problems No Fault Found
28
Most operators collect data and produce reports, but do they use the data to improve reliability?
Analysis is the process of evaluating mechanical performance data. The analysis process can identify a
need for program adjustment, revision of maintenance practices, improving hardware, or making
modifications.
Section 9 28
Sorting DFGC by Manufacturer’s Serial
Number
04/04/02 OPERATOR 22
SERIAL SORT COMPONENT DATABASE RETRIEVAL
DIGITAL FLIGHT GUIDANCE COMPUTER
MANUFACTURER'S MANUFACTURE'S REMOVAL JUST SHOP

SERIAL NUMBER FUSE NO. STA ATA PART NUMBER POS DATE REMOVAL ACTION
82009312 152 TUL 220101 4034241-971 2 03/05/02 N CHECKED
82113512 225 LAX 220101 4034241-970 2 03/20/02 N CHECKED
83090651 132 BOS 220101 4034241-970 1 03/16/02 Y REPAIRED
83100657 112 CPR 220101 4034241-970 2 03/25/02
83100660 116 LAX 220101 4034241-970 1 01/12/02 N CHECKED
83110636 147 YVR 220101 4034241-970 2 03/24/02 Y OVERHAUL
84060734 122 MSP 220101 4034241-971 1 03/12/02 Y REPAIRED
84065490 155 ABQ 220101 4034241-970 1 03/09/02 Y OVERHAUL
84080749 109 LAX 220101 4034241-971 1 01/06/02 N CHECKED
85115679 126 JFK 220101 4034241-971 1 01/23/02 Y OVERHAUL
85566852 124 DEN 220101 4034241-971 1 03/25/02 Y REPAIRED
85587113 143 ORD 220101 4034241-971 2 02/17/02 Y REPAIRED
85677823 113 YYC 220101 4034241-970 1 03/16/02 Y REPAIRED
29
Sorting component removal data by manufacturer’s serial number.
Section 9 29
Sorting DFGC by Fuselage Number
FUSE SORT COMPONENT DATABASE RETRIEVAL
FUSE MANUFACTURER'S MANUFACTURE'S REMOVAL JUST SHOP

NO. STA SERIAL NUMBER ATA PART NUMBER POS DATE REMOVAL ACTION
109 LAX 84080749 220101 4034241-971 1 01/06/02 N CHECKED
112 CPR 83100657 220101 4034241-970 2 03/25/02
113 YYC 85677823 220101 4034241-970 1 03/16/02 Y REPAIRED
116 LAX 83100660 220101 4034241-970 1 01/12/02 N CHECKED
122 MSP 84060734 220101 4034241-971 1 03/12/02 Y REPAIRED
124 DEN 85566852 220101 4034241-971 1 03/25/02 Y REPAIRED
126 JFK 85115679 220101 4034241-971 1 01/23/02 Y OVERHAUL
132 BOS 83090651 220101 4034241-970 1 03/16/02 Y REPAIRED
143 ORD 85587113 220101 4034241-971 2 02/17/02 Y REPAIRED
147 YVR 83110636 220101 4034241-970 2 03/24/02 Y OVERHAUL
152 TUL 82009312 220101 4034241-971 2 03/05/02 N CHECKED
155 ABQ 84065490 220101 4034241-970 1 03/09/02 Y OVERHAUL
225 LAX 82113512 220101 4034241-970 2 03/20/02 N CHECKED
30
Sorting component removal data by manufacturer’s fuselage number.
Section 9 30
Sorting DFGC by Station
STATION SORT COMPONENT DATABASE RETRIEVAL
MANUFACTURER'S MANUFACTURE'S FUSE REMOVAL JUST SHOP

STA SERIAL NUMBER ATA PART NUMBER NO. POS DATE REMOVAL ACTION
ABQ 84065490 220101 4034241-970 155 1 03/09/02 Y OVERHAUL
BOS 83090651 220101 4034241-970 132 1 03/16/02 Y REPAIRED
CPR 83100657 220101 4034241-970 112 2 03/25/02
DEN 85566852 220101 4034241-971 124 1 03/25/02 Y REPAIRED
JFK 85115679 220101 4034241-971 126 1 01/23/02 Y OVERHAUL
LAX 82113512 220101 4034241-970 225 2 03/20/02 N CHECKED
LAX 83100660 220101 4034241-970 116 1 01/12/02 N CHECKED
LAX 84080749 220101 4034241-971 109 1 01/06/02 N CHECKED
MSP 84060734 220101 4034241-971 122 1 03/12/02 Y REPAIRED
ORD 85587113 220101 4034241-971 143 2 02/17/02 Y REPAIRED
TUL 82009312 220101 4034241-971 152 2 03/05/02 N CHECKED
YVR 83110636 220101 4034241-970 147 2 03/24/02 Y OVERHAUL
YYC 85677823 220101 4034241-970 113 1 03/16/02 Y REPAIRED
31
Sorting component removal data by station.
Section 9 31
Sorting Weather Radar R/T Unit by Serial
Number
SERIAL SORT COMPONENT DATABASE RETRIEVAL
WEATHER RADAR R/T UNIT
MANUFACTURER'S MANUFACTURE'S FUSE REMOVAL JUST SHOP

SERIAL NUMBER STA ATA PART NUMBER NO. POS DATE REMOVAL ACTION
2064 MSP 344101 622-5132-101 112 1 01/03/02 Y REPAIRED
2463 ORD 344101 622-5132-002 116 1 02/03/02 N CHECKED
2806 PDX 344101 622-5132-002 133 1 02/01/02 Y REPAIRED
2806 LAS 344101 622-5132-002 109 1 02/12/02 Y REPAIRED
2806 LAX 344101 622-5132-002 165 1 02/27/02 Y REPAIRED
3844 TUL 344101 622-5132-101 154 1 03/17/02 N CHECKED
3877 DAL 344101 622-5132-002 116 1 02/01/02 Y REPAIRED
3899 BNA 344101 622-5132-002 117 1 02/12/02 N CHECKED
4336 MIA 344101 622-5132-101 154 1 02/27/02 N CHECKED
4478 BOS 344101 622-5132-002 133 1 02/12/02 N CHECKED
4606 JFK 344101 622-5132-002 119 1 02/28/02 Y REPAIRED
5886 LAX 344101 622-5132-101 154 1 01/22/02 Y REPAIRED
32
Sorting component removal data by manufacturer’s serial number.
Section 9 32
Sorting Stall Warning Computer by
Fuselage Number
FUSE SORT COMPONENT DATABASE RETRIEVAL
STALL WARNING COMPUTER
FUSE MANUFACTURER'S MANUFACTURE'S REMOVAL JUST SHOP

NO. SERIAL NUMBER STA ATA PART NUMBER POS DATE REMOVAL ACTION
118 661 MSP 341901 965-0449-001 2 03/30/02 Y REPAIRED
123 2217 LAX 341901 965-0449-001 1 01/21/02 N CHECKED
123 2157 LAS 341901 965-0449-001 1 01/21/02 N CHECKED
123 313 PDX 341901 965-0449-001 1 02/23/02 N CHECKED
123 5518 ORD 341901 965-0449-001 1 03/06/02 N CHECKED
127 6619 SEA 341901 965-0449-001 2 03/30/02 Y OVERHAUL
133 2219 TUL 341901 965-0449-001 1 03/21/02 N CHECKED
134 5217 DFW 341901 965-0449-001 2 03/11/02 Y REPAIRED
148 2513 PDX 341901 965-0449-001 2 01/25/02 Y REPAIRED
154 2816 ATL 341901 965-0449-001 1 02/22/02 Y MODIFIED
155 5666 DEN 341901 965-0449-001 1 03/10/02 Y OVERHAUL
157 4436 ORD 341901 965-0449-001 2 01/09/02 N CHECKED
33
Sorting component removal data by fuselage number.
Section 9 33
Boeing Provides In-Depth Analysis to
Airline Customers
PERFORMANCE OF LAST 3 YEARS
2,500
2,000
MTBUR (Hours)
1,373 1,457
1,500
1,020
1,000
500
0
9604-9703 9704-9803 9804-9903
XX REPORTING FLEET EXCLUDING XX LOWEST OPERA TOR EXCLUDING XX HIGHEST OPERATOR EXCLUDING XX
ANALYSIS OF LAST 12 MONTHS

70 AIRPL
239 Total Removals T A IL F US E R E M O V A LS S H O P F IN D IN G
NUMBER OF UNITS REMOVE
60
REM OV AL TYPE INSTALLED DURATIONS XX20 X41 13 UNSCHED 8 CF - 5 NFF
50 (SCA LE IS NONLINEAR A FTER 1,000 HOURS)
40 XX50 X17 5 UNSCHED 4 NFF
Uns che dule d
92% SHOP FINDINGS FOR XX29 X04 6 UNSCHED 2 CF - 4 NFF
UNSCHEDULED 30
REM OV ALS
20
TOP FAILING UNITS:
10 S/N R E M O V A LS A VG T SI
CF 468 3 UR ALL FAILURES 460
Convenience 46% 0
0 -1 0 0 201- 401- 601- 801- 1001- 3001- 5001-
6% 299 499 699 899 1999 3999 5999
N FF TIM E SINCE INSTALLATION RANGE (HOURS)

45%
35 UNSCHEDULED REM OV ALS UNDER 100 HRS TSI ARE CONFIRM ED FAILURES
34
Section 9 34
Analysis is Just the Beginning
Set
Standards
Evaluate Optimize
Performance Utilization/
Reduce Cost
Identify Take Action/

Trends Monitor
35
Once we identify an area of opportunity we must communicate that information to

engineering, then make the necessary changes and continue to monitor. This is an
ongoing process that enables the operator to optimize airplane utilization and
reduce costs.
Section 9 35
Summary
Consider additional data elements to enhance your data

base
Warranty Flag
Log Sequence Number
Review your component repair cycle to reduce span time

and cost
Contact field service representatives for current on-line
component reliability data
Anticipate changes to this area of the industry
Bar code
RFID
Electronic data transfers
Internet access
36
Section 9 36
BOEING PROPRIETARY

08_Component_Reliability.ppt | 37
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Section 9 37
INTRODUCTION TO
POWERPLANT RELIABILITY
AARON FISHER
PRATT & WHITNEY CUSTOMER TRAINING
PREPARED FOR THE MARCH 2006

MAINTENANCE RELIABILITY & COST ANALYSIS SEMINAR
FOR MAR 2006 MR&CA SEMINAR ONLY

AARON FISHER, PRATT & WHITNEY, MARCH 2006
1
Powerplant Reliability
Section 10 1
AN INTRODUCTION TO
POWERPLANT RELIABILITY
OBJECTIVES …………………………………………………………..…………………….. P 03
GOALS OF POWERPLANT RELIABILITY…………………………………….…………. P 04
ON-CONDITION MANAGEMENT - DISCRETE ………………………………………… P 07
ON-CONDITION MANAGEMENT – CONTINUOUS …………………………………….. P 08
KEY REQUIREMENTS FOR ECM AND EXAMPLES …………………………………... P 09
ETOPS REQUIREMENTS …………………………………………………………………. P 41
COST OF OPERATIONS …………………………………………………………………… P 44
VARIABLE COST DRIVERS ……………………………………………………………….. P 45
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT - CRITERIA …………………………………………… P 54
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT - SOFT TIME …………………………………... ……. P 55
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT - SUMMARY ….…………………………………….. P 59
CONTACT INFORMATION ………………………………………………………………… P 60

2
© COPYRIGHT 2002 All Rights Reserved.
PRATT & WHITNEY

COMMERCIAL ENGINES & SERVICES
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
THIS PUBLICATION IS ISSUED BY THE CUSTOMER TRAINING

CENTER, COMMERCIAL ENGINES & SERVICES, PRATT & WHITNEY,
EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, U.S.A.
THE INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS IN THIS PUBLICATION ARE
FOR GENERAL TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT REPLACE
OR SUPERSEDE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
APPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE OR ENGINE MANUALS OR OTHER
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS.
Section 10 2
OBJECTIVES
WE PLAN TO COVER THESE AREAS IN THIS SESSION:
1. IDENTIFY THE THREE ENGINE RELATED VARIABLE COST DRIVERS THAT AFFECT AN AIRLINE’S
TOTAL OPERATING COST
2. IDENTIFY THE THREE (3) CRITERIA USED TO MANAGE ENGINES
3. LIST THE FOUR (4) MAJOR ENGINE PARAMETERS THAT ARE MONITORED FOR TRENDS
4. EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENGINE PARAMETER LEVELS AND PARAMETER SHIFTS
5. STATE THE NEED TO DEVELOP SEVERAL ENGINE WORKSCOPE PLANS TO OPTIMIZE

WORKSCOPE MAINTENANCE ACTIONS
6. IDENTIFY TEN WATCH LISTS USED BY THE ENGINE MAINTENANCE PLANNING TEAM
7. LIST THREE (3) REQUIREMENTS FOR ETOPS ~

3
INTRODUCTION:
z This section gives an overview of Powerplant Reliability. It is derived from these P&W Customer
Training courses: Introduction to Engine Fleet Management, Engine Condition Monitoring II (ECM
II), and P&W EHM. It is intended for Reliability Analysts, Engine Maintenance personnel,
Workscope and Removal Planners, Powerplant Engineers, and Fleet Managers.
.
Section 10 3
The Powerplant Is the Single Most
Expensive Component Which Affects the
Airworthiness of the Airplane
z One Goal of
Powerplant
$
Reliability is to
decrease costs
through management.
Engine Fleet
Management Criteria
On-Condition
Maintenance
~
4
Section 10 4
A 2nd Goal of Powerplant Reliability Is to
Leave Engines on the Airplane As Long As
It Is Safe and Economical. (As Long As
Possible?)
z Minimize
IFSDs
Aborted take-off’s
Air turn backs
Flight diversions
D&Cs
UERs
FOD damage, etc

5
z Engine In-flight Shutdown (IFSD)

z An engine shutdown which occurs at any time an airplane is airborne or has been committed to becoming
airborne other than training.
z IFSD Rate = No. Of Engine Shutdowns X 1000
No. Of Engine Flight Hours
z Aborted Take-offs (ATO)
z An event that stops a planned Take-off after take-off power has been commanded by the crew and prior to
airplane liftoff.
z Air Turn Back (ATB)
z An event that requires returning to the departure airport after take-off.
z Flight Diversion (FLT-DIV)
z An event that requires the airplane to divert to an airport other than the planned destination airport.
z Delays & Cancellations (D&C)
z An Event that requires a departure delay of greater than 15 minutes or to cancel the flight entirely.
z Unscheduled Engine Removal (UER)
z Removal of an engine that is considered incapable of continued operation excluding convenience,
preventive maintenance and scheduled removal. Some airlines vary from this definition of unscheduled.
z Foreign Object Debris (FOD) damage
z Damage to the aircraft or engine due to impact or ingestion of rubbish.
Section 10 5
GOALS:
1. Optimize Engine Maintenance Cost (MC)
2. Improve Engine Fleet Reliability
3. Decrease Aircraft Indirect Operating Cost (A/C IOC)
4. Decrease Fleet Fuel Consumption

6
Engine Fleet Management Goals:

The goals of this session are designed to help you:
•Optimize engine maintenance cost (MC)
•Improve engine fleet reliability
•Decrease aircraft indirect operating cost (A/C IOC)
•Decrease fleet fuel consumption
A good engine fleet management (EFM) plan optimizes engine maintenance
and removal plans.
This section gives the different procedures to optimize the engine
maintenance and removal plans, which helps to achieve the goals listed.
Section 10 6
On-Wing Data is Required for
On-Condition Management
z Discrete Data - When
Airplane is on Ground
Borescope
Borescope
Inspections
Inspections
NDI
NDI
Magnetic
MagneticChip
Chip
Detectors
Detectors
SOAP
SOAP
FOD
FOD
Damage
Damage
7
Borescoping: A Visual Inspection to Detect Various Conditions or indications of a Failure or

Potential Failure
z Conditions / Discrepancies: Burned Parts, E.G., Turbine Blade Cycles Remaining, De-
lamination, Hot Streaking, Cooling Hole Melt-overs, Bowing / Warping, Cracks,
Nicks, Etc
Non-Destructive Inspection(NDI):Inspection using methods which in no way affect the
subsequent use or serviceability of the material, structure, or component being inspected. For
certain situations, Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI), Eddy Current, X-Ray and/or
Ultrasonic inspections may be required at certain times by the engine manufacturer.
Magnetic Chip Detector(MCD): Engine Manufacturer Recommends Which Visual Findings
Are Acceptable Or Unacceptable
z Particles (Coarse Or Fine, Quantity)
Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program (SOAP):
z Data is difficult to process fast enough to be meaningful
z Sample contamination can ruin trend analysis
z Oil consumption rate will have an effect on contamination levels.
Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Damage:
z Fan blade leading edge damage
Section 10 7
The Other Mode of Gathering Data for
Powerplant Reliability Is on a …
Cruise
Performance
Trending
Decent
Climb
Continuous basis Landing

Take-Off Engine Condition & Roll-Out
Monitoring (ECM)
Thrust Derate & Engine Vibration
T/O EGT Margin
Monitoring (EVM)
8
Engine Condition Monitoring (ECM)

z ECM is one of the most effective methods to maximize engine on-wing time and reduce
engine removal and repair costs.
z There are several ways to obtain the data necessary to perform an ECM analysis.
• Manual recording of engine parameters
• Automatic capture of data
z Where an operator’s ECM analysis personnel fit into the overall reliability structure is as
important as ECM itself.
z There are several Computer based ECM programs available depending on the engine model.
z GE - ADEPT, GEM, SAGE
z Pratt & Whitney – P&W EHM, ECM II, ADEM
z Rolls Royce - COMPASS
Engine Vibration Monitoring (EVM)
z Detects and alerts flight crew of high and/or unsafe levels of vibration induced on the engine
externally mounted components and on the airframe by unbalanced engine rotating parts.
Section 10 8
The Key Elements for Successful
Implementation of ECM Are …
Method of
Recording Data
Advantages Monitoring Specific
& Limitations Engine Parameters
Corrective Accuracy of
Action Data
Process Data in a
Analysis
Timely Manner
Knowledge &
Training
9
Effective Engine Condition Monitoring Requires:

•Quality ECM data acquisition (ACARS or Hand Written)
zAll usable engine performance parameters recorded
zCollect data that is accurate (forms set up for crew)
zFlight Data quickly processed through ECM
zFlight Crews, Analysts and Managers get training on aspects of ECM and engine
systems
zAnalysis done quickly and accurately, Engine fleet management uses data
zCorrective Action(s) is(are) carried out quickly and effectively
zAnalysts know what ECM can and cannot do
Section 10 9
Record and Process Flight ECM Data
Process with Communicate

ECM Program Results
Examine
results
for trends
and shifts
Manual
Data
Input
10
Format & Input Into ECM Program:

• Input Data Into ECM Program for Analysis
• Use ECM Program to Adjust Raw Data to Normalized Data, Which Is Sea Level
or Altitude Conditions
Analyze & Monitor Trends on a regular basis:
• Communicate Results to Flight Operations
• Communicate Results to Maintenance & Planning
• Distribute information to Fleet Management Committee for planning
Section 10 10
Parameters required for Basic ECM
From Aircraft
Pressure Altitude ( ALT )
Mach Number ( Mn )
Indicated Air Speed ( IAS )
Total Air Temperature ( TAT )
Static Air temperature (SAT)
Aircraft Pack Code
From Engine
EPR ( Pt7/Pt2 or P5/P2 )
Low Rotor Speed ( N1 )
High Rotor Speed ( N2 )
Exhaust Gas Temp , EGT ( Tt7 or T5 )
Fuel Flow ( Wf )
Main Oil Pressure ( MOP )
Main Oil Temperature ( MOT )
High Rotor Vibration ( N2 Vib, Rear )
Low Rotor Vibration ( N1 Vib, Front )
Aircraft Bleed Code ( ABC )
Throttle Lever Angle ( TLA )
AARON FISHER, PRATT & WHITNEY, MARCH 2006 Oil added to the engine ( Oil )
11
• Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR)

•Pratt & Whitney engines set thrust based on EPR
•Other manufacturers may require different parameters (like N3) or leave
out parameters (like EPR)
Section 10 11
Optional Parameters for ECM
From Aircraft and Engine :
Bleed Discretes ( “ON” or “OFF” )
Anti-Ice Discretes ( “ON” or “OFF” )
From Engine’s EEC :
EPR max. available ECM
Thrust Resolver Angle ( TRA )
Software
Fuel Flow Request
Inlet Pressure ( P2 )
Inlet Temperature ( T2 )
Burner Pressure ( Pb ), ( P3 )
Compressor Exit Temperature ( T3 )
Exhaust Gas Pressure ( P5 )
Bleed & Actuator Positions
EEC Status Words
EEC Maintenance Words
From Supplemental Control Unit :
LPC Exit Pressure ( P2.5 )
LPC Exit Temperature ( T2.5 )
Engine Serial Number
SCU Status & Maint. Words
12
Additional ECM parameters can be useful
Section 10 12
4 Major
ECM Parameters
EGT, Fuel Flow, N2 and N1

13
•Variable Stator Vane (VSV) system masks some of the N2 shifts seen when the
HPT deteriorates. N2 most useful for older engines like the P&W JT8D & JT3D
•Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) is an excellent indicator of engine health. As
an engine cycle deteriorates, more fuel energy leaves as temperature rise, rather
than useful work.
•Low rotor speed N1 is a reliable indicator that does not change much with engine
deterioration.
•Fuel Flow is difficult to measure, especially with older instrumentation found on
older engines. It is much more reliable for newer engines.
Section 10 13
Calculating Parameter Deltas
Cruise Data
Fully Corrected
Parm
Δ= Baseline
Fully Corrected
EPR

14
•Correction - The cruise Flight Data which is taken at different altitudes on

different flights is corrected for air temperature and pressure differences
•Engine bleed air used on the aircraft affects the data and is also corrected
for
•Data may be corrected to sea level standard day or to a fixed altitude (like
35 000 feet) condition
•Baselines are supplied by the engine manufacturer for each aircraft/engine
combination
•Deltas are formed by subtracting the Baseline values at the power settings from the
corrected flight data values
•These deltas are then plotted for trend analysis
Section 10 14
Bad Data Produces Illegible Trends

15
•P&W EHM tracks the performance of engines in Reports (as do all monitoring programs)
•Data is presented chronologically (oldest data at the top and the newest data at the bottom)
•The performance parameters are plotted (EGT, Fuel Flow, H for N2 and L for N1 )
•Older engines will show higher levels of EGT and Fuel Flow. These levels will be managed for the
engine fleet as a whole.
•Quality Flight Data - Engine condition monitoring is useful only if the input is accurate
•Flight crews strongly influence the quality of the flight data; consequently, they must be
well trained
•Crews must understand that someone is using the data that they record
•Crews must understand that good data will improve flight safety and the airline’s
competitive position.
•Crews must know about the problems that ECM has helped to solve. Inform them
through:
•Personal visits/flight rides
•Their training organization
•A newsletter
Section 10 15
ECM Data Should Be Input Quickly

16
Data Input In A Timely Manner:

•Flight data should be input (within 48 hours of collection), processed by the
ECM program and then reviewed as soon as possible.
•Data that is kept for days before being input is useful mainly for post failure
analyses.
•Review Reports often to spot problems.
•Every ECM analyst and airline must have a system that requires that the flight
data is input and the reports are reviewed in a timely manner.
Correct Fleet Configuration:
•The ECM fleet configuration must be kept current.
•Engine changes must be input to the program.
Section 10 16
Use All the Available Information
On-Wing
P&W EHM
Diagnostic
Line & Base Decision Powerplant
Maintenance Process Engineering
Maintenance
Flight
Control
Operations
Center
17
Use all the related information

The ECM analyst must use the knowledge base that is available to the
airline:
–Experienced ECM personnel
–Flight line mechanics
–P&W‘s Advanced Diagnostics & Engine Management group.
The ECM analyst must gain credibility:
–Establish a good record of accuracy (five correct analyses can be
offset by one incorrect diagnosis).
Section 10 17
An Engine ECM II Trend Plot Report
CTC 40118 819 CTC001 -1 MD-83 718184 JT8D-219 RUN DATE 02/11/95 PAGE: 1
EGT FUEL FLOW SMOOTHED DATA N2 N1 INSTALLED DATE 03/03/94
15/03/94 .-4...-2....0....2....4....6 15/03/94 .-1....0....1....2....3....4 T/O 3. 9.
DATE ..0...10...20...30...40...50 08/01/95 ..0....1....2....3....4....5 15/03/94 OBT OIL EGT MAINT
INITIAL .I .I .I I. MGN CSP MGN ACTION
0210 . G . F .H L. ******** 7.
0310 . G . F .H L. ******** 7.
0310 . G . F .H L. ******** 8.
0510 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0710 . G .F . H L. ******** 8.
0710Q . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0810 . g . F . h L. ************
0810 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0910 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0910Q . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0910 .G f. . H L. ******** 9.
1210 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1310 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1310 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1410 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1410 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1410 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1510 . G . F . H l . ******** 7.
1510 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1510 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1810 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1910 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1910 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
2010 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
2110 . G . F . H L. ******** 6.
2110 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
2110 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
2110 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
2210 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
2210 = . G . F . H L. ******** 6.
2310 = . G . F .H L . ******** 6.
2510 = . g . f . H L. ************
2610 = . G . F .H L. ******** 4.
2710 = . G . F .H L. ******** 3.
2810 = . G . F .H L. ******** 3.
2810 = . G . F .H L. ******** 3.
2810 = . G . F .H L. ******** 2.
2910 = . G . F H L. ******** 1.
RAW DELTAS
LIMIT V . V V . V V V V . V OIL OIL AVM AVM THT
-20....0...20...40...60..-10...-5....0....5...10...-4...-2....0....2....4...-4...-2....0....2....4.. PRS TMP L H POS
2210 . G .F . H . L *************************
2210 = . G . F . H .L *************************
2310 = . G .F . H .L *************************
2510 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2610 = . G .F . H .L *************************
2710 = . G .F . H .L *************************
2810 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2810 = . G .F . H .L *************************
2810 = . G . F . H .L *************************
2910 = . G .F . H L *************************

18
Level Versus A Shift In Level:

•Look for a change in the parameters’ levels rather than the value of the
levels themselves.
•All engines’ parameters track at different levels:
•Different build-up tolerances on each engine
•Different time/cycles on each engine and/or module
•Older engines should normally run hotter and use slightly more fuel
•Engine/Aircraft Baselines are not perfect. Baselines have bias in
them which make all the new engines start cooler (or hotter) than
zero
Section 10 18
ECM “Rules of Thumb”

19
Number Of Engine Parameters Moving:

Based upon Report analysis, the most probable cause(s) of the shift(s) can be found:
zA single parameter moving alone usually shows an indication system error (EGT
thermocouple, N2 transmitter or similar problem).
zTwo parameters shifting at the same time shows that the problem could be related
to the engine or to the indication systems.
zIn this case, peripheral information is very important to determine the
probable cause.
zIf EGT and fuel flow were shifting, for an engine related problem, they
should move in the same direction with an approximate 10° to 1% ratio. If
not, the problem would more likely be in the indication systems.
zThree parameters moving at the same time is usually caused by an engine related
problem.
zFour parameters shifting at the same time could show an engine problem, but first
verify that it is not an EPR or TAT problem.
zEPR and TAT problems cause all four major parameters to shift in the
same direction.
zA missed engine change causes all four major parameters to move.
Section 10 19
Quantify ECM Parameter Shifts
SHORT TERM TREND PLOT REPORT PART 1
REPORT DATE 12AUG1999 PAGE 1
AIRCRAFT NCTC3 ACFT TYPE B757-200 ENG POS 2 ENG S/N 987654 ENG TYPE PW2040(S23+) LAST DATA DATE 16JUL1998
ENG INST DATE 30JUL1995
VIB (H,L) UNITS WF (F),PCT N2 (H),PCT
..0....X....1 INIT 11AUG95 INIT 11AUG95
. ..0....1....2....3....4....5 .-2...-1....0....1....2....3
. . .
. EGT (G),DEGC . N1 (L),PCT . T/O EGT MARGIN(E), DEGC
. INIT 11AUG95 . INIT 11AUG95 . -20....0...20...40
. .20...30...40...50...60 . .-2...-1....0....1....2 . .
. I . (36.1)(2.5) . I I (-0.0) I. (-0.3) . INITIAL
INDIVIDUAL CRUISE POINTS --- SMOOTHED DATA -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
03JUN98 / .G . F .L H . /
04JUN98 / .G . F .L H . /
05JUN98 / . G . F .L H . /
19JUN98 / g . . F .L H . /
23JUN98 / .G . F .L H . /
24JUN98 / .G . F .L H . /
25JUN98 / .G . F .L H . /
25JUN98 / . G . F .L H . /
26JUN98 / . G . F .L H . /
30JUN98 / g . . F .L H . /
01JUL98 / .G . F .L H . /
02JUL98 / G . F .L H . /
02JUL98 / .G . F .L H . /
03JUL98 / G . F .L H . /
03JUL98 / G . F .L H . /
04JUL98 / G . F .L H . /
05JUL98 / G . F .L H . /
06JUL98Q / G. . F .L H . /
07JUL98 / G. . F .L H . /
08JUL98 / G. . F .L H . /
09JUL98 / G. . F .L H . /
10JUL98 / G. . F .L H . /
11JUL98 / .G . F .L H . /
12JUL98 / .G . F .L H . /
12JUL98 / .G . F .L H . /
13JUL98 / . G . F .L H . /
14JUL98 / . G . F .L H . /
14JUL98 / . G . F .L H . /
15JUL98 / . G . F .L H . /
16JUL98 / . G . F .L H . /

20
Identify the start of the Trend(s)

zTrends are detected as movement of a parameter beyond normal scatter
(and staying out there)

Calculate the parameter shift(s)
zSubtracting the level prior to the shift from the level after the shift gives the
parameter shift (magnitude and direction)
Section 10 20
Fingerprint Charts are used to isolate the
likely cause(s) of the shifting parameter(s)
EGT/Wf
+12.
+12.
-0.
-0.
-1.
-1.
+9.
+9.
+6.
+7.
+6.

21
•Aircraft Instrumentation Errors have an effect on all engines installed on the

aircraft
•Engine Related Problems will have an effect on only a single engine’s parameters
•GE and Rolls Royce have similar charts for their engines
•Finger Print Charts are engine specific – this chart is for a PW2000 series engine
Section 10 21
An Engine ECM Surprise
CTC 40118 819 CTC001 -1 MD-83 718184 JT8D-219 RUN DATE 02/11/95 PAGE: 1
EGT FUEL FLOW SMOOTHED DATA N2 N1 INSTALLED DATE 03/03/94
15/03/94 .-4...-2....0....2....4....6 15/03/94 .-1....0....1....2....3....4 T/O 3. 9.
DATE ..0...10...20...30...40...50 08/01/95 ..0....1....2....3....4....5 15/03/94 OBT OIL EGT MAINT
INITIAL . I .I .I I . MGN CSP MGN ACTION
0210 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
0310 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
0310 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0510 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0710 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0710Q . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0810 . g . F . h L. ************
0810 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0910 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0910Q . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
0910 . G f. . H L. ******** 9.
1210 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1310 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1310 . G . F . H L . ******** 8.
1410 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1410 . G . F . H L. ******** 8.
1410 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1510 . G . F . H l . ******** 7.
1510 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1510 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1810 . G . F . H L. ******** 7.
1910 . G . F . H L . ******** 7.
1910 . G . F . H L . ******** 8.
2010 . G . F . H L . ******** 8.
2110 . G . F . H L . ******** 6.
2110 . G . F . H L . ******** 7.
2110 . G . F . H L . ******** 7.
2110 . G . F . H L . ******** 7.
2210 . G . F . H L . ******** 7.
2210 = . G . F . H L . ******** 6.
2310 = . G . F . H L . ******** 6.
2510 = . g . f . H L . ************
2610 = . G . F . H L. ******** 4.
2710 = . G . F . H L. ******** 3.
2810 = . G . F . H L. ******** 3.
2810 = . G . F .H L. ******** 3.
2810 = . G . F .H L. ******** 2.
2910 = . G . F H L. ******** 1.
RAW DELTAS
LIMIT V . V V . V V V V . V OIL OIL AVM AVM THT
-20....0...20...40...60..-10...-5....0....5...10...-4...-2....0....2....4...-4...-2....0....2....4.. PRS TMP L H POS
2210 . G . F . H . L *************************
2210 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2310 = . G . F . H .L *************************
2510 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2610 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2710 = . G . F . H .L *************************
2810 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2810 = . G .F . H .L *************************
2810 = . G . F . H . L *************************
2910 = . G . F . H L *************************

22
Delayed Flight Data entry and review can be costly.

z Enter and then review the flight data quickly.
Section 10 22
Fingerprint Chart for JT8D-200 Engines

23
Finger Print Charts are engine specific. This chart is for JT8D-200 series engines
Section 10 23
ECM Alerts Help Users Identify Problems
Trends
Alert if too much Levels
Bad Rank
poor quality data
Quality
No Recent Data
Not Initialized
Change in parameter
Alert if not initialized yet
Alerts line shows only in reports

generated in Reports Menu
Least squares
straight line fit
A trend is checked for over the
Newest Data tested latest 15 non-outlier points.
for level exceedances
(note *) and quality Alert if no recent flight data
Engine Rank Alert if ranked

as one of the “worst” in fleet
24
Most ECM programs can raise Alerts to help users locate problem engines
Section 10 24
An Alerts Panel
Trends
Levels
Use the Alerts Icon to Quality alert raised Poor Rank
access the Alerts panel Quality
No Recent Data
Not Initialized
Rank, the “worst” being 1
Time in Hours since the
last flight data was
entered for this engine.
Blank if within limits.
Indicates these
parameters not
initialized yet.

25
An Alerts Panel, like this one from P&W EHM, can be used to locate problem
engines in a fleet
Section 10 25
Engine MPA Report
SHORT TERM MODULE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
REPORT DATE 05SEP2002
AIRCRAFT N227 ENG POS-S/N 1-222000 LAST DATA DATE 04SEP2002
AIRCRAFT TYPE B777-200 ENGINE TYPE PW4090
FAN Z222000 LPC A222000 HPC B222000 HPT C222000 LPT D222000
CYCLES 0 CYCLES 0 CYCLES 0 CYCLES 0 CYCLES 0
EFF (F) EFF (A) F/C (3) EFF (C) EFF (D)
F/C (1) F/C (2) EFF (B) A4 (5) A5 (6)
-3...-2...-1....0....1 -3...-2...-1....0....1 -3...-2...-1....0....1....2
. -3...-2...-1....0....1 . -3...-2...-1....0....1....2 .
20AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
21AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
23AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
23AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
24AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
24AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
24AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
24AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
26AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
26AUG02 #. 2A. #. C5 D6
27AUG02 #. # . 3B. C .5 D6
27AUG02 #. #. 3 B C .5 D6
28AUG02 #. #. 3 B C .5 D6
28AUG02 #. #. 3 B C .5 D6
29AUG02 #. #. # . C .5 6D
29AUG02 # # . #. C 5 D6
30AUG02 # #. 3 B C . 5 D6
30AUG02 # #. 3 B C . 5 D6
31AUG02 F1. #. 3 B. C .5 6D
31AUG02 #. #. #. C5 D6
31AUG02 # #. # . C . 5 D6
31AUG02 F1 # . 3B. C . 5 D6
01SEP02 # #. # . C . 5 D6
02SEP02 # #. # . C . 5 D6
02SEP02 #. #. 3 B C . 5 D6
02SEP02 #. #. 3 B C . 5 D 6
03SEP02 # #. 3B . C . 5 D6
04SEP02 # . .# # . C . 5 6 .D
04SEP02 #. # 3 B . C . 5 6D
04SEP02 #. #. 3 B. C . 5 6D

26
•Some ECM programs produce engine Module Performance Analysis (MPA)

reports on the health of individual engine modules (like the P&W EHM report here).
•This engine was pulled off-wing earlier this month after being correctly diagnosed
with a High Pressure Turbine problem.
Section 10 26
Engine Vibration Plot
HIGH & LOW SPOOL VIBRATION
1.8
1.6
1.4
VIB SCALAR UNITS
1.2
1. VIB1_L
VIB2_L
0.8
VIB1 FLAG
0.6 VIB2 FLAG
0.4
0.2
0.
08/20/02
08/20/02
08/21/02
08/21/02
08/23/02
08/24/02
08/24/02
08/26/02
08/27/02
08/28/02
08/29/02
08/30/02
08/31/02
08/31/02
09/01/02
09/02/02
09/03/02
09/04/02
09/05/02
27
This engine vibration plot shows that the high spool became unbalanced on August
31, 2002.
Section 10 27
Engine Performance Summary Report
Statistical
Information
on the
engine
parameters

28
Most ECM programs can produce a summary report of the engine parameter levels
Section 10 28
Engine Compressed History Report
CTRC 40815 COMPRESSED HISTORY REPORT
709731 JT8D-217A PWECM -2 RUN DATE 23/07/97
EGT FUEL FLOW N2 N1 EGT MARGIN/OAT LIMIT

-10...-5....0....5...10.. .-4...-2....0....2....4..
DATE -20....0...20...40...60.. .-4...-2....0....2....4.. 0...10...20...30...40...50...60...70
150686 G F . .H . L /
DAWI -2
Long
070287 G . F. . H L /
200287 G . F. . H L /
120387 G . F. . H L /
190487 G . F. . H L /
Term
170587 G . F. . H L /
170687 G . F . . H L /
180787 G . F . . H L /
160887 G . F. . H L /
EGT
140987 G . F. . H L /
181087 G . F. . H L /
111187 G . F. . H L /
161287 G . F . H L /
Rise
140188 G . F . H L /
150288 G . F . H L /
190388 G . F . H L /
110488 G. F . H L /
100588
130688
190788
170888
G .
G .
G.
G.
Best F
F.
F
F
. H
. H
. H
. H
L
L
L
L
/
/
/
/
170988
181088
171188
G.
G.
G.
Seen F
F
.F
.H
. H
. H
L
L
L
/
/
/
In
151288 G. .F . H L /
190189 G. .F . H .L /
160289 G .F . H .L /
150389 G .F . H .L /
Compressed
170489 G. .F . H .L /
140589 G .F . H L /
160689 G .F . H L /
160789 G. F . H L /
History
110889 G. .F . H L /
170989 G. .F . H L /
141089 G. .F . H L /
111189 G. . F . H L /
Report
181289 G . F . H .L /
200190 G . F . H .L /
100290 G . F . H L /

AARON FISHER, PRATT & WHITNEY, MARCH 2006 ~
29
Most ECM Programs produce long term engine reports (like the P&W ECM II
report here).
z Each point represents one month of data (averaged)
Section 10 29
Use ECM data to review the entire fleet
B727-100C / JT8D-7B
40
30
20
EGT Index
10
-10
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Rank

30
Review the Entire Fleet(s) using ECM Ranking

z Look at EGT Index of the engines
zEGT Index = 75% EGT level + 25% ( Fuel Flow Level x
Conversion Factor to EGT )
z Monthly, it is worthwhile to review your entire engine fleet(s)
zEngines can only be compared to each other if they are of the same type
and used on similar aircraft (use the same ECM baselines)

z Older engines should have a low numerical Rank and a higher EGT Index
zYounger engines should have a high numerical Rank and a lower EGT
Index
Section 10 30
ECM Engine Graphic Trends

31
Graphical plots of the engine data are easier for most analysts to read
z The time scale is in days moving left to right
z Parameters are plotted on scales that center on the data
Parameter changes can be quantified and compared to the appropriate Fingerprint
charts
Section 10 31
Fingerprint Chart for Classic JT8Ds

32
Often, ECM trends alone are not enough to isolate a problem

zBorescope inspection of this engine showed no problems in the hot section
gas path
z The analyst pleaded his case to remove the engine earlier than planned
zFortunately, the plane experienced an EGT exceedance on Take-Off at a
hot airport
zWhen removed, the analyst ordered an inspection during teardown. A
previous weld repair on the forward flange of the Inner Combustion Case
was done incorrectly resulting in complete separation of the flange, the case
shifting aft and rubbing on the inner airseal and disk! ECM saw the
excessive air that was bypassing the High Pressure Turbine.
Section 10 32
Graphical Presentation of
Fuel Flow up
PW4062 engine data
N1 Down
EGT up
N2 Down

33
Graphical ECM of 2 PW4062 engines’ 4 Major Engine Parameters versus Date on a

B767-300ER
Section 10 33
PW4062 Engine Event Cause
This also looks like HPT

deterioration but it is
actually a failed cable on
a Turbine Case Cooling
actuator.

34
A failure of a Turbine Case Cooling linkage caused the shifts on this engine
Section 10 34
Use ECM Data With A/C Condition
Monitoring Data to Spot Other Problems
7.0
EHM Average Engine Wf (%)
6.0
Good Engines
means good
5.0
A/C efficiency
4.0 Poor Engines
means poor 2%
3.0
A/C efficiency
2.0 2% represents over

US$ 185,000 per year The best
1.0
Engines and
average A/C
efficiency???
0.0
-4.0 -3.5 -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Nautical Aircraft Miles per gallon of fuel (NAMS) (%)

35
Most of the time aircraft performance deterioration is a result of deteriorated

engines.
zComparing average engine performance versus its aircraft’s overall performance
visually can help you isolate aircraft that may have performance problems
zThis graph shows the average engine fuel rate on an aircraft versus the aircraft
efficiency. A 2% discrepancy between the reported engine average fuel flow
deviations and the APM reported nautical miles per gallon value for a single
aircraft. The 2% additional fuel flow discrepancy resulted from a mis-rigged
aircraft system. This fuel flow on a B767 can result in over US$185,000 per year
for the aircraft (at US$1.80 per gallon and 3500 hrs per year). This does not
include the higher engine deterioration that results from the higher power settings
that are required to push the inefficient aircraft through the air. There are other
sources of aircraft performance deterioration.
Section 10 35
Take Corrective Action
Review Short Term Output on Regular Basis (Usually Daily)

Examine Trends for Abnormal Shifts or Levels of Concern

Initiate Any Needed Corrective Actions

Review Long Term Output on Regular Basis (Usually Weekly or Monthly)

Assure that engine parameter levels are where they are expected to be

Component
Componentchanges
changes

Inspections
Inspections

Watch
WatchList
List

Other
Other AppropriateAction
Appropriate Action

36
ECM is only useful if you take action
Section 10 36
ECM Has Advantages & Limitations
Reduces
ReducesUnexpected
Unexpected Indicating
IndicatingSystem
System Repairs
RepairsCanCanBeBeMade
Made
Problems
Problems &&Component
ComponentFailures
Failures Prior
PriortotoFailures
Failures
Advantage
e
Ad
ta g
v
n
an
va
tag
Ad
e
n
tio Li
ita m
ita
m
Li tio
n
Personnel
PersonnelTraining
Training
Difficult isisIntensive
Intensive
DifficulttotoDetect
DetectProblems
Problems ECM
Unrelated
Unrelated to EngineAerodynamic
to Engine Aerodynamic
and Thermodynamic Performance
and Thermodynamic Performance
37
Advantages of ECM
Maintains safe engine operation and effective maintenance practices through the following:
z Reduces unexpected problems and unscheduled maintenance by detecting abnormal trend shifts
z Chronological trending of engine parameters:
zFuel burn & EGT trends
zEngine pressure ratio (EPR)
zRotor speeds
zOil pressure & temperature
zEngine vibration
zThrottle stagger
ECM also is effective in detecting:

z Indicating System Failures
z Component Failures
Limitations of ECM
Unreliable in Finding a System Failure Unrelated to Engine Aerodynamic and Thermodynamic Performance such as:
z Bearing System Problems
z Fuel Contamination
Section 10 37
Savings Potential per Year
ECM Offers Potential Fleet Savings
ISFD D&C UER SVR Total

12% 13% 15 % 2%
Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction

38
•Estimates based on the introduction of an aggressive engine health monitoring

program to an operator that previously followed a “hard time” (“Fixed Service
Interval” ) maintenance program
•Actual savings will vary based on equipment type and operation
Section 10 38
There Are Several Computer Programs
for Desktop ECM
P&W EHM
• Windows Based
Advanced Diagnostics &
Engine Management
• Web Based
SAGE COMPASS
• Windows Based • Windows Based
• Easier to configure than GEM • Applicable to Rolls Royce,
or ADEPT BMW-Rolls Royce, & IAE engines

39
Use these contacts to learn about and obtain the ECM programs for your engines:
P&W
z P&W EHM Support
z 1-860-565-8157
z pwehm@pw.utc.com
z Advanced Diagnostics & Engine Management
z 1-860-446-1563
Pratt & Whitney

400 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108 USA
GE
z SAGE Support (Software, Installation, Operation Problems and Network Advice)
z 1-513-552-3171
z Sage.Support@ae.ge.com
Rolls Royce
z http://www.rolls-royce.com
Section 10 39
ETOPS Is an Event Oriented Reliability
Program
60 - MINUTE RULE 90- MINUTE RULE
120 - MINUTE RULE 180 - MINUTE RULE

EXCLUSION ZONE

40
Extended Twin Operations (ETOPS)

z Two - engine airplane. Far 121.161 states, in part “No certificate holder may
operate a two-engine airplane over a route that contains a point further than one
hour flying time from an adequate airport
z The 767 was introduced in the early 1980’s. After several years of operations,
operators wanted to fly the North Atlantic routes, and wanted to fly more than
60 minutes away from the adequate airport
z ANA was recently granted 210 minutes on their PW4090 powered B777s
z Airlines may want more than the minimum minute rule since closed “diversion”
airports on route may neutralize ETOPS benefits
z In 1985 AC 120-42 was developed to provide a means for authorizing an
increase of the one hour flying time from an alternate airport
Section 10 40
The Requirements to Support an Event
Oriented Program Are More Restrictive
z Propulsion System
z Maintenance Program
z Oil Consumption
z ECM
z Minimum Equipment
List (MEL)
z Resolution of
Discrepancies
z Training
41
Propulsion System Monitoring

A monitoring system that keeps track of In-flight Shut Down (IFSD) and ensure that IFSD rate for
the operator’s fleet is equal to or below .02 per 1000 flight hours.
Maintenance Program - Pre-Departure Service Check
A mandatory Task Card which checks the fluid levels on all airplane systems and components for
safe operation to destination.
Oil Consumption Monitoring
A program that monitors airplanes on a flight by flight basis and accounts for oil added at departing
stations with reference to running average consumption.
Engine Condition Monitoring
Assess engine performance and health on a continuous basis by monitoring engine parameters and
fuel burn trends and detecting abnormal shifts from normal trends.
Minimum Equipment List
The relief categories of the MEL are more restrictive than for an non-ETOPS fleet.
Resolution of Discrepancies
All discrepancies including those that are not pertinent to ETOPS are resolved in a timely manner.
Section 10 41
Data Elements Required for ETOPS Are …
z Date of Event z Description of Event

z Time of Event Rejected Take off
z Phase of Flight In-Flight Shut Down
Unscheduled Engine
z Registration Number Removal
z Engine Type
z Engine Serial Number

42
Event Oriented Parameters

z Rejected or Aborted Take off rate per 1000 departures
z In-flight Shutdown rate per 1000 engine hours
z Unscheduled Engine Removals per 1000 flight hours
Section 10 42
An Operator’s Mission
IMPROVE ENGINE
RELIABILITY
DECREASE OPERATING
AND REPAIR COSTS

43
Operator Mission:
To help achieve the EFM goals, the operator’s mission is to:
•Improve the engine reliability
•Decrease the engine operating and repair costs
To improve the engine reliability, it is required to:
•Improve the engine performance
•Decrease the number of delays & cancellations (D&C)
•Decrease the number of operational events
To decrease the engine operating and repair costs, it is required to decrease the:
•Shop visit rate (SVR)
•Shop visit cost (SVC)
•Line & base maintenance cost
•Number of operational discrepancies (OD)
•In-flight shutdown (IFSD)
•Aircraft turn back (ATB)
•Aborted takeoff (ATO)
•Flight diversion (FLT-DIV)
Section 10 43
Total Operating Cost
FLIGHT CREW AIRFRAME MAINTENANCE
7% 6%
ENGINE PRICE GROUND PROPERTY AND
5% EQUIPMENT
2%
GENERAL AND
ADMINISTRATION AIRFRAME PRICE
4% 26%
PASSENGER INDIRECT
OPERATING COST
25%
AIRCRAFT INDIRECT FUEL COST

MAINTENANCE COST
OPERATING COST 11%
4%
10%
ENGINE 10% OF THIS ENGINE AND

REFURBISHMENT CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT
COST ENGINE EVENTS PERFORMANCE

44
Operator’s Total Operating Cost:

One step to improve the overall financial parameters is to examine the typical distribution
of an operator’s total operating cost.
After examination of the distribution of costs, the operator decides to optimize the variable
cost drivers.
One needs to optimize the engine-related variable cost drivers, which are:
1. Maintenance Cost (MC)
• Routine engine refurbishment cost.
2. Aircraft Indirect Operating Cost (A/C IOC)
• In this example, almost 10% of all A/C IOC is caused by engine
events, which is 1% of the total operating cost.
• Some of the engine related costs are caused by IFSD’s, D&C’s,
ATB’s, and other OD’s.
3. Fuel Cost (FC)
• Fuel consumption increases with aircraft performance loss and
engine performance deterioration.
Section 10 44
Variable Cost Drivers
FULL/PARTIAL REFURBISHMENT
($500,000 - $1,500,000)
MC/EFH = SVR x SVC + L&B MAINT COST

PLANNED (43%) < 6% OF TOTAL MC
UNPLANNED (57%)
~$25,000
A/C IOC = OD + D&C + OTHER

IFSD (~$150,000) AIRCRAFT
OTHER RELATED
FUEL COST = AIRCRAFT + ENGINE

RIGGING DETERIORATION
TRIMMING ROUTE STRUCTURE
OPERATIONS
45
• Engine-Related Variable Cost Driver Example:

• There are three (3) major engine-related variable cost drivers that have a direct impact on engine operating
cost and reliability.
1. Maintenance Cost per Engine Flight Hour (MC/EFH) = SVR X SVC
• SVR = Shop Visit Rate
• 43% of all engine shop visits are planned, 57% are unplanned (which is used as
one measurement of engine reliability).
• SVC = Shop Visit Cost
• Includes full and partial engine refurbishment. Varies with engine type and
workscope plan.
2. Aircraft Indirect Operating Cost (A/C IOC) = OD + D&C + OTHER
• OD = Operational Discrepancies, for the airline in this example, each one cost approximately
US$150,000
• D&C = Delays and Cancellations, for the airline in this example, each one cost about US$25,000
3. Fuel Cost = AIRCRAFT Related+ ENGINE Related
• Aircraft rigging and trimming (performance retention) and aircraft operations (optimized
flight path)
• Engine deterioration (Full power versus Reduced power Takeoff) and engine route
structure (cycle to hour ratio, urban airports)
• These drivers are studied in detail in P&W’s EFM Training Course.
Section 10 45
Top Ten SVR Drivers
30%
25%
20%
OIL SYSTEM LEVEL USED
15%
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES
10%
5%
0%
IT
EM
S
S
NS
R
T
ES
G
R
EG
O
AK
M
LE
IN
IN
SO
IO
ST
ST
LI
DU
LE
RB
AR
T
SY
RD
BU
ES
EC
HE
D
TU
BE
PR
M
HA
IL
EE
SP
SC
CU
O
M
IN
BL
CO

46
Shop Visit Cost Drivers:

As operators try to reduce engine maintenance cost, the specific causes of basic shop visits
are investigated.
These are the cost drivers that have caused basic engine shop visits for an engine fleet
during the last 42 months of engine operations.
The term Basic refers to the shop visits caused by engine related problems.
The shop visit drivers are ranked from highest to lowest percentage to show the
relative causes impacting the engine shop visits.
Note that the total impact of oil system causes is highlighted for illustration purposes only.
In this fleet, the oil system was responsible for approximately 5% of the shop visits for a
period of forty-two months of engine operation.
Special attention should be placed on the top five drivers of shop visits to improve the fleet
reliability and reduce the maintenance cost.
Finding the root causes for the top drivers of the SVR would be the next step in the process
of better managing the engine fleet.
Section 10 46
Impact Of SVR Reduction on MC/EFH
0.12
0.1024
0.10
BASIC SHOP VISITS PER 1,000 HOURS
THRESHOLD LEVEL 0.0973 5%
0.08
0.06
MC SVR .1024
= x SVC = x $1,200,000 = $123
0.04 EFH 1000 1000 ΔMC
= $6
.0973 EFH
= x $1,200,000 = $117
1000
0.02
Δ MC ΔMC HOURS
= x # ENG. x = 6 x 40 x 4,000 = $960,000
FLEET YEAR EFH YEAR
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4
NUMBER OF MONTHS
47
•The cost driver MC is impacted by the variations in Shop Visit Rate (SVR).The graph shows
the SVR for a fleet of engines versus time.
•If the overall SVR is reduce by 5% (eliminating all oil system related shop visits), then this
defines a new SVR “threshold” .
Calculation of Maintenance Cost Savings
•As a result of the 5% reduction in SVR, there is a maintenance cost savings of
US$6 per hour when US$117 is subtracted from US$123.
Change in MC/Fleet Year = (ΔMC/EFH) x # ENG x Hours/Year
•In this example, the ΔMC/EFH = US$ 6, # ENG = 40, and the number of hours
of operation per year is 4,000.
•This results in a calculated savings of US$960,000 per year.
•When calculating the savings relative to the industry average, the operator must
consider the variations in hour-to-cycle ratio.
Section 10 47
Top Ten Operational Discrepancy Drivers
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
ED
EM
EM
M
EM
EM
S
S
N
ES
ES
R
O
TE
IN
SO
ST
ST
ST
ST
TI
LA
RN
S
RB
C
SY
SY
SY
SY
SY
ES
SE
RE
HA
TU
PR
RT
G
IL
EL
D
T
E
EE
IN
O
LE
M
NC
FU
AR
ST
BL
CO
IN
A
BE
EN
NT
AI
M

48
Operational Discrepancies impact on Aircraft IOC:

Unlike the engine shop visits, an OD results in engine indirect operating costs.
The oil related ODs accounted for approximately 13% of all ODs (such as IFSD, ATO,
ATB, FLT-DIV, etc.)
It is assumed that the indirect cost of every operational discrepancy (OD)
averages US$ 150,000 per event, but this varies widely.
Section 10 48
Cost of Operational Discrepancies
US$ 150,000 Cost of an IFSD

+ US$ 400,000 Engine Lease Cost
+ US$ 25,000 Cost of Money Three-
___________ Month
Lease
US$ 575,000 A/C IOC
Excludes
Refurbishment
Costs

49
OD cost (US$150,000)
•In this example, the OD is an IFSD for an operator with a newer engine
model
•An ATB occurred as a result of the IFSD
Lease cost (US$400,000)
•An engine is leased until the failed engine is repaired (approximately,
three months).
•There are insufficient spares in this example, which is the reason for the
high lease cost.
Cost of money (US$25,000)
•The A/C IOC of US$575,000 could have earned US$25,000 in interest
had there not been an IFSD, which caused a premature removal of the
engine. This cost does not include engine repair cost.
•This “common” situation typically results from poor engine maintenance planning (or poor
on-wing condition monitoring). An operator that uses all available tools to manage the fleet
will have less operational discrepancy (or events).
•The “Introduction to Engine Fleet Management” course offered by the P&W CTC
addresses many of the tools used to manage an engine fleet.
Section 10 49
0.016 OD Impact on A/C IOC
OPERATIONAL DISCREPANCY (x1,000 HOURS)
0.014
= ( # OD’s per EFH ) * ( OD COST )
= ( 0.0045 / 1,000 ) * ( US$150,000 )
0.012 = US$ 0.68 / EFH
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0052
THRESHOLD LEVEL 0.0045
0.004
OD PROBABILITY COST
0.002 = US$ 0.68 x 40 engines x 4000 hrs.
YEAR
= US$ 110,000 per year for the fleet
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
NUMBER OF MONTHS
50
•This operator may want to define a new threshold target of 0.0045 OD’s per
1,000 hours that the operator wants to achieve.
•With this threshold, the operator can estimate the OD probability cost (or
risk cost) per year. This annual “cost” is really a probable event cost and not
necessarily an actual cost for that year.
•Incorporation of engine service bulletins can help decrease the OD
probability cost.
•In most cases, operators can reduce the engine-related A/C IOC by
removing poor performing engines. However, this can increase the MC
because the SVR increases.
•This probability cost equation can also be used for the cost of D&C’s to
determine the impact on A/C IOC.
Section 10 50
Top Ten Delay & Cancellation Drivers
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
S
N
C
NG
RS
ES
EM
EM
M
ES
O
EE
TE
G
O
TI
TI
TI
ST
ST
RN
SA
S
S
R
RA
ES
SY
SY
SY
IC
A
A
ES
B
ST
H
D
PR
VI
IL
EL
D
IN
E
O
E-
FU
LE
O
C
B
51
•19% of all delays and cancellations for this particular engine fleet
were caused by oil system related problems.
•It is assumed that the indirect cost of every delay and/or
cancellation (D&C) averages US$25,000 per event.
Section 10 51
D&C Impact on A/C IOC
= ( # D&C’s per EFH ) * ( D&C COST )

0.050
= ( 0.0343 / 1,000 ) * ( US$25,000 )
0.045 = US$ 0.86 / EFH
0.0424
B A S IC D & C P E R 1 ,0 0 0 H O U R S
0.040
0.035 19%
THRESHOLD LEVEL 0.0343
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
D&C PROBABILITY COST
= US$ 0.86 x 40 engines x 4000 hrs.
YEAR
0.010
= US$ 140,000 per year for the fleet
0.005
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
NUMBER OF MONTHS
52
•This operator may want to define a new threshold target of 0.0343 D&C’s
per 1,000 hours.
• With this threshold, the operator can estimate the D&C probability cost per
year. This annual “cost” is really a probable interruption cost and not
necessarily an actual cost for that year.
•Incorporation of engine service bulletins can help decrease the D&C
probability cost.
•We will not address the aircraft related A/C IOC in this section.
Section 10 52
Fuel Costs Increases Come
From Many Sources
Fuel * A/C Performance ( Dirt, Rigging, Seals, Trim, others )
* Engine Performance ( Condition, Time on-wing, others )
Cost * Route Structure ( Cycles to Hours Ratio, others )
* A/C Operations ( Full Rated vs. Derated, others )

53
•Fuel Costs are a large part of an aircraft operator’s total operating costs.
•Most of the time aircraft performance deterioration is a result of
deteriorated engines.
Section 10 53
Engine Maintenance Management Criteria
OFF-WING SOFT TIME

Could be used on-wing to assess
the relative module reliability.
HARD TIME
Often mistaken
for on-condition
ON-WING FLY-TO-FAILURE
Most cost-effective
management criteria
ON-CONDITION
FOCUS OF THIS SECTION

54
•Soft time is based on recommended time intervals for module disassembly and heavy
maintenance. It is done when the engine is in the shop for an unrelated cause.
•Hard time is based on fixed time intervals for maintenance.Engine removals are
scheduled before the fixed time interval is reached.
•Fly-to-failure is based on engine events or failures before maintenance is done. The
engine is removed when the crew reports a significant engine event (or failure). Fly-to-
failure is the least cost-effective management criteria.
•On-condition maintenance is based on continuous inspections, measurement, and testing
to determine the condition of the engines. Operators need complete visibility and
measurement of their fleet data. On-condition is the most cost-effective management
criteria.
Section 10 54
Module Soft-Time Recommendations
MODULE/GROUP RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE, OPERABILITY, AND
SOFT-TIME DURABILITY BENEFITS
[CYCLES/HOURS]
STAGE 1 LPC / BLADE A-CHECK / 500 HRS. INCREASES BLADE FLUTTER MARGIN;
SHROUD LUBRICATION PREVENTS VIBRATION DUE TO BLADE
FAN BLADES / LPC 5,000 / 20,000 INCREASES EGT AND N1 MARGIN;
MODULE IMPROVES CRUISE TSFC
FAN CASE / 5,000 / 20,000 MAINTAINS CASE DURABILITY AND
INTERMEDIATE CASE SUFFICIENT SURGE MARGIN
HPC MODULE 4,000 / 16,000 INCREASES EGT MARGIN; IMPROVES
CRUISE TSFC; INCREASES LPC AND HPC
SURGE MARGIN
DIFFUSER, COMBUSTOR / 4,000 / 16,000 ENSURES THE INTEGRITY OF THE
TURBINE NOZZLE GROUP DIFFUSER CASE; RESTORES GASPATH
SURFACES AND IMPROVES TSFC.
HPT MODULE 2,000 / 16,000* PROTECTS AGAINST HPT 1ST BLADE
4,000 / 16,000* FRACTURE; IMPROVES SURGE MARGIN,
EGT MARGIN AND CRUISE TSFC
LPT MODULE 4,000 / 16,000 IMPROVES EGT MARGIN AND CRUISE TSFC
TURBINE EXHAUST CASE 4,000 / 16,000* ENSURES ADEQUATE OIL FLOW TO NO. 4
BEARING COMPARTMENT AND ADEQUATE
SCAVENGING OF THE COMPARTMENT.
* CYCLES/HOURS VARY WITH ENGINE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF DERATED TAKEOFF
(REFERENCE P&W MPG AND MAN)

55
•The on-condition maintenance approach uses the engine soft-time to manage the fleet. The
soft time management criteria is found in the P&W Maintenance Planning Guide (MPG)
and an example of the P&W recommended module soft time for a specific engine type is
shown in the table.The table shows the:
•first column with a list of the modules and/or groups
•second column with the P&W recommended soft time in cycles and hours
•third column with the benefits of engine performance, operability, and durability
•The soft time typically applies to a module relative to the time since its last overhaul
•A module is considered overhauled when its accumulated time on-wing is decreased to
zero as the result of significant maintenance done on the module
•The MPG and other useful reliability information can be viewed through Pratt & Whitney
Online Services (www.pratt-whitney.com)
•The 5 day P&W “Introduction to Engine Fleet Management” course gives techniques to
apply soft time recommendations to assess the relative event risk for on-wing engines
Section 10 55
Reliability Improvement Requires
Consideration of Workscope Options
MC/EFH PERF RISK FACTOR: WORST = 5 ( PRIMARY CONCERN: HPC STABILITY)
$125 4.0
PERFORMANCE RISK FACTOR

3.5
MAINTENANCE COST per EFH
$120
3.0
2.5
$115
2.0
$110
1.5
1.0
$105
0.5
$100 0.0
1 2 3
WORKSCOPE PLAN NUMBER
56
The optimum refurbishment plan is derived by choosing from at least three

different plans that are based on the expected:
• engine maintenance cost
• reliability
• time on-wing
Also, before electing the best plan, the operator must consider business
considerations such as:
zEngine contracts (Lease, Material Management, Power-by-the-
Hour, etc,)
zSpare availability
zShop work load
zEngine staggering plan
zBudget constraints
zOthers
Section 10 56
On-Wing Maintenance
Management Concept
LOWER RISK OF EVENTS HIGHER RISK OF EVENTS
1 4
C/S
MC/EFH Reliability
Risk
$ 5
EFH
PBH
MTBSV 3
2 H/S MC/EFH
TIME ON-WING
57
1. The cold section MC/EFH decreases with time on-wing. If an engine flies to failure,
the cost of the event can be much more than the savings in MC/EFH
2. The hot section MC/EFH increases with time on-wing. The operator also needs to
determine the desired number of scrapped blades and vanes relative to the mean time
between shop visits (MTBSV)
3. Power By Hour (PBH) is paid at a fixed MC/EFH for the time on-wing.The fixed
MC/EFH varies with each contract
4. The reliability risk (or probability) of OD’s increase with time on-wing. There is a
lower risk of engine events when the engines are removed before the MTBSV and a
higher risk of engine events when the engines are removed after the MTBSV
5. Operators should monitor this average shop visit interval and perform the following
tasks relative to the current shop visit rate or MTBSV:
• Identify top drivers of MTBSV
• Determine root causes for the top drivers of MTBSV
• Assess the MC/EFH for all modules relative to the engine MTBSV
• Develop a business case to implement selected Service Bulletins (SB) to
increase MTBSV
• Assess the risk of events for engines on-wing past the MTBSV
Section 10 57
Ultimately a Planning Committee Uses All
Data to Make the Best Decision
PILOT REPORTS AND
DISK LIFE-LIMITED LINE & BASE
PARTS’ TIME TO MAINTENANCE VISUAL INSPECTION
EXPIRATION REPORTS REPORTS
2
BUSINESS 1
3
CONSIDERATIONS
AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES, ALERT
SERVICE BULLETINS,
11 ESSENTIAL SERVICE
TEST CELL MODULAR BEST
BULLETINS 4
ANALYSIS MAINTENANCE
DECISION MODULE CYCLES AND
HOURS
10
RELIABILITY [IFSD’S,
AIRCRAFT AND 5
D&C’S, AND OD’S]
ENGINE FUEL
CONSUMPTION MAINTENANCE COST ON-WING ENGINE
HEALTH
9 MANAGEMENT 6
8 7
58
Watch Lists - To help optimize the ROI and achieve the fleet management goals, an engine maintenance
planning committee meets to review the engines on watch (watch lists).
Engine maintenance planning committee creates an optimum engine maintenance plan based on the
information given in the watch lists
1. Based on part and disk life limits
2. Discrepancies include electronic (EEC) messages and pilot reported faults
3. Mainly hot section distress
4. Mandatory and low category service bulletins
5. Cycles and hours as compared to a threshold
6. Targets and Requirements
7. Gaspath Performance Assessment
8. Based on SVR and engine maintenance material cost. Monitored relative to engine time on-
wing
9. Aircraft performance as it compares to the engine performance
10. Off-wing engine gaspath performance assessment
11. Number of spare engines, engine shop load, engine staggering plan, contracts such as engine
lease, material management programs, fleet management programs, etc, budget constraints
This topic is covered in the P&W 5-day Engine Fleet Management course.
Section 10 58
Summary Supplementary methods like
MCD, NDT, Borescoping
assist in planning engine
removals
On-Condition Use of ECM will optimize

powerplant engine on-wing time
improving Reliability
maintenance is
optimal for the ETOPS requirement is
safe and efficient satisfied by ECM, Oil
Consumption and
operation of an Maintenance Programs
airline
Manage your fleet to
reduce Costs (MC, IOC
& Fuel Costs)

59
Section 10 59
P&W Offers Training Courses
P&W CUSTOMER TRAINING CENTER
EAST HARTFORD, CT USA
RELATED COURSES:
• ENGINE FLEET MANAGEMENT
• ENGINE HEALTH MONITORING (P&W EHM)
• ENGINE CONDITION MONITORING II (ECM II)
• ENGINE FAILURE ANALYSIS
• ENGINE DESIGN AND REPAIR
• MODULE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

60
Training Course information, syllabus, schedules and special requests communication should be
directed to the Registrar at:
Electronic Communications
Tel: 1-860-565-5221
Fax: 1-860-565-1461
E-mail: customertraining@pw.utc.com
Mailing Address
Pratt & Whitney
Customer Training Center
M/S 122-18
400 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
USA
Section 10 60
Structures Reliability
Section 11 1
Topics
Structural Requirements Overview

Structural Data Collection and Analysis
Reporting Structural Deficiency
Summary
Section 11 2
Does Economic Criteria Determine the Retirement of Airplanes?
Design Goal Demonstrated to be Conservative
Deregulation Set New Rules
Operating Cost Vs Capital

Investment
More Effective and Efficient Maintenance Programs
Section 11 3
The Longevity of an Airplane Fleet Can be Attributed to...

Airplane Design
Manufacturing
Processes
Maintenance Practices
Section 11 4
Airplane Design
Safe Life Method

Withstand expected repeated loads for service
life without detectable cracks
Fail Safe Method
Safe for single principal structural element
failure at fail safe loads
Damage Tolerance
Inspection program based on engineering
evaluation considering crack propagation and
residual strength
5
Section 11 5
Manufacturing Processes
Stress Damage
Material Flaws Accidental Damage Environmental Accidental Fatigue
Damage Damage Damage
Detail Part Sub Final

Manufacturing Assembly Assembly Revenue Operation
Section 11 6
Accidental Environmental
Damage Damage
ATOS – Air Transportation Oversight System
Structural CPCP – Corrosion Prevention and Control
Significant Program
Items
SID – Supplemental Inspection Document
Maintenance CPCP SID
Program ATOS
Principal Structure Supplemental Inspection

Elements Programs
SFAR88
Fatigue Service RAP SAR

Damage Bulletins
SFAR – Special Federal Aviation Regulations

RAP – Repair Assessment Program
SAR – Service Action Request 7
Section 11 7
Preventive Maintenance Must Encompass Several

Requirements
An Effective Structural Inspection Program
Provides the Necessary Information to Support
Regulatory Requirements
Detect and control corrosion to acceptable levels
Find cracks before structural instability
Detect typical Accidental Damages as soon as
possible
Section 11 8
Section 11 9
Topics

10
Section 11 10
Structural Reliability Data Differs From Component Reliability

Components Structures
Failures are evident Failures are not
during operation evident and
sometimes hidden
Discrepancies are
often reported by flight Most often reported
crew during scheduled
maintenance
Components are
replaced Structures are repaired
/ reinforced
Components are of
different age and Structures are of the
different life span same age and life span
11
Section 11 11
Structural Defects Must be Linked to the Routine Task Card
12
Section 11 12
Effective Corrective Actions Require the Analysis of Structural

Data and Relevant Fleet Information
Fatigue Damage
Crack Delectability
Damage Tolerance
Inspection Method
Available
Fleet / Operational
Information
Environmental Damage
Corrosion Level
Inspection Interval
Corrosion Preventive
Method
Fleet / Operational
Information 13
Section 11 13
Structural
Discrepancy
Are
YES Does YES Discrepancies NO NO
Discrepancies
Discrepancies Check with Noticed in many Accidental
In One or
Correspond With Airframe Airplanes Damage
Few Airplanes
World Fleet? Manufacturer in the
Fleet?
Evaluate Design /
Isolated Event
Develop Corrective
May Require
Action
NO YES Investigation
Environmental
Damage
Discrepancies
Are Unique
To Operator Check with NO
Issue SB / Cracks Out of Limits Affected A/C
Airframe
AD or Corrosion Verified Under Same
Manufacturer
as Level 3 Operating
Elements
NO
YES Advise
NO
Operating Maintenance Aircraft Operator(s)
Conditions Practice Configuration
YES
YES
Short / Long Term
Advise Corrective Action
Related Events
Operator(s) Required
Investigate Line Stations,
GSE and Procedures Analyze Root
No Immediate Corrective on Route Structure Cause /
Crack Within
Action / Inspection Corrective
Limits
Program Required YES Action
Fatigue
Damage
Suspected
Corrective Action Corrosion Damage
Corrosion NO Level 3
Required / Quarterly
Level 2
Report to Manufacturer
Preventive Defective
Cargo Type / Aircraft Operating Maintenance
Procedures Part/
Handling Configuration Environment Program14
Process

for clear charts.
Section 11 14
Topics

15
Section 11 15
Sort by Zone / Sort by Airplane

Model / Type
Location
•
Sorting the Data will:

Isolate the source of the
problem
Will illustrate its severity
Can identify contributing factors
Sort by Airplane
Age / Cyc / FH
Sort by Damage
Type
16
Section 11 16
Plot Charts
Corrosion
Level 2
Findings
Zone 57 Aft Cargo Compartment
CPCP Task: 57-28300 / 57-53300 / 57-53301
50
40
30
25
57-28300
57-53300
20 57-53301
15
10
0
01 03 06 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
09
Airplane Age 17
Section 11 17
Bar Charts
Corrosion Level In Sub-major Zones 110 and 120
35
Number
of 30
Defects
25 LEVEL 1
20 LEVEL 2
15
10
5
0
111 112 113 114 115 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
Zone
18
Section 11 18
Scatter Plots
Stringer Crack Size Vs Flight Cycles
Crack Size
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Flight Cycles
19
Section 11 19
Crack Growth Indicator Curve

H - DESIGN CRACK GROWTH INTERVAL
H' - EFFECTIVE CRACK GROWTH INTERVAL
H
MAXIMUM
H'
ALLOWED
CRACK SIZE
ACTUAL MEAN
CRACK SIZE
FORECASTED MEAN
CRACK SIZE
MINIMUM
OBSERVABLE
TIME
20
Section 11 20
Summary
In-service Structural Data Collection and

Analysis Is Required to Support
Continuous Airworthiness Requirement
Corrective Action and Tracking Maximizes
the Effectiveness of the Structural
Maintenance Program and Minimizes
Airplane Down Time
Structural Reliability Program Will Preserve
the Inherent Structural Strength and Extend
the Economic Life of the Airplane
21
Section 11 21
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. StructuresReliability.ppt | 22

BOEING PROPRIETARY
Section 11 22
Data Analysis &
Data Analysis and
Corrective Action
Corrective Action
Data Analysis & Corrective Action

Section 12 1
Topics
Data Analysis
Corrective Action
Summary

Section 12 2
Data Analysis
Methods
Failure Reporting,
Analysis and
Corrective Action
system (FRACAS)
Root Cause Analysis
Pareto Analysis
Trend Analysis

Section 12 3
FRACAS
The purpose of FRACAS is to provide a closed loop

failure system, procedures for analysis of failures to
determine the root cause, and documentation for
recording corrective action.
The closed loop system should include:
Provisions to assure that effective corrective actions are
taken on a timely basis
Follow-up audits for all open failure reports, failure
analyses and corrective action suspense dates
Reporting of all delinquencies of the above dates to
management
Assurance that the root cause for each failure is found
and clearly defined

Section 12 4
FRACAS
Failure
Failure Failure
Documentation and
Observation Isolation
Verification
No No
Suspect Part
Replacement &
Is Corrective Yes Operational Verification
Action Performance
Effective? Testing
Failure
Analysis &
Yes Data Search
Incorporate Determine &

Establish
Corrective Action Incorporate
Root Cause
into all Products Corrective Action

Section 12 5
Root Cause Analysis
Provides a common sense approach to evaluating a

problem, asking the right kinds of questions and
directing the thought for establishing and locating
possible causes to the problem.
Define Describe Collect Facts and

Develop possible
Problem Problem determine relationships
to problem statement causes to problem
Statement Conditions
Validate True
Cause to Problem

Section 12 6
Pareto Analysis
Effective in identifying the significant categories of discrepancies

failures in descending order

Section 12 7
Trend Analysis
Data is presented in a time sequence and the

changes in the data observed over time. Trend
plots display if a process is running normally or
whether undesirable changes are occurring.

Section 12 8
Corrective Action
Methods
Design Change
Maintenance Program
Internal Audit
Training

Section 12 9
Design Change
ENGINEERING
Engineering
Check if SB is
Y Available? N
Fleet Team
Service Resolution
Bulletins Process (FTRP)
Airframe Component
Mfr. SB’s Vendor SB’s
Inadequate Design
zIf all other possible sources of the high event rate are eliminated, redesign of system,
equipment, or component must be considered.
z Manufacturer or vendor consulted for possible corrective action.
z Provide manufacturer or vendor with data, if necessary, for redesign effort.

Section 12 10
Design Change
SB Analysis
Digital
Technical Library Engineering
Airframe
• Retain Master copy Check
and Vendor reliability data
• Make Copy and Route
SB’s
Paper
Engineering Engineering
Does R of the fleet
N N
Is SB Applicable?
affected ?
Y Y
Engineering Engineering Engineering
Prepare SB Eval form
Categorize SB as Conduct Cost Benefit Complete SB Eval Form
• Safety related Analysis File SB for reference
• Economics
Engineering Engineering
Is the cost of the SB
Y Is SB Safety Mandatory?
justified ? N
N Y
Engineering INCORPORATE
Engineering
Complete SB Eval form
Y Is SB under Warranty?
Develop EO
SB
N

for clear charts.

Section 12 11
Design Change
Engineering Orders (E.O)
Repair
Pa
ig
r ts
pa
am
Ch
tC
an
ge
e
Fle
E.
O
E.O.
Mo
n
tio
dif
ra
ica
gu
nf i
ti
on
Co
Service Bulletin
Service Bulletin E.O. - Used for vendor service bulletins. Typically the SB is attached with the header page
of the E.O.
Configuration E.O. - This type of E.O. is used for configuration changes issued by the OEM.’s.
Repair E.O. - This type of E.O. is issued when and airplane has sustained significant damage and needs
repair action to return the aircraft to its original configuration.
Parts Change E.O. - This type of E.O. is used for fleet normalization or standardization and
interchangeability is unaffected.
Fleet Campaign E.O. - This type of E.O is issued only once for verification of corrective actions which are
cost prohibitive.
Modification E.O. - is a standard E.O. Performa which contains detailed instructions on the accomplishment
of a corrective action.

Section 12 12
Design Change
Fleet Team Resolution Process (FTRP)

Section 12 13
Maintenance Program
Add Task
Use MSG-2/MSG-3
Logic Analysis
Determine Task Type ABC Airlines
Determine Interval Maintenance
Program
Delete Task
Maintenance Program
z High failure rate may indicate need for shortening the interval for scheduled maintenance.
z Tasks omitted from original maintenance program may need to be added.
z Recommended Modifications need to be evaluated for possible inclusion.
z Airworthiness Directives not yet installed may related to problem being investigated.

Section 12 14
Internal Audit
Is a continuous
process that assesses
Start Report
Adequacy of controls Audit Findings
of key processes and
functions
Availability of Internal
appropriate resources
Audit
Implementation of Program
standards
Adequacy of policies
and procedures to Implement
Follow Up Corrective
cover work functions Action

Section 12 15
Internal Audit
Audit Frequency

Section 12 16
Internal Audit
Audit Frequency

Section 12 17
Internal Audit
Audit Frequency

Section 12 18
Training
Base & Line Stations

Procedure
Software
Recurrent Training

Section 12 19
Topics
Data Analysis
Corrective Action

Section 12 20
Corrective Action
Alert Notice
• ATA Identification
• Nature of the
Problem
• Description of the RCB Notified
Preliminary Analysis
• Historical data or
statistics as available
Identify Problem Areas
Alert Notice
z Detailed investigation usually done by Engineering Department.
z Engineering requests any additional data needed.
z Reliability Control Board notified of Alert.
z Engineering may enlist personnel from other work center to assist in the investigation.

Section 12 21
Corrective Action
Alert Notice
• Reliability • Look at problem

section reviews and data
data • Determine Problem
Preliminary Engineering • Issue Alert Area
Investigation Investigation Notice • Determine
• Provide data Corrective Action
to Engineering
Preliminary Investigation
z Reliability collects and tallies all data.
z Reliability peruses data for possible problem areas.
z Preliminary analysis to clarify problem
z Reliability issues an Alert Notice to generate more detailed analysis of problem by more qualified personnel.
z Reliability continues to monitor data to determine effect of corrective action.
Engineering Investigation
z Possible problem areas:
+ Mechanics not performing job correctly
+ Procedures incorrect of not understandable
+ Parts may be damaged or incorrect
+ Maintenance Program may be inadequate
+ Equipment may require redesign
z Engineering determines nature of the problem.
z Engineering develops appropriate corrective action to resolve problem.
Maintenance Personnel
z Personal Attributes of personnel may affect performance.
z Adequate training of maintenance personnel is essential in performing good maintenance.
z Training needed may be simple or complex; may be OJT or classroom.
Maintenance Program
z Maintenance procedures should be reviewed for applicability, understandability, and adequacy.
Inadequate Design
z If all other possible sources of the high event rate are eliminated, redesign of system, equipment, or component must be considered.
z Manufacturer or vendor consulted for possible corrective action.
z Provide manufacturer or vendor with data, if necessary, for redesign effort.
Maintenance Program
z High failure rate may indicate need for shortening the interval for scheduled maintenance.
z Tasks omitted from original maintenance program may need to be added.
z Recommended Modifications need to be evaluated for possible inclusion.
z Airworthiness Directives not yet installed may related to problem being investigated.
Parts
z Procedures for checking parts out of material should be checked for adequacy.
z Incoming parts inspection procedures should be addressed for adequacy.
z Parts handling and storage procedures may be inadequate.
z Maintenance procedures for R/I should be examined for possible problems.
Interference with other Equipment
z Mechanical and electrical interference can occur in many ways.
z Two systems that have no common connections can interfere with one another.
z Systems with common components or common interfaces can interfere with each other.
z In rare cases, electromagnetic radiation from the ground or other airborne sources can cause problems.

Section 12 22
Corrective Action
Engineering Order
• Each Work Center
Sent to all carries out appropriate
Work Centers action
• Reports Completion to
Involved
Engineering
Engineering • RCB
Reports • Reliability Section
Completion
Engineering Order
z Engineering Order is the official paperwork for accomplishment of work not in the regular
maintenance program.
z EO includes all information about the problem and its solution, including due dates.
z Each Work Center reports completion to Engineering.
z Engineering reports completion of EO to RCB and Reliability Section.

Section 12 23
Corrective Action
Corrective Action Could be

One-Time Effort
On-Going Activity
Incorporation of Service Bulletin
May Involve More Than One Work Center
Corrective Action
z Corrective action may be simple or complex. May involve more than one Work Center.
z Corrective action plan discussed and approved by RCB. Applicable Work Centers in attendance.
z Engineering Order (EO) issued to applicable Work Centers for accomplishment.
z Engineering is responsible for coordinating EO activities.

Section 12 24
Corrective Action
Follow up Activities
Reliability
Monitors Data
to Identify
Discrepancies
Event Rate
Should
Decrease
Incorporation
of EO in Fleet
Takes Time
Should be
Monitored
Follow Up Activities
z After Corrective Action EO has been completed, Reliability monitors data to determine effectiveness
of action.
z Data improvement means success; little or no change in data means reevaluation required.

Section 12 25
Summary
Collection and Display of Reliability Data

is the starting point for reliability
Provide detailed analysis of problems to
determine Corrective Action
Incorporation of Corrective Action with
Follow Up Analysis
Conclusion
z Data collection and display is the beginning of a good Reliability Program.
z The purpose of a Reliability Program is to improve the maintenance effort.
z The most important part of the program is analysis of the data and the development and
implementation of appropriate corrective action.
z To close the loop, adequate follow up activity is necessary.

Section 12 26
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. DataAnaly&CorrecAction.ppt | 27

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 12 27
Maintenance
Program Interval
Adjustment and
Process Change
Maintenance Program Interval Adjustment & Process Change

Section 13 1
Topics
Maintenance and Reliability Program

Relationship
Maintenance Program Adjustments
Summary

Section 13 2
Maintenance & Reliability Programs
Interrelationships
MANUFACTURER REGULATORY
REGULATORY OPERATOR
MANUFACTURER OPERATOR
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY
DESIGN REGULATIONS OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
PRIOR TO IN-SERVICE
SERVICE
IMPROVEMENTS
• •FAILURE DESIGN
FAILURE
CONSEQUENCES
DESIGNIMPROVEMENT
IMPROVEMENT • Add or delete tasks
CONSEQUENCES • • ASB
• •FAILURE
ASB INITIAL • Adjust Intervals
FAILUREMODES
MODES • • AOL
AOL
• •AGE
AGERELIABILITY
RELIABILITY • • SB MAINTENANCE • Modify Hardware
SB
CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERISTICS PROGRAM
• •SAFE
SAFELIFE
LIFELIMITS
LIMITS
• •SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANTITEMS
ITEMS
REVISED
REVISED
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
AIRPLANE
AIRPLANE PROGRAM
PROGRAM
CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION
Reliability
Reliability
• • Measure
Measurefailure
failure
MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE frequencies
MRB
MRB RCB frequencies
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS RCB • • Measure age
Measure age
reliability
reliability
relationships
relationships
• • Dispatch
DispatchReliability
Reliability
INITIAL ++Delays
Delays
SERVICE
SERVICE ++Cancellations
REPETITIVE Cancellations
AD’S
AD’S DIFFICULTY
DIFFICULTY • • React
Reacttoto
REPORT
REPORT unanticipated
unanticipatedfailures
failures
FLEET
FLEET
STATISTICAL
STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
Manufacturer’s provide inputs to maintenance program through design/redesign efforts,

industry working groups, and fleet analysis.
Regulatory Authorities issue airplane and airline certification and Airworthiness Directives.
Operations and maintenance activities at the airline determine overall reliability of the
airplanes.
Reliability Program tracts the maintenance effectiveness and provides means to implement
corrective action.

for clear charts.
Section 13 3
Topics
Maintenance and Reliability Program

Relationship

Section 13 4
Why do we revise Maintenance Programs?

Optimization
Airworthiness
Economics
Methods for revising Maintenance

Program
Reliability Data
PIREPs / MAREPs
Non-Routines
MPD/OAMP is a starting point

Airline can adjust maintenance intervals to optimize the maintenance program to their operational
and environmental conditions.
• Category 5 and 8 items in the MRB
• Reduce Down Time
• Non Compatibility with aging aircraft programs
• Eliminate Redundant Open / Close of access panels
• Opportunity inspections

Section 13 5
Base
Maintenance
Component Check Non-routines
Zonal Inspection
System Check
Structures Inspection
• The MSG-3 philosophy tests whether the accomplishment of routine task generates non-routine
tasks.

Section 13 6
Escalation and De-

escalation of Checks
Intervals
Escalation and De-
escalation of Task
Intervals
MSG-2 Process
Change
Restructuring of MSG-
3 Tasks

Section 13 7
Non-Routine Data
XYX Airlines No. 123456 NON-ROUTINE WRITE-UP
Subject/Area/Part A/C Reg STA ATA DATE
Skill Generating Item Check No. Inspn. Reqd. after corrective action
Yes No
DISCREPANCY CORRECTIVE ACTION
Mechanic Date
• A non-routine write-up form is used to record discrepancies discovered during the accomplishment
of scheduled maintenance.
• The Non-routine write-up form provides a legal record of work accomplished that is not covered by
routine task cards and serves as a source data for reliability analysis.

Section 13 8
Non-routines Vs Routine
NON-ROUTINE ITEM VERSUS TASK NUMBER

M P D It e m N O A B C 0 0 1A B C 0 0 2 A B C 0 0 3 A B C 0 0 4 A B C 0 0 5 A B C 0 0 6 A B C 0 0 7 A B C 0 0 8 A B C 0 0 9 A B C 0 10 T O T A L
20-010-01 1 1 2 4
20-010-02 2 2 5 1 10
20-020-00 3 1 1 5
20-030-01 0
20-030-02 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11
20-040-01 0
20-040-02 1 1 1 3
20-050-00 1 3 4
20-060-00 1 1 2
20-070-00 1 1 2
20-080-01 1 1 2
Data of the number of non-routine versus routine task are collected.

Determine whether the ratio is within acceptable limits of performance standards.
• If the ratio is within limits, the task is a candidate for interval escalation.
• If the ratio exceeds limits, the task interval can be de-escalated.

Section 13 9
Compile Data
Line Maintenance Base Maintenance
PIREPS / MAREPS No. of Non-routines Vs Routine
Identify Common ATA

System / Component

Section 13 10
Criteria for Escalation and De-escalation

The candidate task or check must have been
accomplished once over the entire fleet
Review of Non-routine data from a sample of 10%
of fleet size (minimum of two) of previously
accomplished check
Airplanes that are used as samples must have
utilized at least 90% of the interval for that check
Substantiation for the escalation should be
approved by the RCB

Section 13 11
Criteria for Escalation and De-escalation (cont.)

Retention of existing intervals or de-escalation
will be considered for those tasks or checks do
not meet the performance standard criteria
The check interval may not be increased greater
than 10% at any one time unless approved by the
regulatory authority
Check intervals may be increased again after the
new interval meets the requirements for
escalation / de-escalation

Section 13 12
MSG-2 Philosophy
OC
HT
CM
MSG-2 is Process oriented and is a ’bottom up’ approach.

Three Primary Maintenance Processes are identified.
HARD TIME PROCESS - (HT)
Preventive maintenance process that requires a component or a system to be periodically overhauled or removed from
service
example : replacing the landing gear at 20,000 cycles
ON CONDITION PROCESS - (OC)
A preventive maintenance process that requires a component or system to be periodically checked or inspected against some
physical standard to determine whether it can continue in service
example: functional check of MLG indicator pins for brake wear
CONDITION MONITORING PROCESS - (CM)
Maintenance process for items that are allowed to fly to failure. The CM process is characterized by monitoring their
reliability with a surveillance program and system functional analysis
Reliability Program activities can provide the airline with necessary data to justify program changes.
MSG-2 process can be monitored resulting in changes from one process to another.
Process interval for HT and OC checks can also be changed with justification.

Section 13 13
MSG-3 Philosophy
RELIABILITY
PROGRAM
SCHEDULED
MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM
MSG-3 is a task oriented process and is a ‘top down’ approach.

Maintenance Processes are replaced with a series of maintenance tasks.
Lubrication /Servicing
General Visual Inspection / Detailed Inspection / Special Detailed Inspection
Operational / Functional Check
Restoration
Discard
Reliability Program activities can provide the airline with necessary data to justify program changes.
The Reliability Program can provide data implement modifications or add/delete tasks.

Section 13 14
Summary
Design and collection of non-routine task

card system is the basis for escalation/de-
escalation of check intervals
Reliability should provide justification for
escalation and de-escalation of intervals
at the task and check level

Section 13 15
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Maint_Pgm_IntrvAdjustment.ppt | 16

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 13 16
Airplane
Maintenance Costs
Airplane Maintenance Costs

Section 14 1
Topics
Maintenance Cost Parameters

Influencing Factors Affecting Maintenance
Costs
Summary

Section 14 2
Cost of Ownership
Direct Operating Costs Indirect Operating Costs Acquisition Costs
Indirect Maintenance Costs Flight Crew

Direct Maintenance Costs
(Burden)
Fuel /Oil
Scheduled Unscheduled Depreciation
Insurance
Airframe Engine Airframe Engine
Labor Labor Labor Labor
Material Material Material Material 3
The push to lower "ownership costs" is most pronounced in airlines' management of their newest aircraft.
Carrier executives want guarantees that engines and critical systems components will fly without
interruption for nearly their entire design lives. The bottom line for carriers in reviewing operating costs
of new and old aircraft is to eliminate any technology that does not help cut fuel, crew, maintenance and
operating costs,

Section 14 3
Maintenance Costs can be categorized as

Q Direct and Indirect Maintenance Costs
Q Fixed and Variable Costs

Section 14 4
Direct Maintenance Costs Indirect Maintenance Costs

Labor and material costs Costs not considered to be direct
expended in performing costs but contribute to the
maintenance on a overall maintenance costs
component or airplane Example:
Example: Training
Scheduled Maintenance Reliability
Unscheduled Accounting Practices
Maintenance Documentation
Component Overhaul / Aircraft Records
Repair
Information Technology
Support Equipment 5
• Costs can be viewed in two dimensions

1. Fixed costs and variable costs
2. Direct and indirect maintenance costs
• Fixed Costs
• Depreciation
• Insurance
• Rental / Lease
• Interest
• Maintenance
• Variable Costs
• Fuel/Oil
• Crew
• Maintenance
• Direct Maintenance Costs
• Labor Costs - 70%
• Material Costs - 30%
• Indirect Maintenance Costs
• Varies from operator to operator

Section 14 5

for clear charts.

Section 14 6
Maintenance Cost Parameters On Aircraft Vs Off Aircraft

On Aircraft Off Aircraft Other
10%
48%
42%
30 35
% of Maintenance Costs
% of Maintenance Costs
25 30
35
29
25
20
• Line Checks 20
15
• Bench Checks • PIREP Corrections 15
10 13 • MAREP Corrections 10
• Repair / Overhaul • Deferred Item Corrections 13
5 5
• Refurbishment • Hangar Checks
0 • Repairs 0
• Modifications Shop Engines Line Base
• Modifications

Section 14 7

Labor versus Material
Labor Material
100
% of Maintenance Cost
90 95
80
70 75 75
60
50
49 51
40
30
20 25 25
10
5
0
Line Base Shop Engines
8

Section 14 8
Fixed Maintenance Costs
The fixed costs of operating aircraft are those

that result from owning and support the aircraft
and that do not vary according to aircraft usage.
The specific fixed cost elements include:
Q Maintenance
V Labor
V Material
Q Contracts
Q Operations Overhead
Q Administrative Overhead
Q Insurance
9
•Maintenance - This cost category includes certain maintenance and inspection activities which are scheduled on a calendar
interval basis and take place regardless of whether or how much the aircraft are flown. Agencies are encouraged to simplify
their accounting systems and account for all maintenance costs as variable costs
•Labor - This includes all projected labor expended by mechanics and inspectors associated with maintenance scheduled on a
calendar interval basis. This does not include variable maintenance labor or work on items having a TBO or retirement life.
This category also includes costs associated with unallocated maintenance labor expenses, i.e., associated salaries, benefits,
travel expenses and training costs. These costs should be evenly allocated over the number of the aircraft in the fleet.
•Material - This includes all parts and consumables used for maintenance scheduled on a calendar basis.
•Contracts - This includes all contracted costs for maintenance or inspections scheduled on a calendar basis.
•Operations Overhead - These include all costs, not accounted for elsewhere, associated with direct management and support
of the aircraft program. Examples of such costs include: personnel costs (salaries, benefits, travel, uniform allowances, training,
etc.) for management and administrative personnel directly responsible for the aircraft program; building and ground
maintenance; janitorial services; lease or rent costs for hangers and administrative buildings and office space; communications
and utilities costs; office supplies and equipment; maintenance and depreciation of support equipment; tie down fees for aircraft
located on base; and miscellaneous operational support costs.
•Administrative Overhead - These costs represent a pro-rated share of salaries, office supplies and other expenses of fiscal,
accounting, personnel, management, and similar common services performed outside and the aircraft program but which
support this program. For purposes of recovering the costs of operations, agencies should exercise their own judgment as to the
extent to which aircraft users should bear the administrative overhead costs.
•Insurance - Aviation activity involves risks and potential casualty losses and liability claims. These risks are normally covered
by purchasing an insurance policy.

Section 14 9
Variable Maintenance Costs
The variable costs of operating aircraft are

those costs that vary depending on how
much the aircraft are used. The specific
variable cost elements include:
Q Maintenance
V Labor
V Material
Q Contracts
Q Engine overhaul, aircraft refurbishment, and
major component repairs
10
•Maintenance - Unscheduled maintenance and maintenance scheduled on the basis of flying time vary with aircraft usage and,
therefore, the associated costs are considered variable costs. In addition to the costs of normal maintenance activities, variable
maintenance costs shall include aircraft refurbishment, such as painting and interior restoration, and costs of or allowances for
performing overhauls and modifications required by service bulletins and airworthiness directives. Operators may consider all
of their maintenance costs as variable costs and account for them accordingly. Otherwise, certain maintenance costs will be
considered fixed.
•Labor - This includes all labor (i.e., salaries and wages, benefits, travel, and training) expended by mechanics, technicians, and
inspectors, exclusive of labor for engine overhaul, aircraft refurbishment, and/or repair of major components.
•Material - This includes cost of materials and parts consumed in aircraft maintenance and inspections, exclusive of materials
and parts for engine overhaul, aircraft refurbishment, and/or repair of major components.
•Contracts - This includes all contracted costs for unscheduled maintenance and for maintenance scheduled on a flying hour
basis or based on the condition of the part or component.
•Engine overhaul, aircraft refurbishment, and major component repairs - These are the materials and labor costs of
overhauling engines, refurbishing aircraft, and/or repairing major aircraft components.
•NOTE 1: In general, the flight hour cost is computed by dividing the costs for a period by the projected hours flown during the
period. However, when computing the flight hour cost factor for this cost category, divide the total estimated cost for the
activities in this category (e.g., overhaul, refurbishment and major repairs) by the number of flight hours between these
activities.
•NOTE 2: Separate cost or reserve accounts for engine overhaul, aircraft refurbishment, major component repairs, and other
maintenance cost elements, may, at the operator’s discretion, be identified and quantified separately for mission-pertinent
information purposes. Reserve accounts are generally used when the aircraft program is funded through a working capital or
revolving fund.

Section 14 10
Factors Influencing Maintenance Costs
Influencing Factors
Age
o n
z ati
Ma n U t ili
ufac
ture
r
Maintenance
Costs
Fl i g h
t Len
e gth
r lin
Ai
nt
onme
Envir
11
•Influencing Factors
Airline
Manufacturer

Section 14 11
Age: Airplane Aging Groupings

Pre – MSG-3 Era: 737Classics, A300, 747-200 etc:
V Maturity between 5- 10 years (D-Check periodicity)
V Ages as: 1.33% per 1000 Fhr or 4% per year
MSG-3 Era: 737NG, 757, 767, 777, A320,

A330/A340, A380 etc:
V Ages as: 1% per 1000 Fhr or 3% per year
Composite Airplanes: 7E7 and future

V Ages as: 0.8% per 1000 Fhr or 2.4% per year
12

Section 14 12
Airplanes & Initial Analysis Process -MSG-
3 Programs
Pre–MSG-3 Era MSG-3 Era Composite

MSG-1 MSG-2 EMSG MSG-3 MSG-3 MSG-3 Rev2 MSG-3 2005.1 or
Rev1 Later
1968 1970 1972 1980 1993
1988
MSG-3 2003.1
(Non-
Composite)
747 DC-10 Concorde 757 777 737-6/7/8/900 787
L1011 A300 767 MD-11 A380
737-3/4/500 747-400* A340- A340-500/600

200/300
(Pylon etc:
MSG-3)
MD-80 A310
A320
13
* Partial Note: Most airplanes may have been subsequently reanalyzed

Section 14 13
Pre - MSG-3 Airframes Aging Curve
3
Aging at:
1.33% per 1000 FHR (from
2.5
1%)
6.4%
4% per Year initially
% pe r year
2
Ag in g : 3
nt
Curre
Maturity Factor
Utilization: 3000 FHR per Year

5.2%
g
1.5 Agin
Maturity 4%/Year
D1 D2
ess
1
Earlier Generation Airframes exhibiting
wn
higher rate of aging then previously

Ne
0.5
modeled
0
- Materials, Corrosion ….
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
14
Airplane Age

Section 14 14
MSG-3 Airframes Aging Curve
2.5
Aging at:
2.0
1% per 1000 FHR er y ear

i n g: 3% p
nt Ag
3% per Year initially Curre
Maturity Factor
1.5 4.5%
Utilization: 3000 FHR per Year
1.0
3%
D1 Maturity D2
MSG-3 Airframes exhibit higher rate of aging in

0.5
later years then previously modeled, but overall
lower aging – design standards, materials, corrosion
inhibiting compounds, build standards…
0.0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Airplane Age 15

Section 14 15
Composite Airframes Aging Curve
2.5
2.0
er y ear
3% p
Maturity Factor
1.5
n t Agi n g:
Curre
1.0
2.4%
D1 D2
Maturity
0.5
Composite Airframes are expected to exhibit
later and slower aging– Health Management,
Maintenance Programs, Composites: little corrosion & fatigue …
0.0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Airplane Age 16

Section 14 16
All Aging Curves
3 .0
2 .5
2 .0
ar
3 e r ye
Maturity Factor
M SG- nt Ag
i n g: 3
%p
Pre- r e
G-3
1 .5 Cu r
M S
o m posite
1 .0
C
0 .5
Airframes of different eras exhibit different aging patterns
– and aging starts occurring beyond second D-Check
0 .0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
A irp la n e A g e
17

Section 14 17
Two Dimensional Aging: Years & FHrs
(MSG-3 Era)
Aircraft A, 10 yrs old 40,000 flt hrs
Aircraft B, 20 yrs old 40,000 flt hrs
Future utilization of both airplanes, 4,200 flt hrs/yr
2.50
+Aging factor will be based on flt hr 4,200
utilization and age in years
3,500
2.00
-Curve slope will vary with utilization
2,700
Airframe/Newness Factor
D4
2,000
1.50
D2
1.00
0.50
0.00
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
1
18
Years (mid)

Section 14 18
Summary - Maintenance Cost of Aging
Airframes - New Modeling
New aging curves have been developed – two

dimensional (Years & Flight Hour Aging)
Allow realistic airplane maintenance cost forecast
for better budgeting
Allow airlines to make airplane retirement and
phasing out decisions based on better data
IATA-PPM has approved & adopted the current
production airplanes aging curves as an industry
standard and will be included in the IATA-PPM
cost forecast tool for use by the entire airline
industry
19

Section 14 19
Utilization
Cost Per Flight Hour =

Trip Maintenance Cost / Flight Time
20

Section 14 20
Flight Length
Trip Maintenance Cost = Cost Per Cycle + (Flight Time Related Cost)(Flight Time)
21
• Higher utilization of fleet reduces maintenance costs as can be seen from the metric above. Low
utilization operators are penalized by fixed maintenance costs.

Section 14 21
Environment
22
• Airplanes operating in the tropics are more susceptible to corrosion versus those in the upper northern
hemisphere or lower southern hemisphere.

Section 14 22
Airline Operator and Manufacturer
23

Section 14 23
Airline Operations
Fleet Composition
24
• Fleet commonality will reduce maintenance costs in the following areas

• Spares
• Training
• Skill type rating
• System / Component commonality across fleet will further reduce maintenance costs

Section 14 24
Airline Operations
Time Available for Maintenance
Maintenance Escalating
Escalating
Operations Maintenance
Maintenance
Flight
Costs
Costs
Operations
25
• The propensity for discrepancies / faults generated on the airplane increase with higher utilization.
With higher utilization there is less time for line maintenance to correct discrepancies. Thus the
airplane is stacked with high deferred maintenance items (DMI) when it arrives at the hanger for
scheduled checks. The base maintenance is now overloaded with excessive tasks over and above the
standard work package and the downtime of the airplane is extended increasing maintenance costs.

Section 14 25
Airline Maintenance Practices
Maintenance Plan - Block Check

A stable work force Man power loading has
peaks and valleys for small
Open/close and docking fleet operators
man-hour expenditures
minimized Long out-of-service periods
Airplane available for
operational service for
extended periods
Provides time for
modifications and
refurbishment
Suitable for a mature and or
large fleet
26

Section 14 26
Maintenance Plan - Phase Check

No long out-of-service May break operational
periods schedule to accomplish non-
routine corrections
Flat loading manpower
requirements No time for
modifications/refurbishment
Allows operators to perform
‘C’ checks during overnight Open/close and docking
man-hour expenditure
Suitable for newer and or increase
smaller fleet
Not compatible with aging
fleets
May lose the intent of the
requirement 27
• Recommended for new airplanes (0 - 5 yrs age) since they will have less non-routines and phased
check can be accomplished during over night.
• Small fleet operators can keep the airplanes in revenue service for longer periods.
• Airlines can operate their fleet without taking airplanes out of revenue service until the airplanes reach
mature age (5 yrs or older).
• ‘C’ Check can be performed during overnight.
• Can afford to have a small constant labor force.
• Will not have time to correct non-routines.
• Will not have time for modifications.
• Requires finite scheduling of specific Task Cards
• Non-routine tasks increase when airplane enters mature phase and phase check cannot accommodate
correction of non-routines.
• Since phase checks are accomplished quite ahead of the actual due date, the intent of the requirement
may be lost for tasks which are calendar driven.

Section 14 27
Contract Vs In-house
Contract In-house
Pilot Reports Number of
Aircraft
Delays &
Cancellations Delivery Date
of New
Technical Aircraft
Write Ups
Utilization
Heavy
Maintenance
Visit Intervals
28
•Maintenance facilities are now regarded as a cost/profit center.

•The quality of checks accomplished at the base maintenance or at the MRO facility can be evaluated
using a rating system.
•The rating system can be as simple as meeting a bench mark or can be a complex formula.
•Irrespective of the criterion, the quality of the checks can be used as a leverage for paying incentives or
demurrage charges to the maintenance provider.
•The parameters are measured for a period of ninety days and compares the performance of the airplane
versus the rest of the fleet.

Section 14 28
Fleet Size and Age
29
•Maintenance visits are triggered by either of the following intervals

Flight Hours
Flight Cycles
Calendar Time
•As the airplanes age, maintenance checks are triggered by calendar intervals rather than flight hours or
flight cycles. To reduce hanger visits and increase airplane availability maintenance planners piggy back
the other intervals with calendar time. The flight hour and flight cycle intervals are not fully utilized and
thus the maintenance program becomes inefficient with age.

Section 14 29
Economic Options
Manual Data Entry
1 00
8 0
Touch typists
6 0
average 1 error
4 0
every 30
characters
2 0
Time Accuracy
Bar Code Data Entry
Bar code
1 00
8 0
read error
6 0
occurs once
every 3
4 0
million
2 0
characters !
0
Time Accuracy 30
Tracking Parts
Spec 2000 Permanent Bar Code ID
• Advantages:
– 10% - Technology Improvement
• avoid typos: 100,000x improvement
• faster: 10x improvement
– 90% - Business Improvement
• agree on data format for the universal SSN
• becomes common pointer into distributed databases

Section 14 30
Labor Costs and Productivity
Sequencing of Task Cards

Scheduling of Task Cards
concurrently
Ensuring availability of
Q GSE
Q Materials
V (Rotables, Repairables,
Expendables, Consumables)
Q Required Documentation
31
• Scheduled checks are repetitive. A study of the sequence of work can determine how many tasks can
be accomplished in parallel and how may in sequence. The elapsed time for the total number of tasks
in sequence will determine the downtime of the airplane. It is important to take advantage of areas /
zones in the airplane to schedule tasks when sequential task is accomplished in other areas /zones.

Section 14 31
Airline Accounting Practices
Mixed Fleet Allocation
32

Section 14 32
Cost Allocation by Age
Segregate and accrue costs by Model

Series
Q Example: 737-100/-200/-300/-400 Vs 737-600/-
700/-800/-900
33

Section 14 33
Overhead Cost Allocation
34

Section 14 34
Warranty Credits
Warranty
Administration
Monitor parts Monitor parts

in installed on
inventory airplane
35
• Operators will benefit by monitoring of parts under warranty using a computer system module that
will greatly reduce investment in spares
• Monitor parts in inventory
• Monitor parts installed on airplane
• Requires sophisticated computer system to track warranty items

Section 14 35
Expense Vs Capitalization
• Expense as incurred
Maintenance
Maintenance • Accruals basis
Airline Checks
Checks • Defer and amortize
Accounting
• Airplane
Guidelines • Spare engines
Depreciation
Depreciation • Modifications to airplane
• Rotable assets
• Repairables
36
• For users of financial statements in the DOT, the divergence of accounting policies for dealing with
fleet cost and associated depreciation has made difficult the comparison of airline financial
performance. Against the above background the IATA Accounting Policy Task Force has formulated
guidance on a variety of aspects of accounting policy and practice concerning maintenance costs, fleet
acquisition costs and associated depreciation.
• Depreciation cost is a non-cash expense. A total of one third of maintenance costs ($ 27.3 billion) was
reported as depreciation to the DOT.
• The American Institute of CPAs has released a proposed SOP entitled "Accounting for Certain Costs
and Activities Related to Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E)" which would apply to all non-
governmental entities.
• A component is a tangible part or portion of PP&E that can be separately identified as an asset and
depreciated or amortized over its own expected useful life and is expected to provide economic benefit
for more than one year.
• If a component has an expected useful life that differs from the expected useful life of the PP&E asset
to which it relates, the cost should be accounted for separately and depreciated or amortized over its
expected useful life.

Section 14 36
Airline Support Practices
Spares Availability Just in Case Inventory required for a 95% Service Level
1,000,000
Inventory per Aircraft ($)

900,000
800,000
700,000
Just in Case inventory 600,000
is an insurance policy 500,000
400,000
300,000
Q To protect against 200,000
100,000
V Lost revenue through 0

5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
delayed flights
Aircraft in Fleet
V Costs incurred through Fleet No. of Cost
handling delayed Size Fleets Multiple
passengers 100 1 1.0
V Maintenance disruptions 50 2 1.2

through work stoppage 25 4 1.5
20 5 1.7
10 10 2.3
5 20 3.6 37
• Worldwide aviation spare parts inventories are estimated between $ 50 - 80 billion excluding engines.
Another $ 10 billion is spent in purchasing parts every year. These expenditures have been justified due
to the fear of delayed departures which overrides all other considerations and must be avoided at
virtually any cost. The airlines are very conservative and not prone to operational risks.
• Fleet size affects component stock levels. Small fleets require substantially more inventory per aircraft
than larger ones. For example, a fleet of 50 airplanes requires less than half the inventory per airplane
when compared with a fleet of 10 airplanes. This makes the support of small fleets less economic and
especially fleet sizes less than 20 uneconomic. This is very significant as 60% of the world’s airlines
operate with fleets less than 20 airplanes.
• Material management computer systems used by the airlines are often inefficient and does not have
interfaces with other legacy systems.

Section 14 37
Spares Availability
Just in Time
Just in Time is inventory at
a minimum level
Q Inventory Levels Based on
Reliability and Just-in-time
(JIT) Will Reduce Inventory
Holding Costs
Q Stock levels at line stations
should be optimal based on
reliability data
Q Service levels for parts can
be offset by
V Parts pooling
V Parts borrowing
Q Component Exchange Program
38
• Attitudes, training, budget cuts and effective training methods are prevailing at the airlines to adopt
stringent plans to cut down on component quantities and better management of their inventory.
• Integrated computer systems are aiding the cause of reduced inventory levels
• Bar coding has assisted in tracking the rotables and repairable units to reduce turn around time from the
moment it is removed off the airplane to the time when it is stocked as a serviceable unit.

Section 14 38
Training
Conventional Methods
Q Class Room Instruction
Technology Based
Methods
Q Computer Based
Training (CBT)
Q Web Based Training
39
• The development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) using artificial intelligence software, has
revolutionized training methods in the US military by allowing the automation of instructor feedback
to trainees. The potential for airlines was great since ITS mimicked the one-on-one learning
experience normally only achievable by face-to-face student-instructor interaction, adapted itself to
each individual, and provided automated learning of complex tasks.
• Perhaps the hottest commercial training potential is the Internet. Web-based training had the potential
to provide intelligent tutoring, just-in-time training for field workers, and higher performance training
at much lower cost. But while the balance between CBT and instructor-led training in the airline
industry was already shifting from 25/75 towards 50/50, it is of the view that CBT would never replace
instructors.
• The benefits of web-based training applies both to product and to process activities. Web-based
distance learning could reduce costs, provide 24-hour access and be used for just-in-time and on-the-
job training applications. Training center logistics could be improved by moving some tasks out of the
fixed location centers and offering on-line scheduling of all training resources. Finally, the web offered
the prospect of global sharing of training lessons and experiences, for example through bulletin boards
posted on the web.

Section 14 39
Reliability Program
Max Cost TOTAL COSTS Max Cost
HIGH
MINIMUM COST
PREVENTION COSTS
(Scheduled Maintenance
MAINTENANCE
Product Improvements)
COSTS
CORRECTION COSTS
(Unscheduled Maintenance)
LOW
LOW RELIABILITY HIGH

40
• Reliability costs and maintenance costs are inversely proportional to each other. Without a sound and
good reliability program, maintenance costs will be much higher due to a high number of faults /
discrepancies and non-routines.

Section 14 40
Maintenance Communication
Maintenance Control Center
ACARS
Fix Airplane Now
e? Te
Tim ch
n d . Do
ou Awaiting Airplane
Personnel?
e?
cu
Available?
Adequate
Gr
bl
me
Av
GSE
Arrival
la
Sk able
ate
ai
ail
n
ill ?
Av
e qu ts?
rt
d
Pa
Material & Line Engineering

Maintenance GSE & Personnel
Inventory Station Technical
Planning
Control Shift Roster
Logistics Training
Library
Yes
Database Database Database
Database Database Database
No No No No No No
41
• The Maintenance Control Center (MCC) is the nerve center of line maintenance operations. MCC
monitors faults/discrepancies while airplanes are still flying and also while they are on the ground and
provide disposition to line maintenance to correct the same.
• To dispatch airplanes without incurring delays, MCC needs resources to research, trouble-shoot the
discrepancy and correct the discrepancy within the turnaround time of the affected airplane.
• It has been observed over the years, that the research and trouble shooting part of the process are the
largest contributors of total time to correct discrepancies.
• With the advent of downloading faults via ACARS, MCC has up front information of impending
arrival of airplane with reported faults at different line stations.
• MCC when provided access to various information databases can conduct research, troubleshoot the
fault while the airplane is still in the air and advise line maintenance at the arriving station of
corrective action.

Section 14 41
Maintenance Communication Dispatch Airplane
Deferred
ed Items Yes
Defer Maintenance e f err ble? Database
d ta
. of ep
No s acc
m
i te No Swap Airplanes
MEL Impact
Airplane Yes
Downstream?
Route
Schedule
Database
M Aircraft on Ground - AOG

EL
Re Yes
l ie
f?
MEL No
Database
42
• Fix now or defer maintenance decisions can be undertaken by the MOC and the ramifications of
deferring maintenance can be simulated downstream.
• This decision making tool will assist MCC to fix the airplane, dispatch the airplane or swap airplanes.

Section 14 42
Inherent Reliability of the Airplane
System Redundancy
High
Fail Safe
Fail Operational
43
•High System Redundancy – Most systems are equipped with instrumentation to monitor the performance
both of the system as a whole and of individual assemblies within it. As a result the occurrence of failure
is evident to the operating crew. Most systems are designed with high redundancies so that the failure of
one unit often has no effect on operational capability. Unless a second unit fails, the aircraft is dispatched
as usual and corrective maintenance is deferred to a convenient time and location. Therefore, although the
system as a whole is a functionally significant item, the units that comprise it would be classified as non-
significant, since the individual failures have no consequences at the equipment level.
•Fail Safe – A system is considered ‘Fail Safe’ when all essential functions are available to the aircraft
from more than one source.
•Fail Operational – A system is considered ‘Fail Operational’ when the system remains fully operational
even after the occurrence of a failure.

Section 14 43
Product Quality
Is a measure of
Q Dispatch Reliability
Q Pilot Reports
Q Maintenance Reports
Q Non-routine
Maintenance
44

Section 14 44
Airframe Design
45
• Blended winglets offer operational and economic benefits to 737-800 customers. Mission block fuel
is improved approximately 4 percent. Range capability is increased by as much as 130 nmi. The
reduction in takeoff flap drag during the second segment of climb allows increased payload
capability at takeoff-limited airports.
• Environmental benefits include a 6.5 percent reduction in noise levels around airports on takeoff and
a 4 percent reduction in nitrogen dioxide emissions on a 2,000-nmi flight.
• The blended winglets now are available as optional equipment on 737-800 commercial airplanes, and
by retrofit for 737-800 and 737-700 commercial airplanes already in service. Because the winglet
structure and systems follow established maintenance intervals and life cycles, winglets have a
minimal effect on airplane maintenance.

Section 14 45
Engine Design
Engine
Manufacturer
Q Product Design &
Quality
Q Maintainability
Q Engine Condition
Monitoring
Q Fuel Burn
Q Thrust Rating
46
• The engine is the single most expensive LRU on the airplane. Hence the selection of the proper
airframe / engine combination and its operating characteristics is vital to the success of the airline.
• The removal and installation of the engine is very labor intensive. Engine condition monitoring
programs should be used to detect deterioration of the engine by monitoring the performance
parameters.
• Secondly, adequate ports for borescoping must be built in the design to verify damage.

Section 14 46
Airplane Type
Airframe
Manufacturer
Q Product Design &
Quality
V New Technology
V Simplicity
Q Minimum
Equipment List
Q Maintainability
47
• Maintenance cost is also dependent on the design of the airframe systems components and structure.
A value-added design philosophy was followed for 737 NG. Essentially, the team made discretionary
design changes only if they offered better value to the customer. The team centered its approached on
new digital systems, fewer and more common parts, simplified designs, improved corrosion
protection, enhanced fault identification, and better access to parts. Many of the changes were directly
attributable to customer inputs.
• With adequate redundancies built into the airplane, an airline can take advantage of efficient use of
the MEL.
• Maintainability in the design of the airplanes provides adequate access to crevices and hard to reach
areas which will enhance productivity during maintenance checks.
737 NG design improvements included a new wing with continuous span flaps. The span flaps have
30 percent fewer parts, and the leading-edge panels were designed for easier access by maintenance
crews. Another improvement used quick-disconnect line fittings and improved ground support
equipment that reduced engine removal time by 50 percent. In one instance, a design improvement to
the landing gear assembly reduced brake change time by 30 percent.

Section 14 47
Maintainability of the Airplane
Maintenance Program
48

Section 14 48
On Board Maintenance
49

Section 14 49
Access
50
• The most commonly used maintainability parameters are Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) and
Maintenance Labor Hours per Operating Hour.
MTTR measures the elapsed time required to perform a maintenance operation and is used to estimate
system (airplane) downtime and availability. As a design parameter, MTTR includes only those time
elements which can be directly controlled by design often called maintenance time. These elements are
(1) Fault Isolation (2) Removal and Replacement of a failed item or repair of such an item in place and (3)
checkout to verify that the maintenance action has been successful. Other maintenance tasks which are
largely controlled by maintenance managers, such as alerting the maintenance crew, obtaining tools and
spare parts and the time to reach and return from the maintenance site are considered administrative items
and are not included in MTTR.
Maintenance Labor Hours per Operating Hour measure the number of labor hours required to perform a
maintenance and is used to estimate maintenance costs as well as the number of personnel required for the
operation. As with MTTR, maintenance labor hours do not include administrative items. In using
Maintenance Labor Hours per Operating Hour the number of maintenance persons required and the time
each is actually engaged in maintenance are combined to to determine total labor hours.

Section 14 50
Minimum Equipment List
51
• The MMEL is developed by Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB). The FOEB is comprised of
members from the FAA, the airplane and engine manufacturers and the airlines. The MMEL is not
intended for operational use and but should be used as reference for developing procedures.
• Dispatch Deviation Guide / MEL Procedures Manual (DDG/MEL) is developed by airframe
manufacturers and contains Operations (O) and Maintenance (M) procedures associated with the MMEL.
Its intended use is to assist the operator to develop their own MEL based on their own fleet configuration.
• The cost of delays to the airlines in 1994 was a staggering $ 2.5 billion. 10% – 12% of the delay can be
attributed to maintenance.
• Therefore deferral of maintenance is essential and critical for continuing flight operations and the
judicious use of the MEL will minimize loss of revenue and attain higher customer satisfaction.

Section 14 51
Commonality
Flight Operations Maintenance Operations
Flight Deck Systems

Q Reduces Pilot Training Q Common systems
Budget among models reduces
cross training in
Q Simplifies scheduling maintenance
of pilots across models
Q Enhances maintenance
productivity
Spares
Q Parts commonality will
reduce inventory levels
52

Section 14 52
Manufacturer Product Support
Availability Efficiency
and and Cost
Reliability CUSTOMER Reduction
FOCUSED
SERVICES
Safety, AND SUPPORT
Security, and Passenger
Environment Experience
53

Section 14 53
Products
54

Section 14 54
Engineering Support
Round the Clock –
Around the World
Q 278 Field Service
Reps support 953
airline operators in 60
countries
Q Monitor the pulse of
the airlines
Q Liaison between
airline and Boeing
using BCS system
55
• Field service representatives are the pulse of airline activity and act as liaison between the airline and
the airframe manufacturer. For fast responses to problems, it will be in the best interest of the operator
to use the FSR to contact the manufacturer.

Section 14 55
Engineering Support
56
•Labor Productivity. A mechanic currently spends on average of 30 minutes a day to locate information
using microfilm or paper documentation. Using electronic documentation, search time can be reduced by
at least half. The time saved corresponds to a significant labor cost reduction.
•Revision Processing Time. The technical staff will no longer have to sort through the mountain of paper
and microfilm revisions it receives from the airplane manufacturer each year. Electronic documentation
can be updated easily or even automatically. Beyond the labor cost reductions, this guarantees that the
correct information revision is used by all personnel.
•Information Quality. With electronic documentation, the mechanic will always have easy access to the
current manual. This will result in less errors and significant savings in rework reduction. With better
diagnostic information available, the rate of No Fault Found (NFF) will also be reduced.
•Inventory Reduction. By comparing a more timely electronic Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) with the
airline's current parts inventory, manufacturer suggested inventory levels will be reduced. Parts belonging
to airplane configurations no longer owned by the airline will also be identified. An inventory reduction of
just 3% will result in major savings from eliminating the cost of carrying excess inventory.

Section 14 56
Documentation
57
•Labor Productivity. A mechanic currently spends on average of 30 minutes a day to locate information
using microfilm or paper documentation. Using electronic documentation, search time can be reduced by
at least half. The time saved corresponds to a significant labor cost reduction.
•Revision Processing Time. The technical staff will no longer have to sort through the mountain of paper
and microfilm revisions it receives from the airplane manufacturer each year. Electronic documentation
can be updated easily or even automatically. Beyond the labor cost reductions, this guarantees that the
correct information revision is used by all personnel.
•Information Quality. With electronic documentation, the mechanic will always have easy access to the
current manual. This will result in less errors and significant savings in rework reduction. With better
diagnostic information available, the rate of No Fault Found (NFF) will also be reduced.
•Inventory Reduction. By comparing a more timely electronic Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) with the
airline's current parts inventory, manufacturer suggested inventory levels will be reduced. Parts belonging
to airplane configurations no longer owned by the airline will also be identified. An inventory reduction of
just 3% will result in major savings from eliminating the cost of carrying excess inventory.

Section 14 57
Training
Commercial
Aviation Services
Maintenance Training Maintenance Seminars
Flight Training MSG-3 Maintenance
Programs
Reliability Program
Human Factors (MEDA)
Maintenance Evaluations
Records Management
Solutions
58

Section 14 58
Ground Support Equipment
59
Before the introduction of a new airplane model into its fleet, an operator needs to work with the airplane
manufacturer to understand the different types of GSE and tools that will be required for airplane
maintenance and operation. Based on the airline's particular maintenance needs and operation, the
operator should be able to properly select the GSE and tools that will be needed. The selection process
should begin 9 to 12 months before initial airplane delivery. To procure the GSE and tooling in as cost-
efficient and timely manner as possible, the operator should request a bid from three or more companies
for each piece of equipment the operator intends to buy. Prices will vary depending on the demand for the
tool, whether the tool is in stock, the order quantity, and the production lead time. By following these
steps, the operator should be able to properly select the required GSE and tools, procure them at the lowest
price, and have them available at the time of airplane delivery.

Section 14 59
Book Prices
Orders PART PAGE
Part
Interchangeability Order Status
Inventory
Quotes
Levels
60
• The part page replaces conventional methods of ordering parts. Part page is easy to use and replaces
phone, fax, telex, mail and Boeing formatted messages to provide you with instant responses and
reduced errors.

Section 14 60
Summary
Clear understanding of the cost parameters

and the factors that influence it will greatly
enhance your knowledge in reducing
maintenance costs at your airline
61

Section 14 61
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Airline_Mainteanance_Costs.ppt | 62

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 14 62
Airline Business
Models
Airline Business Models

Section 15 1
Topics
State of the Airline Industry

Cost Drivers and Processes
Cost Accounting Methodologies
Service Bulletin Evaluation
Summary

Section 15 2
Major Airlines Struggle in Jet Stream of Change … LA Times – 11 Sept 2004

With few exceptions major airlines
are in critical shape. The airlines
traditional of doing business is
failing.
With so many carriers under severe
pressure, some experts wonder how
long it will be before one or more is
grounded forever
Several carriers are racing to
restructure their operations and cut
costs but questions abound as to
whether it is to little, too late
American, United, Delta, Northwest
and US Airways still losing money
even though summer is the busiest
season
The rise of Southwest, JetBlue and
AirTran have achieved critical mass
to take notice by the majors.

Section 15 3
• In terms of percentage, maintenance costs are relatively low when compared to overall operating costs.
However, in dollar amount it is very substantial and $ 30.3 billion was reported on Form 41 by all US
airlines to the DOT. This large amount lends credence for further analysis and explore possible
avenues to reduce maintenance costs.

Section 15 4
Passenger Traffic
Europe
Global Intercontinental LCC’s Regional Charter 25%
Americas 3% 57%
8%
5%0% 7%
20%
60% Asia
15%
0% 5% 0%
95%

Section 15 5
US Airlines Grouped by Operating Profit / Loss Margin
Regional LCC's Global

15
10
5
Percent
0
1Q - 2004 2Q - 2004 3Q - 2004 4Q - 2004 1Q - 2005
-5
-10
-15
-20
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics; Form 41

Section 15 6
Global and Intercontinental Carriers

1Q 2005
1Q 2005 1Q 2004 2Q 2004 3Q 2004 4Q 2004 1Q 2005 Operating
Carrier Profit /
Rank (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Loss
$(millions)
1 American - 8.30 - 4.60 - 8.20 -14.00 - 4.70 -141.7
2 United -12.20 - 4.70 - 7.70 -22.70 - 6.90 -176.1
3 Northwest - 2.90 4.30 1.6 -11.70 -10.40 -198.8
4 Continental - 9.90 - 4.40 - 7.00 -15.40 -12.00 -202.3

5 Delta -13.10 - 6.30 -13.00 -17.70 -13.60 -401.5
6 US Airways -11.00 2.00 -14.30 -10.10 -13.90 -191.1
7 Alaska -11.20 1.00 6.90 -11.70 -16.00 -74.9

Average/ - 9.90 - 2.80 - 7.60 -15.80 - 9.90 -1,386.4
Total
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Section 15 7
Low Cost Carriers

1Q 2005
1Q 2005 1Q 2004 2Q 2004 3Q 2004 4Q 2004 1Q 2005 Operating
Carrier Profit /
Rank (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Loss
$(millions)
1 JetBlue 11.30 14.10 7.10 3.70 6.90 25.80
2 America West 2.00 2.60 - 4.70 - 6.90 6.60 47.90
3 Southwest 3.10 11.50 11.40 7.20 6.40 106.20

4 Frontier - 8.00 - 3.80 - 0.30 - 7.30 - 1.30 - 2.80
5 AirTran 4.30 11.30 - 4.90 1.30 - 3.20 - 9.40
6 Spirit 2.00 - 3.00 -13.30 -31.60 - 3.80 - 5.30

7 ATA -14.8 - 9.10 -12.50 -187.0 -185.00 -318.30
Average/ Total 1.60 7.10 3.60 -11.50 - 4.30 -155.70
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Section 15 8
Topics


Section 15 9
Business Network Fleet Type Features Example

Model
Global Hub & spoke Mixed Jets Complex network, AA, BA, LH, UA,
pricing and SQ, CY, DL, AF
alliances
Intercontinental Hub & spoke Mixed Jets Complex network, US, CO, IB, AZ,
pricing and SK,
alliances
Low Cost Carriers Point to point Single Jet Simple network, SW, JB, CQ, EZ,
(LCC’s) high productivity, RY
low cost, no frills
Regional Feeder RJs, Turboprops Supports Global Delta Connection,

and
Intercontinental United Express,
airlines KLM City Hopper
Charters Point to point Jets Seasonal, holiday Martinair, Hapag-
destinations, low Lloyd, Britannia
cost, high
productivity
Cargo Hub & spoke Mixed Jets Complex network, FedEx, UPS, DHL
time sensitive

Section 15 10
Low Cost Carrier Business Model
Point to point Scalability

Prefer secondary airports Outsourcing
Focus on underserved Internet
markets
Focus on overpriced Cost
tickets of legacy carriers Non-union labor
Productivity
Fleet commonality
Maximize utilization
Highly motivated staff
Attitudes over experience
Direct marketing
Avoid congested hubs

Section 15 11
Topics


Section 15 12
Cost Drivers LCC’s Legacy Carriers

Marketing In-house In-house
Accounting / Finance In-house In-house

Quality In-house In-house
Base Maintenance Outsourced In-house
Line Maintenance Outsourced In-house
Shop Maintenance Outsourced In-house /Outsourced

Maintenance Programs & Planning In-house In-house
Fueling Outsourced In-house /Outsourced
Catering Outsourced Outsourced

Training In-house /Outsourced In-house
Information Technology In-house /Outsourced In-house /Outsourced
Inventory In-house /Outsourced In-house

Section 15 13
Fuel Purchases
Crude Oil & Jet Fuel Prices
Jet Fuel Price Vs Crude Oil Price

200 60
Jet Fuel Crude Oil
180
50
160
140
40
120
Price (US Dollar)

Price (US Cents)
100 30
80
20
60
40
10
20
0 0
Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05

Section 15 14
Fuel Purchases
Impact of Jet Fuel Prices on Operating Costs
Prior 9/11/2001 Today

$ 70
Flight / Cabin
Ownership & Spares
Crew
Fuel 32%
Maintenance
Depreciation
12%
Navigation and
Landing Fees

Section 15 15
Fuel Purchases
How are the airlines weathering the crisis? Hedging

Section 15 16
Fuel Purchases
Airlines struggle as fuel climbs 20% after storm

Jet fuel prices rose more than 20% after Hurricane Katrina damaged oil refineries and disrupted oil production. Some
airlines are raising ticket prices to make up for higher fuel expenses. Still, soaring fuel will increase financial pressure on
carriers and possibly push some into bankruptcy. The storm's affect on U.S. travel appears limited to flooded areas hit by
the storm. Most other cities are not facing delays or cancellations related to the storm. In a statement, the Federal
Aviation Administration said it does not believe the aviation industry will face an immediate fuel shortage. Click here to
listen to an audio report from MarketWatch on jet fuel price increases. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
(9/2), Denver Rocky Mountain News (9/2), USA TODAY/Associated Press (9/1), The New York Times (free registration)
(9/2), Air Transport World (9/2)

Section 15 17
Inventory
Fleet Commonality
Pooling
Inventory required for a 95% Service Level
Outsourcing 1,000,000
Inventory per Aircraft ($)

900,000
800,000
Leasing 700,000
600,000
500,000
Power by the hour 400,000
300,000
Consignment 200,000
100,000
Logistics 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Aircraft in Fleet
80 90 100
Supply Chain
Management

Section 15 18
Inventory
Just in Case
RSPL Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns
Service Level
Demand
Lead time
Service Level
Quantity of spares
Quantity

Section 15 19
Inventory
25% - 35 Inventory can be eliminated through Supply Chain Management
LINE MAINTENANCE BASE MAINTENANCE
UNSERVICABLE
PARTS
INVENTORY PURCHASING
CONTROL
SHIPPING DOCK RECEIVING INSPECTION STOCK ROOM INVENTORY
VENDOR / REPAIR FACILITY
UNSERVICABLE
PARTS
SERVICABLE PARTS
INFORMATION
EXCHANGE

Section 15 20
Expensive Hardware and Software

Outsourcing thru Web hosted applications
Willing to adapt and leverage existing systems
Instant access to a myriad of new technologies
LCC demand solutions rather than technology
Potential savings up to 30% in IT costs

Section 15 21

Section 15 22
ATW Daily News
Asian airlines lead in IT spending, but US carriers are more automated

Friday September 2, 2005
Airlines in the Asia/Pacific region will invest an average of 2% of annual revenues in telecommunications and
information technology this year compared with 1.9% for European airlines and just 1.4% for North American
carriers, according to SITA's seventh annual "Airline IT Trends Survey" released yesterday.
But although debt-laden North American carriers may have "put innovation on the back burner to focus on
streamlining operations," according to SITA, they are well up on their foreign counterparts in a number of IT-
related areas. For example, the survey shows that in North America, "air travel has already largely migrated
online," with airlines selling on average around 63% of tickets through Web channels compared with 24% for
European airlines and just 10% for Asia/Pacific carriers.
Surprisingly, 29% of European airlines are still 100% paper tickets, SITA found, while "despite the cost savings,"
European carriers also are behind in replacing magnetic strip boarding passes with barcoded versions. Some
17% of European airlines are using barcoded tickets currently compared with 67% in North America and 23% of
Asia/Pacific carriers. North American airlines also lead in deployment of self-service check-in kiosks, with 56%
having introduced them versus 36% in Asia/Pacific and 31% in Europe.
According to SITA, "as pioneers of the technologies that are now being embraced by airlines globally, North
American carriers are to some extent able to take a breather while the other regions play catch-up."
Among other findings: 50% of Asia/Pacific airlines have seen their IT budgets increase over 2004 versus 40% in
Europe and 56% in North America. At least 73% of Asia/Pacific carriers expect to offer some form of inflight data
connectivity by 2007 compared with 31% in Europe and 11% in North America, and 45% of Asia/Pacific carriers
plan to offer mobile telephone service by 2007 against 11% and 20% respectively for their counterparts across
the Pacific and in Europe.
by Perry Flint

Section 15 23
Shop Maintenance
Operational
Considerations
Pilot Reports
Design Deficiency
The push to lower "ownership costs" is most pronounced in airlines' management of their newest aircraft. Carrier
executives want guarantees that engines and critical systems components will fly without interruption for nearly their
entire design lives.
• Operational Considerations – Airplane turn times often dictate replacement of components without the ability to
perform detailed troubleshooting procedures. Maintenance will often replace the most likely component and perform
required tests for dispatch. Furthermore, if a problem occurs on a system which is required for dispatch, or which
causes an aircraft to return to the field, several components may be replaced in order to quickly return the airplane to
service to maintain the flight schedule. The economic benefit of returning an airplane to service often overrides the
financial penalty of component replacement which generates No Fault Found (NFF).
• Pilot Reports – During flight operations, the airplane system performance may not always be equivalent to the
expectations of the flight crew. A pilot report may be generated that is not relevant to an airplane equipment failure.
As a result, an LRU may be removed and tested as NFF. This situation may be manifested due to airplane
equipment differences, outside influences of dependant navigation or communication aids.
• Design Deficiency – Some units are not originally designed for typical airplane operating environments. They may
announce system failures that may not be detected during shop testing since bench procedure was designed for the
unit rather than duplicating the dynamics of flight. This situation will manifest itself across the majority of the unit
population rather than be felt by only a small percentage.

Section 15 24
Shop Maintenance
Airframe Related Faults

Unit Modifications
Diagnostic BITE
Shop Testing
• Airframe Related Faults – If an intermittent fault occurs with the airplane hardware (wiring shorts, connectors,
cables etc) several components may be replaced prior to performing hardware integrity checks. Those removed
units will reflect NFF when returned for repair. This is normally the case when there is the need for maintaining
dispatch reliability and schedules.
• Unit Modifications – When a component has experienced several modifications, the process of performing these
modifications may cause more damage than the intended improvement.
• Diagnostic BITE - During the design of a system, engineers may not understand the reality of airplane operations
and the characteristic of external system interfaces. In spite of this handicap, they may attempt to design BITE to
assist in diagnosing airplane system problems. The result is that much of the existing airplane BITE is somewhat
less than desired. BITE must be thorough enough to detect and record the cause of every system failure mode
possible and flexible enough not to trip over normal airplane operational anomalies. It must provide maintenance
with solutions to the problem and/or aid them with their troubleshooting. BITE can go either extreme. If it is
ineffective, system failures may not be recorded and therefore components may be replaced with out diagnostic
direction. If BITE is too ambiguous it can generate system faults without verifiable causes. In both cases, the unit is
returned to the shop and tested as NFF.
• Shop Testing – Component repair and overhaul procedures may test less than 100% of a unit’s operating functions,
characteristics, interfaces or environment. Even with the advent of Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) the percentage
of NFF has actually increased. With advances in the software driven system of units, test programs replicate less
and less of operating functions and characteristics. Until the test program addresses all system functions and
interfaces some failures will not be detected, no matter how carefully the technician performs the bench test
procedure.

Section 15 25
Shop Maintenance
Rogues
Training
Costs
• Rogues – A rogue unit is a unit that has failed in such a way that it cannot be detected during
normal shop repair or overhaul test procedures. However, under actual flight conditions or
system return to service checks, it fails to operate correctly and exhibits the same or similar fault
as the previous cause for removal. Therefore, when a rogue is installed to correct an aircraft
system malfunction, the problem usually continues to be unresolved. In fact, it may exacerbate
the situation as this generally results in the replacement of several other associated system
components, which all score NFF when returned to the shop.
•Training – Inadequate training will drive maintenance to replace the wrong component. New
systems in service will typically have the learning curve period which will be manifested as high
NFF rate for the system components. While it is safe to say that training will improve NFF rates,
it is impractical for an airline line mechanic to be an expert on every system on every airplane.
Training is less likely to be the root cause if NFF rates increase as an airplane and its affected
system mature.
•Costs – The real impact of NFF is felt with the costs associated with removing and replacing the
unit. This includes, but is not limited to shipping and handling to the repair facility, component
tracking and data input, mechanic and administrative time. Bench test costs and the return of a
serviceable spare to the shelf are other monetary areas an airline must consider. In addition to
these, there are operational impacts such as delays and cancellations.

Section 15 26
Shop Maintenance
No Fault Found Analysis (NFF)
Component Team
Objective of Team
Develop a NFF
Database
NFF Data
Analyze Data
Corrective Action
Implementation
Dispatch reliability - A faulty component results in several actions at the flight line, such as
troubleshooting, MEL (deferred maintenance), removal of component and installation of new component,
testing, paperwork, etc. Depending on the airline organization and kind of station, a faulty component
may result in a delay, or worse, a cancellation.
Spares - The progress in technology has resulted in more capabilities per component and improved
reliability but also higher component cost. In general, the component reliability and turn-around time
(TAT) together determine the required number of spare units. With the increase of the unit cost the
reliability and TAT, it has become more important to reduce the spare parts cost.
Shop maintenance cost - The shop maintenance cost depends on the scheduled maintenance program (hard
times of units) and the reliability. In case the unit has actually failed the shop cost is related to labor and
material as a function of the failure rate. If the part has not failed, the unit has to be certified again as
serviceable via testing in a shop. These cost are labor-related as a function of the unscheduled removal
rate of the component. To improve component reliability, emphasis should be given to the ratio between
the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) and Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removal (MTBUR).
This ratio determines if the component removal is caused by real unit failures (confirmed failure in the
shop) or the result of the gray area between component failure, aircraft system integration, trouble-
shooting procedures, shop capabilities or a combination of all items. This gray area is better known as the
No-Fault-Found phenomenon (NFF).

Section 15 27
Topics


Section 15 28
Income
Statement
Change
Figures in thousands of Dollars (000) 2002 2003 Change (%) 2002 2003
(%)
737 5 737 4 -20.00%
Fleet DC9 15 DC9 0 -100.00% A320 A320 60
717 61 717 76 24.59%
Revenue $733,370 $918,040 25.18% $635,191 $998,351 57.17%
Expenses
Salaries, Wages and Benefits $203,435 $231,728 13.91% $162,191 $267,334 64.83%
Depreciation 17,072 12,628 -26.03% 26,922 50,397 87.20%
Leases 72,690 124,203 70.87% 40,845 59,963 46.81%
Fuel and Oil 154,467 178,737 15.71% 76,271 147,316 93.15%
Maintenance 47,288 63,600 34.50% 8,926 23,114 158.95%
Landing Fees 42,291 52,810 24.87% 43,881 68,691 56.54%
Distribution 43,115 45,354 5.19%
Marketing 20,967 24,112 15.00% 44,345 53,587 20.84%
Aircraft Insurance & Security Services 29,323 19,684 -32.87%
Other 72,159 78,866 9.29% 126,823 159,116 25.46%
Sub Total $702,807 $831,722 18.34% $530,204 $829,518 56.45%
Operating Income $30,563 $86,318 90.52% $104,987 $168,833 60.81%
Interest Income $2,102 $3,345 59.13%
Interest Expense 29,203 28,303 -3.08% 10,370 16,155 55.79%
Government Grant 640 0 -100% 407 22,761
Payment under Emerg. Wartime
Supp appropriations Act 2003 38,061
SFAS 133 adjustment 5,857
Deferred debt discount/isuuance cost
amortizotion 12257
Other Expense Total $20,604 $846 110.83% $9,963 $6,606 -166.31%
Income before Taxes $9,959 $87,164 775% $95,024 $175,439 84.63%
Income tax expense $786 $13,353 1598.85% $40,116 $71,541 78.34%
Net Income $10,745 $100,517 835% $54,908 $103,898 89.22%
Outstanding shares 70409 75345 7.01%
Earnings per share $0.15 $1.33 774% $0.73 $1.07 46.58%

Section 15 29
Balance Sheet
Figures in thousands of Dollars (000) 2002 2003 2002 2003
As s e ts
Cash $104,151 $338,707 $246,752 $570,695
Restricted Cash / Short Term Investments $34,173 $9,798 $11,101 $36,610
Accounts Receivable $19,120 $17,454 $11,931 $16,723
Spare Parts, Materials & Supplies $9,250 $19,345 $4,840 $8,295
Govt. Grant Receivable
Def erred Income Taxes $52,054 $2,846
Other A ssets $7,756 $10,477 $5,589 $13,417
Total As s e ts $174,450 $447,835 $283,059
Pr ope r ty & Equipm e nt
Flight Equipment $202,108 $203,317 $840,898 $1,159,705
Deposits f or Flight Equipment $5,544 $49,991 $112,934 $186,453
Other Property & Equipment $21,272 $23,153 $43,329 $74,533
Total Pr ope r ty & Equipm e nt $228,924 $276,461 $997,161 $1,420,691
Othe r As s e ts
Intangibles resulting f rom business acquisition $12,286 $8,350 $68,278 $62,256
Trademark and trade names $21,567 $21,567
Debt issuance costs $8,381 $7,293
Miscellaneous $27,842 $46,858 $30,425 $57,070
Total As s e ts $473,450 $808,364 $1,378,923
Liabilitie s
A ccounts Payable $4,501 $1,778 $46,042 $52,983
Accrued and other Liabilities $80,155 $85,953 $37,140 $61,851
A ir Traf f ic Liability $57,180 $78,746 $97,534 $134,719
Current portion of Long Term Debt $10,460 $5,015 $50,754 $67,101
Long Term Debt $199,713 $241,821 $639,498 $1,011,610
Short Term Borrow ings $21,679 $29,884
Def erred Income Taxes $26,100 $38,545 $99,030
Other Liabilities $69,556 $66,738 $33,058 $57,443
Reedemable Pref erred Stock
Total Liabilitie s $421,565 $506,151 $964,250 $1,514,621
Equity
Outstanding Shares of Common Stock $71 $84 $956 $1,021
Additional Paid in Capital $187,885 $337,145 $407,153 $552,375
A ccumulated other comprehensive loss $889 $271 $15,791 $119,689
Unearned Compenssation $9,414 $7,544
Accumulated Def icit $135,262 $34,745 $187 $5,595
Total Equity $51,805 $302,213 $414,673 $671,136
Total Liabilitie s & Equitie s $473,370 $808,364 $1,378,923 $2,185,757

Section 15 30
TASK CARD PACKAGING

FLIGHT
HRS 350 700 1050 1400 1750 2100 2450 2800 3150 3500 3850 4200 4550 4900 5250 5600 5950 6300 6650 7000 7350 7700 8050 8400
MONTHS 15M 30M
CHECK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A 1A
2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A 2A
3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A 3A
4A 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A 4A
5A 5A 5A 5A 5A
6A 6A 6A 6A 6A
1C 1C 1C
2C 2C
3C
4C
5C
6C
30M 30M
60M
120M

Section 15 31
AIRLINE REGISTRATION NO.

ACCOUNTING
DEPT. DEFINED
CHECK NO. EXAMPLE:

2000-ABC001-24-0001
TASK CARD NO.

OR TASK NO.

Section 15 32
Estimating Labor Hours for Budgeting
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

(BCAG) Planning Documents Provide
Man-hours And Elapsed Times
Elapsed Times Do Not Include Set-up,
Access Cleaning, Or Corrective Actions
Elapsed Times Need To Be Converted To
Operator’s Environment

Section 15 33
Estimating Labor Hours for Budgeting

Definitions Establish Non-routine Factor (Nr)
z New Airplane = Age 0 - 5 Years z Nr = (Routine Man Hrs. + Non-routine
Man Hrs.)
z Mature Airplane = 5 - 10 Years
1.0 Routine Man Hr Generates 1.2
z Aging Airplane Threshold = 10 Years
Non-Routine Man Hrs For New
And Above
Airplane
1.0 Routine Man Hr Generates 2.3
Establish Efficiency Factor (Ef) On A Non Routine Man Hrs For Mature
Scale Of 1 - 5 Airplane
z 1 = Most Experienced Mechanics

z 5 = Least Experienced Mechanics
z Industry Average (Ef) = 2.74

Section 15 34
CHECK NO. TOTAL
ROUTINE ACTUAL ESTIMATED ACTUAL LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL ROUTINE &
TASKS ROUTINE NON- NON- LABOR COST MATERIAL TOTAL COST FOR COST FOR NON- NON-
STANDARD TASKS ROUTINE ROUTINE FOR COST FOR ROUTINE NON- NON- ROUTINE ROUTINE
MAN MAN TASKS MAN TASKS MAN ROUTINE ROUTINE TASKS ROUTINE ROUTINE TASKS TASKS
HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS TASKS TASKS COST TASKS TASKS COST COST
1 26.00 71.21 31.20 21.60 $1,424.25 $25.00 $1,449.25 $432.00 $25.00 $457.00 $1,906.25
2 49.58 134.89 59.50 2.70 $2,697.84 $28.00 $2,725.84 $54.00 28.00 $82.00 $2,807.84
3 29.25 80.11 35.10 5.40 $1,602.18 $25.00 $1,627.18 $108.00 25.00 $133.00 $1,760.18
4 52.83 361.15 63.40 32.40 $7,223.04 $120.00 $7,343.04 $648.00 120.00 $768.00 $8,111.04
5 29.25 80.08 35.10 $1,601.64 $25.00 $1,626.64 $0.00 25.00 $25.00 $1,651.64
6 71.87 336.53 86.24 64.80 $6,730.56 $252.00 $6,982.56 $1,296.00 252.00 $1,548.00 $8,530.56
7 26.00 67.60 31.20 15.60 $1,352.00 $25.00 $1,377.00 $312.00 $25.00 $337.00 $1,714.00
8 52.83 137.36 63.40 7.80 $2,747.21 $28.00 $2,775.21 $156.00 28.00 $184.00 $2,959.21
9 29.25 76.05 35.10 13.00 $1,521.00 $25.00 $1,546.00 $260.00 25.00 $285.00 $1,831.00
10 52.83 137.36 63.40 41.60 $2,747.21 $120.00 $2,867.21 $832.00 120.00 $952.00 $3,819.21
11 26.00 67.60 31.20 10.40 $1,352.00 $25.00 $1,377.00 $208.00 $25.00 $233.00 $1,610.00
12 454.84 1182.59 545.81 39.00 $23,651.84 $252.00 $23,903.84 $780.00 252.00 $1,032.00 $24,935.84
13 26.00 70.20 31.20 67.50 $1,404.00 $25.00 $1,429.00 $1,350.00 $25.00 $1,375.00 $2,804.00
14 49.58 133.87 59.50 86.40 $2,677.37 $28.00 $2,705.37 $1,728.00 28.00 $1,756.00 $4,461.37
15 32.50 87.75 39.00 236.93 $1,755.00 $25.00 $1,780.00 $4,738.50 25.00 $4,763.50 $6,543.50
16 52.83 142.64 63.40 385.14 $2,852.87 $120.00 $2,972.87 $7,702.76 120.00 $7,822.76 $10,795.63
17 26.00 70.20 31.20 189.54 $1,404.00 $25.00 $1,429.00 $3,790.80 25.00 $3,815.80 $5,244.80
18 71.87 194.04 86.24 523.91 $3,880.82 $252.00 $4,132.82 $10,478.21 252.00 $10,730.21 $14,863.03
19 26.00 70.20 31.20 189.54 $1,404.00 $25.00 $1,429.00 $3,790.80 $25.00 $3,815.80 $5,244.80
20 109.86 296.61 131.83 800.86 $5,932.28 $28.00 $5,960.28 $16,017.15 28.00 $16,045.15 $22,005.43
21 29.25 78.98 35.10 213.23 $1,579.50 $25.00 $1,604.50 $4,264.65 25.00 $4,289.65 $5,894.15
22 49.58 133.87 59.50 361.45 $2,677.37 $120.00 $2,797.37 $7,228.91 120.00 $7,348.91 $10,146.28
23 26.00 70.20 31.20 189.54 $1,404.00 $25.00 $1,429.00 $3,790.80 25.00 $3,815.80 $5,244.80
24 1,910.22 5,157.60 2,292.27 13,925.53 $103,152.04 $252.00 $103,404.04 $278,510.51 $252.00 $278,762.51 $382,166.56

Section 15 35
Section 15 36
Section 15 37
Topics


Section 15 38
As a result of reliability analysis, the Reliability Control Board

(RCB) in your organization has approved the implementation of an
Engineering Order (E.O.) developed by your engineering
department. The E.O. replaces existing component/system with an
enhanced component/system developed by the vendor with
improved reliability characteristics. However, the RCB would like to
obtain some estimated recurring and non-recurring cost information
to compare with current delay costs from existing
component/system before actual implementation. The following
data is provided. How would you calculate this information?
• Fleet Size: 100
• Delay Cost / minute: $400
• Cancellation Cost: $ 10,000
• Average Delay minutes / year: 600
• Average cancellations / year: 5

Section 15 39
SERVICE BULLETIN EVALUATION
MNRC - MOD NONRECURRING COSTS PMRC - POST MOD RECURRING COSTS PRC - PRE MOD RECURRING COSTS
FHPP - FLEET HARDWARE PURCHASE PRICE 500000.00 LMC - LINE MATERIAL COSTS 0.00 LMC - LINE MATERIAL COSTS 6500.00
UP - UNIT PRICE 2500.00 LLR - LINE LABOR RATE LLR - LINE LABOR RATE 45.00
FS - FLEET SIZE 100.00 LMHR - LINE MAN HOURS / REMOVAL LMHR - LINE MAN HOURS / REMOVAL 1.00
NUA - NO. OF UNITS PER A/C 2.00 LMCR - LINE MATERIAL COST / REMOVAL LMCR - LINE MATERIAL COST / REMOVAL 10.00
HGTR - HANDLING & TRANSPORTATION COST HGTR - HANDLING & TRANSPORTATION COST 10.00
RY - REMOVAL / YEAR RY - REMOVAL / YEAR 100.00
FSC - FLEET SPARES COST 10000.00 SMC - SHOP MATERIAL COST 1375.00 SMC - SHOP MATERIAL COST 5500.00
UP - UNIT PRICE 2500.00 SLR - SHOP LABOR RATE 45.00 SLR - SHOP LABOR RATE 45.00
FS - FLEET SIZE 100.00 SMHR - SHOP MAN HOURS / REMOVAL 1.00 SMHR - SHOP MAN HOURS / REMOVAL 1.00
NUA - NO. OF UNITS PER A/C 2.00 SMCR - SHOP MATERIAL COST / REMOVAL 10.00 SMCR - SHOP MATERIAL COST / REMOVAL 10.00
SRP % - SPARES RATIO PERCENTAGE 2.00 RY - REMOVAL / YEAR 25.00 RY - REMOVAL / YEAR 100.00
ACT.SPARES 4.00
FIC - FLEET INSTALLATION COSTS 12675.00 SHC - SPARES HOLDING COSTS 2000.00 SHC - SPARES HOLDING COSTS 0.00
EC - ENGINEERING COSTS 150.00 FSC - FLEET SPARES COSTS 10000.00 FSC - FLEET SPARES COSTS 80000.00
DOC - DOCUMENTATION COSTS 25.00 SHCP - SPARES HOLDING COST % FSC 20.00 SHCP - SPARES HOLDING COST % FSC
12500.00 RLTC - RECURRENT LINE TRAINING COSTS 2300.00
FS - FLEET SIZE 100.00 ATHLM - ANNUAL INST. HOURS LINE MAINT. 1.00
MA - HARDWARE MATERIAL PER A/C 25.00 NLM - NO. OF LINE MECHANICS 50.00
LA - LABOR PER A/C 100.00 LLR - LINE LABOR RATE 45.00
HLI - HOURS OF LINE INSTRUCTION 1.00
IH - INSTRUCTOR COST / HOUR 50.00
ITC - INITIAL TRAINING COSTS 1135.00 RSTC - RECURRENT SHOP TRAINING COSTS 1175.00
ITNMEC - NUMBER OF MECHANICS 25.00 ATHSM - ANNUAL INST. HOURS SHOP MAINT. 1.00
ITHM - INSTRUCTION TIME HOURS / MECHANIC 1.00 NSM - NO. OF SHOP MECHANICS 25.00
LLR - LINE LABOR RATE 45.00 SLR - SHOP LABOR RATE 45.00
ITTMC - TOTAL TRAINING MATERIAL COSTS 10.00 HIS - HOURS OF SHOP INSTRUCTION 1.00
GSEC - GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT COSTS 100 IH - INSTRUCTOR COST / HOUR 50.00
CT - CUSTOM TAX 10 DC - DELAY COSTS 40000.00 DC - DELAY COSTS 240000.00
TC - TRANSPORTATION COSTS 15 DCM - DELAY COST PER MINUTE 400.00 DCM - DELAY COST PER MINUTE 400.00
IC - INSURANCE COST 10 DMY - DELAY MINUTES PER YEAR 100.00 DMY - DELAY MINUTES PER YEAR 600.00
AF - AMORTIZATION FACTOR 20 CANC - CANCELLATION COSTS 10000.00 CANC - CANCELLATION COSTS 50000.00
SVP % - SCRAP VALUE % OF PURCHASE PRICE CPC - CANCELLATION COSTS 5000.00 CPC - CANCELLATION COSTS 10000.00
EL - ESTIMATED FLEET LIFE 1.00 CY - NO. OF CANCELLATIONS 2.00 CY - NO. OF CANCELLATIONS 5.00
OSC - OUT OF SERVICE COSTS 2250.00 OSC - OUT OF SERVICE COSTS 1500.00
OSCH - OUT OF SERVICE COSTS / HOUR 75.00 OSCH - OUT OF SERVICE COSTS / HOUR 150.00
OSHY - OUT OF SERVICE HOURS / YEAR 30.00 OSHY - OUT OF SERVICE HOURS / YEAR 10.00
FC - FUEL COSTS 1530.00 FC - FUEL COSTS 1734.00
FCG - FUEL COST / GALLON 0.60 FCG - FUEL COST / GALLON 0.60
GPAY - GALLONS / POUND / AIRCRAFT / YEAR 1.50 GPAY - GALLONS / POUND / AIRCRAFT / YEAR 10.00
EW - UNIT WEIGHT POUNDS 17.00 EW - UNIT WEIGHT POUNDS 17.00
TOTAL MISC. COSTS 155.00 FS - FLEET SIZE 100.00 FS - FLEET SIZE 17.00
MNRC $523,965.00 PMRC $60,630.00 PRC $305,234.00

Section 15 40
Cost Benefit Analysis
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MNRC 523,965.00
PMRC 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00
TMC 584,595.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00 60,630.00
PRC 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00 305,234.00
SAVINGS (279,361.00) 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00 244,604.00
FUTURE VALUE OF YEAR 2-9 ANNUITY @ 10% $9,271,557.60

TOTAL OPPORTUNITY COSTS $9,271,557.60

Section 15 41
Summary
Analysis of maintenance costs at the lowest

level of cost drivers helps airlines to focus
on the problem areas that have cost
overruns requiring corrective action. The
gathering of costs at higher levels (check
level), clouds judgment as to which
particular cost driver caused the overrun
and confuses the issues.

Section 15 42
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Airline_Business_Model.ppt | 43

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 15 43
Delays – How to
Mitigate it
Delays - How to Mitigate It

Section 16 1
Topics
Delay Definition
Delay Factors
Sensitivity Analysis
Summary

Section 16 2
D elay Factors
C o ntrollable Factors
P a sse n g er
D o c u m e n tation
C ar g o L o a din g / Unloa din g
Aircraft Defects
Inade q uate Line M aintena nce Reso u rces
Flight / Ca bin Crew
U n c o ntrollable Factors
W e ather
Air Traffic C o ntrol
R e a ction ary
3

Section 16 3
Data Collection and Coding
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC
DELAY_MAJOR DELAY_MAJOR_DESC 1001 Passenger Late Check In
1000 Customer Service Agents 1002 Passenger Check in Error
2000 Cargo and Mail 1003 Over Booking
3000 Ramp Handling 1004 Boarding Discrepancies
4000 Technical and Aircraft Equipment 1005 Passenger Convenience
5000 Line Maintenance 1006 VIP Boarding
6000 Flight Crew 1007 Press Coverage
7000 Weather 1008 Baggage processing, sorting
8000 Air Traffic Control, Govt.
Authorities
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC
9000 Reactionary
2001 Documentation errors
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC 2002 Late Positioning
3001 Loading / Unloading baggage/cargo 2003 Late Acceptance
3002 Loading equipment 2004 Inadequate packing
3003 Servicing equipment 2005 Inaccurate weight &

balance, pax manifest etc
3004 Aircraft cleaning
3005 Fuelling/De-fuelling
3006 Catering
4
3007 Inadequate ramp handling personnel

Section 16 4
DELAY_MAJOR DELAY_MAJOR_DESC DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC

1000 Customer Service Agents 4001 Aircraft Defects
2000 Cargo and Mail 4002 Late out of maintenance
3000 Ramp Handling 4003 Unscheduled maintenance
4000 Technical and Aircraft Equipment 4004 Inadequate Spares
5000 Line Maintenance 4005 AOG Spares to be carried to another station
6000 Flight Crew 4006 Damage during flight - bird/lightning strike,
7000 Weather turbulence, tailstrike, overweight landing etc
8000 Air Traffic Control, Govt. 4007 Damage on ground - caused by collisions from
Authorities docking equipment
9000 Reactionary 4008 GSE
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC

6001 Flight Plan 5002 Inadequate Line Maintenance Personnel
6002 Fuel, load alteration 5003 Inadequate Maintenance Documents
6003 Late crew boarding 5004 Inadequate Ground Time
6004 Flight crew shortage
6005 Late flight deck crew departure procedure
6006 Late cabin crew departure procedure
5
6007 Cabin crew shortage

Section 16 5
DELAY_MAJOR DELAY_MAJOR_DESC
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC
1000 Customer Service Agents
7001 Departure Station
2000 Cargo and Mail
7002 Arrival Station
3000 Ramp Handling
7003 En route / Alternate Station
4000 Technical and Aircraft Equipment
7004 De-icing of aircraft
5000 Line Maintenance
7005 Removal of snow, ice, water, sand from runway
6000 Flight Crew
7006 Ground handling impaired by weather
7000 Weather
8000 Air Traffic Control, Govt. Authorities
9000 Reactionary
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC
8001 Air Traffic Control handover enroute
DELAY_CD DELAY_DESC demand/capacity problems
9001 Awaiting passengers/cargo from another flight 8002 ATC equipment failure
9002 Aircraft rotation - late arrival of aircraft from 8004 ATC restriction at arriving station
another/previous flight/sector
8005 Customs and Immigrations
9003 Cabin crew rotation awaiting from another flight
8006 Security Check
9004 Flight deck crew rotation - awaiting from
another flight
9005 Aircraft Change - Other than technical
6

Section 16 6
Sensitivity Analysis – Single Aisle
Airplane
Single Aisle Airplane Delay Sensitivity Analysis
100.00
99.50
99.00
98.50
Dispatch Reliability %
98.00
97.50
97.00
96.50
96.00
95.50
95.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
248 Departures 100.00 99.60 99.19 98.79 98.39 97.98 97.58 97.18 96.77 96.37 95.97 95.56 95.16
310 Departures 100.00 99.68 99.35 99.03 98.71 98.39 98.06 97.74 97.42 97.10 96.77 96.45 96.13
465 Departures 100.00 99.78 99.57 99.35 99.14 98.92 98.71 98.49 98.28 98.06 97.85 97.63 97.42
No. of Delays

Section 16 7
Sensitivity Analysis – Double Aisle
Airplane
Double Aisle Delay Sensitivity Analysis

100.00
95.00
90.00
Dispatch Reliability %
85.00
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
20 Departures 100.00 95.00 90.00 85.00 80.00 75.00 70.00 65.00 60.00 55.00 50.00
30 Departures 100.00 96.67 93.33 90.00 86.67 83.33 80.00 76.67 73.33 70.00 66.67
45 Departures 100.00 97.78 95.56 93.33 91.11 88.89 86.67 84.44 82.22 80.00 77.78
60 Departures 100.00 98.33 96.67 95.00 93.33 91.67 90.00 88.33 86.67 85.00 83.33
No. of Delays

Section 16 8
Overall Causes of Delay
On Time
Late Arriving Aircraft Delay
National Aviation System Delay
Air Carrier Delay
0.24%
Cancelled
0.87%
Extreme Weather Delay
1.67% Diverted
5.81% 0.04% Security Delay
7.00%
5.61%
78.76%

Section 16 9
Delay Costs
ATA (Air Transport

Association) estimates that
direct delay costs average
$40 per minute of delay.
That does not include
indirect delay costs, such as
lost revenues associated
with transferring passengers
that have missed their
connections. When the
indirect delay costs are
included, the total delay cost
can easily double or triple,
with poor on-time
performance costs equaling
millions of dollars every
year for many carriers.
10

Section 16 10
Areas of Focus – 3P’s
People
Policies & Procedures
Planes (Equip ment & Hardware)
11

Section 16 11
People
Manpower & Skills

Optimal manpower
Right mix of skills
Training
Flight Crew
Cabin Crew
Line Maintenance
12

Section 16 12
Policies and Procedures
Dispatch, Operations Control Center and

M aintenance Control Center
M E L usage
Journey / Maintenance Logs
Deferred Item s
Transit Checks
13

Section 16 13
Planes (Equip m e nt & Hardw are)
E q uipm e nt
Aircraft
C hr o nic or rog u e aircraft
H ar d w are
S yste m s & C o m p o n e nts
C hr o nic or rog u e c o m p o n e nts
14

Section 16 14
Dispatch Reliability Improvement
Program
COMPONENT
RELIABILITY
ANALYSIS
ROOT
DELAY & CAUSE
CANCELLATION ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
DISPATCH RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
OPERATIONAL SERVICE
ANALYSIS BULLETIN
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE
BULLETIN
INCORPORATION
ANALYSIS
15

Section 16 15
Team Work
Planes
People Procedures
Airline
Parts Airframe
OEM Manufacturer
16

Section 16 16
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Maintenance_Reliability_Overview.ppt | 17

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 16 17
Materials
Management
Solutions
Bill Krebs
Materials Management Solutions

Section 17 1
Content
Traditional Materials Management Supply Chain
Integrated Materials Management (IMM) Business Model
IMM Benefits, Objectives, and Strategy
787 GoldCare
IMM Processes and Key Requirements
Component Service Program (CSP) Description & Benefits
IMM and CSP Comparison and Relationship
Airline/MRO Perspective Business Cases of IMM and CSP

Section 17 2
Traditional Materials Management Supply Chain
Boeing Symptoms
Airline 1 Spares
Late Delivery, Long Cycle
Times, and High Expedite
Cost
OEMs
Service Levels Stuck in High
80% to low 90%
Airline 2
Low inventory turn rates
Distributors
Capital intensive with frequent
inventory obsolescence
OEM Licensed Redundant and inefficient
Airline 3 PMA Holders costs
Re-distribution of parts can
challenge quality control
Re-Distributors
Root Cause of Symptoms

Airline 4 Non OEM Licensed
PMA Holders Disconnected & redundant
supply chain
Airline MROs Infrequent low demand on
most parts
Airline 5 Conflicting objectives
between customers and
Other MROs suppliers
New business model required to solve problem (root causes) 3

Section 17 3
Integrated Materials Management (IMM)
Next Generation Supply Chain
IMM On-Site Functions IMM Network Suppliers
Boeing CAS integrated solution for • Located at customers (Parts and R/O Services)
customer’s material management • Demand Planning Honeywell (OEM)
Aviall
operations • Inventory Management CAS Spares
• R/O Services Management
Guarantees service level to customer’s • Replenishment Management UFC Aerospace
maintenance operations Satair
Hamilton
Customers pay for parts when issued IMM Sundstrand
to maintenance operations Global
IM Avio-Diepen
JAL
M
Network suppliers own inventory until JTA O IMM Global Functions
issued to maintenance operations Delta n-
Si • Planning & Collaboration
ANA te • Global Operations
AirTran Te
Consolidated supply chain plan am • Systems Integration
787 Customers
managed through Integrator Singapore s • Network Supplier Mngmnt
Ryanair • Global Logistics Mngmnt
Reduces inventory buffers and KLM • Quality Assurance
process costs with better service • Human Resources
levels • Parts/Services Engineering
• Finance and Accounting
Enables supply chain and customers
• Communications
to reduce costs and share benefits
• Product Development
• Contracts
Lower total materials management cost & better service level
4
helps improve aircraft service performance

Section 17 4
IMM Benefits and Objectives
IMM Integrator’s operational facilitation and accountability supports new

business model, improves service levels, and reduces costs
Provide better service level with lower, predictable costs to airlines/MROs
Maximize component in-service life (stay “on aircraft”, more flight revenue, less cost)
Coordination and optimization of scheduled aircraft and component maintenance
Better reliability with more planned maintenance drives lower inventory and
process costs
Supply chain planning / collaboration to predict & react with better service level and
lower costs
Identify and reduce rogue units and associated costs
Determine and help resolve component design and/or batch deficiencies
Support identification and management of proper modifications
Help determine proper repair and/or overhaul with better workmanship management
Reduce No Fault Found (NFF) and associated costs
The Integrator function is key in coordinating processes, data, and information

with Suppliers through a consolidated materials management process
5
BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 17 5
IMM Strategy
Build a better business model to achieve objectives

Redefine the materials management role traditionally performed by
airlines/MROs
Traditional Customer is the materials management function at each airline/MRO
Traditional business model and processes are redundant, fragmented, and inefficient
Traditional Customers demanding a better business model, accountability, and
performance
Traditional “Customer” role is outsourced to an accountable Boeing IMM Integrator
Boeing IMM Integrator creates and becomes a “Better Customer” to Suppliers
Integrate and improve processes, information roles, and decision making

Connect and facilitate processes between Aircraft Operator, Aircraft MRO, and
Suppliers
Optimize management and use of “Enabler” features and information
Build and improve capability, accountability, and trust of Integrator role
Evolve to include successful and comprehensive 787 support

6

Section 17 6
787 GoldCare Branded Services
The 787 “GoldCare” Brand

“GoldCare Maintenance Services”
Services” “GoldCare IMM”
IMM” and “Under Wing”
Wing”
Maintenance Services and

Integrated Materials Management
Integrated Materials Management
(Airline and Engine OEM)
(Airline Only)
Line Maintenance Boeing and Supplier Component Repair

Maintenance Planning Parts and Overhaul
Base Reliability
Maintenance Programs Inventory Parts/Logistics
Management Management
Tooling, GSE Maintenance
& Facilities Engineering
Component Service Spares
Management Provisioning
Boeing and Supplier Component Repair
Parts and Overhaul
Inventory Parts/Logistics
Management Management
Component Service Spares
Management Provisioning
7
Comprehensive and Flexible Service Solutions to Support our Customers Needs

Section 17 7
IMM Top Processes
Materials Management
Contract with IMM
Manage
Program
Plan Parts’
Requirements
IMM Systems
Manage Demand Planning
Invoicing
Inventory Planning
Asset Management
Inventory Tracking Manage Parts’
Component Service Mgmt Configuration
Performance Analysis
Measure/
Share/ Award
Benefits based
on Metric
Results Manage Parts’
Measure and Logistics
Report Service
Levels
Legend:
Boeing 8
Aircraft Operator

Section 17 8
IMM Integrator Key Requirements
Process Management
Large Scale Systems Integration
Data Acquisition Shared, Analytics

and Integration Centralized
Data Management
Industry Expert People

9

Section 17 9
IMM Integrator Skill Sets
Base and Line Aircraft Maintenance experience

Understands the challenges of the Aircraft MRO provider
Maintenance Control trouble shooting of chronic aircraft problems, the
pressures of the operation, and the orchestration of problem resolution
Component Shop experience
Worked with bench test procedures and component teardown, rebuild
and overhaul
Component and Aircraft Reliability Engineering experience
Recognize reliability and scheduled maintenance program issues.
Adept at root cause analysis and presentation
Inventory and Supply Chain Management
Planning and collaboration between Airline/MRO sites and Suppliers
Execution and management to achieve service levels at lowest costs
Large scale process and systems integration
Program leadership and management that builds credibility and trust
Benefits measuring and sharing between IMM members 10

Section 17 10
Sources of Key Data
Parts & Service Supplier Aircraft MRO Provider Aircraft Operator
• Part Number • Date installed / removed • Flight hours

• Serial Number • Aircraft / position • Flight cycles
• Shop History • Reason for removal code • Flight routes
• Parts Availability and narrative • Aircraft system history
• Parts Configuration • Maintenance Planning
• Lead Times for aircraft & parts
• Turn around Times • Expendable parts issued
• Parts Availability
• Parts Configuration
Operational “Silos” usually keep this information isolated and fractionalized 11

Section 17 11
IMM Component Service Management
It cannot happen in separate databases

It cannot happen in a “Silo” environment
It cannot happen with data that is showered from the fleet hoping
suppliers can receive, use, and get best benefit from the data
An “Integrator” needs to facilitate:
Harvesting data into useful information that supports defined purpose,
processes, and accountability of supply chain.
Communication between aircraft operators/MROs & suppliers
Centralized data, information collaboration, and decision making
Component maintenance planning and collaboration
Inventory and supply chain logistics planning and execution
Unbiased and objective role between aircraft operators/MROs & suppliers
Specialized skills and tools for component service (reliability) analyses and
improvement programs
Measuring and sharing of benefits between suppliers, Boeing, MRO
partners, and airlines / operators
12

Section 17 12
IMM Component Service Management (cont’d)
(cont’d)
The key to component service management:

Tracking of components by serial number, capturing individual life history
The foundation being flight hours and cycles on wing
Also measures time off-wing
Each component has a story to tell
It is born
Manufacturing date
It has a unique name
Part number / serial number
It lives in unique places
Aircraft tail numbers and position
Dates installed and removed
Aircraft flight hours / cycles during installation
It gets sick
Reason for removal from the aircraft
Aircraft system history surrounding the removal
It gets healed
Shop history
It eventually dies
Life limit based on hours / cycles in service
This unique story is lost when serial numbers are all grouped together into a
single performance metric
13

Section 17 13
IMM Component Service Management (cont’d)
(cont’d)
Near real time configuration knowledge of aircraft and

components
Maintain awareness of multiple configurations and
interchangeabilities
Used-on
Dash number
Up-to-date cross reference lists in accessible part effectivity tables
Airline/MRO to Supplier cross references
Component population performance assessment to support
product (proper modifications) improvements
Assistance with optimization of component workscope and
threshold specs for overhaul, life limit, etc.
14

Section 17 14
IMM Component Service Management
Summary
Similar to traditional business model, the traditional component service
management and measurements can be significantly improved
Component reliability cannot be improved in a “silo” type environment
A trusted operational and accountable “Integrator” needs to facilitate:
Data collection, management, root cause analysis, and coordination
Communication between Component Supplier, Aircraft MRO Provider, Aircraft
Operator and Aircraft MRO
Demand and supply chain planning, collaboration, management and execution
Measuring individual unit performance within the collective whole with

time or cycles since installed (TSI/CSI) is key to component performance
measurement and improvements
E-enable data distributed to the supply base without an accountable
operational Integrator facilitating the information and processes will not
achieve service level and cost objectives
15

Section 17 15
IMM Responsibility Matrix
R e q u ire m e n t A irlin e (A irc ra ft M R O ) IM M In te g ra to r IM M N e tw o rk S u p p lie r
P ro vid e p re s c rib e d d e live ry

R e c e ive e q u a l o r b e tte r a va ila b ility P ro vid e p re s c rib e d a va ila b ility a n d
P a rt s S e rvic e L e ve l p e rfo rm a n c e a n d re lia b ility th ro u g h
a n d re lia b ility p e r p re s c rib e d ru le s re lia b ility to Airlin e (a irc ra ft M R O )
IM M In te g ra to r
F a c ilita te , m o n ito r, a n d re p o rt
Airlin e o w n s p a rts o n a irc ra ft. N o
P a rt s O w n e rs h ip o w n e rs h ip o f p a rts b e tw e e n Airlin e O w n p a rts o ff o f a irc ra ft.
o w n e rs h ip o f s p a re s in ve n to ry.
O p e ra to r a n d S u p p lie r.
Ma n a g e c o m p lia n c e to Airlin e Q u a lity
Q u a lit y P e rfo rm tra d itio n a l ro le Me e t Airlin e Q u a lity re q u ire m e n ts
re q u ire m e n ts . P ro vid e re q u ire d d a ta .
M a n a g e c o m p lia n c e to Airlin e /M R O
M e e t Airlin e /M R O E n g in e e rin g
E n g in e e rin g re q u ire m e n ts . P ro vid e a ll
E n g in e e rin g P e rfo rm tra d itio n a l ro le re q u ire m e n ts . C o o rd in a te
re q u ire d d a ta . C o o rd in a te m o d s
m o d ific a tio n re q u ire m e n ts .
re q u ire m e n ts .
P ro vid e a ll re q u ire d d a ta . W o rk w ith
P ro vid e a ll re q u ire d d a ta b a s e d o n
C o m p o n e n t R e lia b ilit y R e g u la t o ry M a n a g e m e n t P e rfo rm tra d itio n a l ro le IM M in te g ra to r to im p ro ve c o m p o n e n t
Airlin e /M R O re q u ire m e n ts .
s e rvic e .
P e rfo rm d e m a n d a n d s u p p ly c h a in
C o lla b o ra te p a rts a va ila b ility a n d s to c k
P ro vid e p re s c rib e d p a rts , a irc ra ft, a n d p la n n in g to m e e t s e rvic e le ve l a n d c o s t
P a rt s P la n n in g a n d In ve n t o ry M a n a g e m e n t p la n n in g p ro c e s s w ith IM M In te g ra to r
m a in te n a n c e d a ta o b je c tive s . C o lla b o ra te w ith S u p p lie rs
to a c h ie ve s e rvic e le ve l.
to a c h ie ve s e rvic e le ve l.
P e rfo rm c o m p o n e n t s e rvic e C o o rd in a te w ith IM M In te g ra to r to
P ro vid e p re s c rib e d p a rts , a irc ra ft, a n d m a n a g e m e n t to m e e t s e rvic e le ve l a n d re d u c e N F F a n d ro g u e u n its , p e rfo rm
C o m p o n e n t S e rvic e M a n a g e m e n t
m a in te n a n c e d a ta c o s t o b je c tive s . C o o rd in a te w ith Airlin e p ro p e r m o d s , a n d id e n tify/fix b a tc h
(a irc ra ft M R O ) a n d N e tw o rk S u p p lie rs . p ro b le m s
O ve rs e e a n d m a n a g e IMM In te g ra to r Ma n a g e G lo b a l L o g is tic s S u p p o rt G lo b a l L o g is tic s

P a rt s D e p lo y m e n t a n d G lo b a l L o g is t ic s M a n a g e m e n t
(B o e in g ) re q u ire m e n ts re q u ire m e n ts
O ve rs e e a n d m a n a g e IMM In te g ra to r P e rfo rm a n d a c h ie ve IMM

S u p p lie r M a n a g e m e n t Ma n a g e IM M S u p p lie rs
(B o e in g ) re q u ire m e n ts
P e rfo rm re p a ir, o ve rh a u l,
C o o rd in a te & m a n a g e re p a ir, o ve rh a u l,
C o o rd in a te a n d re c e ive re q u ire d m o d ific a tio n s , a n d re p la c e p a rts to
a n d m o d re q u ire m e n ts w ith
P a rt s R e p a ir / O ve rh a u l M a n a g e m e n t re p a ir, o ve rh a u l, m o d ific a tio n d a ta m e e t IM M re q u ire m e n ts . M a in ta in
Airlin e /M R O , S u p p lie rs , a n d G lo b a l
a n d c e rtific a tio n s h o p d a ta a n d re p o rts fo r e a c h s e ria l
L o g is tic s p ro vid e r.
n u m b e r p a rt life c yc le .
C o o rd in a te w ith Airlin e 's /M R O 's

P e rfo rm tra d itio n a l ro le . M o ve p a rts
P a rt s In t e rn a l L o g is tic s a n d S to re s M a n a g e m e n t tra d itio n a l ro le . C o o rd in a te w ith C o o rd in a te w ith IMM In te g ra to r
a s re q u ire d b y IMM P la n n e rs .
S u p p lie rs 16

Section 17 16
Component Service Program (CSP)
Vendor Vendor
Sub-vendor
ANA Sub-vendor
Returns Unserviceable part
within 5 days BOEING Vendor
CSP Pool
Vendor
ANA
Main Base
BOEING
Ships CSP Serviceable
parts in 24 hours
17

Section 17 17
CSP Benefits
Lower Cost of Rotable Components
Capital investment and interest costs (less initial
provisioning)
Reduction in repair and modification costs
Obsolescence
Shortages
Scrap Replacement
Taxes
Depreciation
Indirect Cost and Performance Improvements
Better aircraft dispatch reliability
Reduce aircraft delays
Increase Customer satisfaction
18

Section 17 18
Additional Reduction in Costs related to:

Cost of Labor
Management
Administration
Warehousing
Receiving and Shipping
Inspection
Testing
Time and effort
Vendor Management
Repair work scope
Configuration Management
Part Tracking
Fault Diagnostics
Transportation
Repair Turn-Around-Time 19

Section 17 19
Processes
1. Order
8. Repair and Restock

2. Check Availability
7. Return Old Part

3. Ship Part to main base
6. Receive Part 4. Notification
5. Tracking
Tracking
Boeing
Airlines/MRO
20

Section 17 20
IMM and CSP Comparison
A ttrib u te s IM M CSP
P a rt s S c o p e C o m p re h e n s ive p re fe rre d S ta n d a rd o r C u s to m ize d
F lig h t H o u r P ric in g Y es Y es
Te rm o f a g re e m e n t S u g g e s t 1 0 Ye a rs S h o rt o r L o n g T e rm
C u s to m e r p u rc h a s e s a p p ro x 3 0 %
C u s to m e r o w n s n o s p a re s in ve n to ry.
In it ia l p ro vis io n in g a n d s p a re s o w n e rs h ip b y c u s t o m e r le s s s p a re s in ve n to ry. O w n s p a rts
C u s to m e r o w n s p a rts o n a irc ra ft.
p a s t e xc h a n g e p o in t.
P o in t o f ro t a b le s e x c h a n g e U p o n in s ta ll o r re m o va l fro m a irc ra ft P re s c rib e d e xc h a n g e l o c a tio n
S h ip m e n t o f p a rt s t o " e x c h a n g e
S t o c k e d a n d / o r d e live ry p e rfo rm a n c e
S e rvic e L e ve l: P a rt s A va ila b ilit y p o in t " w it h in h o u rs / d a y s o f
t o a irc ra ft M R O lo c a t io n s .
c u s t o m e r n o t ific a t io n
M in im u m t im e o r c y c le s o n a irc ra ft
S e rvic e L e ve l: P a rt s R e lia b ilit y No
w it h o u t re m o va l d is ru p t io n .
S e rvic e le ve l g u a ra n t e e s Y es Y es
F lig h t h o u r p ric e in c lu d e s re p a ir/ o ve rh a u l a n d g lo b a l lo g is t ic s Y es Y es
S u p p lie r / V e n d o r / P a rt n e r M a n a g e m e n t Y es Y es
P rim a ry p a rt s s u p p ly a n d re p a ir/ o ve rh a u l s o u rc e s O E Ms Airlin e s , M R O s , O E M s , o th e r
M a t e ria l M a n a g e m e n t s e rvic e p e o p le lo c a t e d w it h a irc ra ft M R O Y es O p t io n
O u t s o u rc in g o f c u s t o m e r m a t e ria l m a n a g e m e n t ro le Ye s No
F lig h t h o u r p ric e in c lu d e s m a n d a t o ry & a le rt s e rvic e b u lle t in s Y es Y es
P a rt s s c o p e a d d / d e le t e p ro c e s s a n d c o n s id e ra t io n Y es Y es
C o n fig u ra t io n m a n a g e m e n t & P a rt s ' Tra c k in g Y es Y es
Tro u b le s h o o t in g a n d fa u lt d ia g n o s t ic s s u p p o rt Y es Y es 21

Section 17 21
IMM and CSP Business Model Relationship
Boeing
PC700 Parts
Customer 1
IMM Integrator (Boeing)
OEMs’ Parts &

R/O Services
Customer 2
Distributors
OEM Licensed
Customer 3 PMA Holders
Re-Distributors
Customer 4 Non OEM Licensed

PMA Holders
Non-OEM Parts
R/O Services CSP Agreement
Customer 5 with KLM and
Air France
Boeing CSP
22
CSP can be an IMM rotables supplier

Section 17 22
Sample Airline/MRO Perspective
of IMM Business Case
New 737NG Fleet at Airline/MRO based on 957 LRUs from “Typical” RSPL
Sample Airline/MRO Perspective of IMM Business Case (Net Cash Outflow) USA $ in Millions
$60.0
Net Cash Outflow for Parts Scope
$50.0
Scenario # 2: With IMM
$40.0 10 Year Cash Out NPV = $133
$30.0 Advantage of IMM:

Ten Year NPV = $51
Savings of 28%
$20.0
Scenario # 1: Without IMM
$10.0
10 Year Cash Out NPV = $184
$0.0
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Future Years for Parts Scope
23

Section 17 23
of IMM Business Case (cont’d)
(cont’d)
Graph Cash Spend for Traditional Costs Relevant to Parts Scope and IMM Service
Black Line on Graph:
IMM BUS INESS CAS E: Sam ple Custom er Perspectiv e ($ in Millions unless otherwise noted)
S cenario #1: Parts S cop e with out I MM Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Av erage Customer Aircraft Count 1 7 18 26 34 40 40 40 40 40
Customer Flight Hours 2,600 18,200 46,800 67,600 88,400 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000 104,000
Av erage Age of Aircraft in Years 1 2 2 3 3 5 6 7 7 7
Customer Flight Cy cles 1,800 12,600 32,400 46,800 61,200 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000
Rotables Av ailability Serv ice Lev el % (Combined "Shelf" and "Deliv ery Time") 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0%
Rotables Reliability Serv ice Lev el % (meeting minimum TSI/CSI thresholds) 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5%
Rotables Purchases Value with Price Escalation and Discount $7 $7 $8 $7 $5 $4 $2 $2 $1 $1 $43
Aggregate Av erage Rotables Parts Purchase % below Market List Price 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Rotables Av erage Inv entory Book Value $3.4 $9.7 $15.8 $21.1 $24.3 $25.9 $25.9 $24.5 $23.1 $21.3
Rotables Inv entory T urns (includes obs/scrap; does not include depreciation) 0.84 2.00 3.05 3.19 3.46 3.60 3.38 3.30 3.25 3.24
Rotables Process Costs $ (Inv entory Management, Global Logistics, and Inv oicing) $0 $1 $2 $4 $5 $6 $7 $7 $7 $7 $46
Rotables R & O Labor Costs $0 $0 $1 $2 $6 $10 $13 $16 $17 $17 $84
Rotables R & O Relev ant Shop Costs $0 $0 $1 $2 $6 $10 $13 $16 $17 $17 $84
Rotables Modification Costs $0 $0 $1 $2 $4 $6 $7 $8 $8 $9 $46
Rotables Depreciation Costs (Customer Owned Spare Parts) $0 $1 $1 $2 $2 $3 $3 $3 $2 $2 $18
Inv entory Carry ing Cost $ (for Accounting -- total av g inv entory ) $0 $1 $1 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $16
Inv entory Obsolescence/Scrap Cost $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $4
Inv entory Obs/Scrap/Deprec Income T ax Impact (negativ e v alue is positiv e impact) $0 $0 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$8
Total Net Cash Outflow (any negativ e v alue here is a net cash inflow) $7 $9 $15 $19 $28 $39 $42 $50 $50 $51 $310
PV of Net Cash Ou tflow $184
Cost of Money % 8.0%
Rotables Relev ant Cost Per Flight Hour on Cash Basis ($ in Ones) $2,744 $498 $313 $276 $318 $374 $406 $480 $485 $493
24

Section 17 24
of IMM Business Case (cont’d)
(cont’d)
Graph Cash Spend for Parts Scope with IMM Service
Red Bars on Graph:
S cenario #2: Parts S cope with I MM ($ in Millions unless noted otherwise) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Rotables Av ailability Serv ice Level % (Combined "Shelf" and "Deliv ery Time") 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0%
Rotables Reliability Service Lev el % (meeting minimum TSI/CSI thresholds) 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0% 98.0%
Rotables Serv ice Lev el Improv ement Benefit (better parts av ailability & reliability ) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $4
Rotable Purchases $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rotables Inv entory Book Value Transitioned (sold) to IMM $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rotables Inv entory Transition Cash / Credit Benefit (from sale to IMM) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rotables Av erage Inv entory Book Value $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Consideration from IMM for Ex pendables Missed Serv ice Lev el $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
IMM $/FH Rate for Rotables Issue from IMM Supplier Owned Inv entory ($ in Ones) $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300
IMM Service Cost for Rotables Issued from IMM Owned Inv entory $1 $5 $14 $20 $27 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $223
Inv entory Carry ing Cost $ (for Accounting -- total av g inv entory) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Inv entory Obsolescence/Scrap Cost $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Inv entory Obs/Scrap/Deprec Income Tax Impact (negativ e v alue is positive impact) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Customer's Internal Costs to Integrate with IMM Sy stems $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1
Total Net Cash Outflow (any negative value here is a net cash inflow) $0 $1 $5 $14 $20 $26 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $220
PV of Net Cash Outflow $133
Rotables Relev ant Cost Per Flight Hour on Cash Basis ($ in Ones) $488 $296 $295 $295 $295 $295 $295 $295 $295 $295
IMM versus T raditional Method Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Cash Advantage of I MM (Negative values are disadvantages) $0 $6 $4 $1 -$1 $2 $8 $12 $19 $20 $21 $91
Cash Net Present Value Advantage of I MM $51
Cash S avings % with I MM 28% 82% 41% 5% -7% 7% 21% 27% 39% 39% 40% 29%
25

Section 17 25
of CSP Business Case
New 737NG Fleet at Airline/MRO based on 320 LRUs from Standard CSP List
Sample Airline/MRO Perspective of CSP Business Case (Net Cash Outflow) USA $ in Millions
$18.0
Net Cash Outflow for Parts Scope
$16.0
$14.0 Scenario # 2: With CSP
$10.0
Advantage of CSP:
$8.0 Ten Year NPV = $19
Savings of 35%
$6.0
$4.0 Scenario # 1: Without CSP
$0.0
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Future Years for Parts Scope
26

Section 17 26
of CSP Business Case (cont’d)
(cont’d)
Graph Cash Spend for Traditional Costs Relevant to Parts Scope without CSP Service
Black Line on Graph:
CSP BUSINESS CASE: Sample Airline/MRO Perspective ($ in Millions unless otherwise noted)
Scenario #1: Parts Scope with Traditional Model Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Average Customer Aircraft Count 1 7 18 26 34 40 40 40 40 40
Customer Flight Hours 2,628 18,396 47,304 68,328 89,352 105,120 105,120 105,120 105,120 105,120
Average Age of Aircraft in Years 1 2 2 3 3 5 6 7 7 7
Customer Flight Cycles 1,752 12,264 31,536 45,552 59,568 70,080 70,080 70,080 70,080 70,080
Rotables Availability Service Level % (Combined "Shelf" and "Delivery Time") 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0%
Rotables Reliability Service Level % (meeting minimum TSI/CSI thresholds) 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5%
Rotables Purchases Value with Price Escalation and Discount $2 $2 $3 $2 $2 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $14
Aggregate Average Rotables Parts Purchase % below Market List Price 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Rotables Average Inventory Book Value $1 $3 $5 $7 $8 $9 $9 $8 $8 $7
Rotables Inventory Turns (includes obs/scrap; does not include depreciation) 0.84 2.00 3.05 3.19 3.46 3.60 3.38 3.30 3.25 3.24
Rotables Process Costs $ (Inventory Management, Global Logistics, and Invoicing) $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $6
Rotables R & O Labor Costs $0 $0 $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $5 $6 $28
Rotables R & O Relevant Shop Costs $0 $0 $0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $5 $6 $28
Rotables Modification Costs $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $2 $2 $3 $3 $3 $15
Inventory Carrying Cost $ (for Accounting -- total avg inventory) $0 $0 $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $5
Inventory Obsolescence/Scrap Cost $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1
Inventory Obs/Scrap/Deprec Income Tax Impact (negative value is positive impact) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$3
Total Net Cash Outflow (any negative value here is a net cash inflow) $2 $3 $4 $5 $8 $12 $13 $15 $15 $16 $93
PV of Net Cash Outflow $55.4
27
Rotables Relevant Cost Per Flight Hour on Cash Basis ($ in Ones) $892 $155 $95 $79 $92 $110 $120 $144 $145 $148

Section 17 27
of CSP Business Case (cont’d)
(cont’d)
Graph Cash Spend for Parts Scope with CSP Service

Red Bars on Graph:
Scenario #2: Parts Scope with CSP ($ in Millions unless noted otherwise) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Rotables Availability Service Level % (Combined "Shelf" and "Delivery Time") 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0% 97.0%
Rotables Reliability Service Level % (meeting minimum TSI/CSI thresholds) 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5%
Rotables Service Level Improvement Benefit (better parts availability & reliability) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rotable Purchases $2 $2 $2 $1 $1 $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9
Rotables Average Inventory Book Value $1 $2 $4 $5 $5 $6 $6 $5 $5 $5
CSP $/FH Rate ($ in Ones) $24 $30 $31 $34 $35 $63 $80 $82 $85 $87
CSP Service Cost $0 $1 $1 $2 $3 $7 $8 $9 $9 $9 $49
Inventory Carrying Cost $ (for Accounting -- total avg inventory) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3
Inventory Obsolescence/Scrap Cost $ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1
Inventory Obs/Scrap/Deprec Income Tax Impact (negative value is positive impact) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -$2
Total Net Cash Outflow (any negative value here is a net cash inflow) $0 $2 $2 $3 $4 $4 $8 $9 $9 $9 $9 $60
PV of Net Cash Outflow $36
Rotables Relevant Cost Per Flight Hour on Cash Basis ($ in Ones) $651 $120 $71 $59 $49 $74 $85 $87 $88 $90
CSP versus Traditional Method Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Cash Advantage of CSP (Negative values are disadvantages) $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $4 $4 $4 $6 $6 $6 $33
Cash Net Present Value Advantage of CSP $19
Cash Savings % with CSP 35% 27% 23% 25% 26% 47% 33% 29% 39% 39% 39% 35%
28

Section 17 28
IMM and CSP Financial Comparison
$ in Millions USA
IMM Financials for 737NG Typical RSPL 957 rotable parts scope and service:
IMM versus Traditional Method Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Cash Advantage of IMM (Negative values are disadvantages) $0 $6 $4 $1 -$1 $2 $8 $12 $19 $20 $21 $91
Cash Net Present Value Advantage of IMM $51
Cash Savings % with IMM 28% 82% 41% 5% -7% 7% 21% 27% 39% 39% 40% 29%
CSP Financials for 737NG 320 Standard rotables parts scope and service:
CSP versus Traditional Method Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Total
Cash Advantage of CSP (Negative values are disadvantages) $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 $4 $4 $4 $6 $6 $6 $33
Cash Net Present Value Advantage of CSP $19
Cash Savings % with CSP 35% 27% 23% 25% 26% 47% 33% 29% 39% 39% 39% 35%
• Boeing Materials Management Solutions will provide better savings versus traditional methods
• IMM & CSP provide different levels of service and parts scope
• Customers have choice for Boeing solutions, traditional methods, or other service providers
• Boeing will help Customers make best choice and support service as required 29

Section 17 29
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Materials_Management.ppt | 30

BOEING PROPRIETARY

Section 17 30
Measurement
An Asset or Liability?
Thomas Carroll
Director of Reliability Engineering
NETJETS
1
Traditional Measurement
• Mean Time Between Unscheduled Removals

(MTBUR)
• Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)
Great for measuring rates of removals or failures,

but do they actually indicate true reliability?
2
How Are They Calculated?
MTBUR =
Number of flight hours x units installed per aircraft
Number of unscheduled removals during that period
MTBF =
Number of shop confirmed failures during that period
3
What Should a Reliability Measure Do?
Identify reliability issues
Ö Premature failures
Ö “Graduating class” failures
Ö Rogue components
Ö Workscope shortcomings
Ö Maintenance program problems
4
What Does MTBUR NOT Tell Us?
Reliability issues
Ö Premature failures
Ö “Graduating class” failures
Ö Rogue components
Ö Workscope shortcomings
Ö Maintenance program problems
5
MTBUR is Extremely Misleading
Assumption:
MTBUR indicates the average (mean) time a component
spends in service
¾ So it is often used to set maintenance program intervals

– If the MTBUR is 30,000 hours, the program is set for 28,000 hours
Fact:
MTBUR has nothing to do with the amount of time
a component spends in service
6
MTBUR Example
¾ An operator puts 20 aircraft in service January 1

¾ For a particular component, there are 2 installed
on each aircraft, which equates to an in-service
population of 40 components
¾ By December 31, each aircraft has operated
3000 flight hours
¾ The total component operating hours = 120,000 hours
(40 components x 3000 flight hours)
¾ If 4 components were replaced, the MTBUR would be
30,000 hours (120,000 hours / 4 removals)
7
What Does it Mean?
What does it mean when the MTBUR is 30,000 hours,

when the most any component operated
during that year was 3000 hours?
Î It means the MTBUR is the rate of replacement

For every 30,000 hours of combined component
operational hours, 1 unit was replaced
MTBUR has nothing to do with how long

a component is in service
8
MTBUR Disregards Time in Service
(100,000 hours) x (2 units per aircraft)
Number of unscheduled removals during that period
(10 unscheduled removals)
These 10 could be:

Ö 10 different serial numbers removed once with
very high time in service
Ö 2 different serial numbers removed 5 times with
extremely short time in service
Using MTBUR, there is no distinction in performance

9
9
MTBUR is Affected by Fleet Size
One unit per aircraft Life expectancy = 3 years
Aircraft utilization = 3000 hours per year No premature failures
Operator “A”
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fleet Size 20 40 60 60 60 60 60 60
Failures 20 20 20 20 20
MTBUR N/A N/A N/A 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Operator “B”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fleet Size 6 34 82 130 178 226 274 322
Failures 6 28 48 54 76
MTBUR N/A N/A N/A 65,000 19,071 14,125 15,222 12,711
10
10
MTBUR is Affected by Delivery Schedule
One unit per aircraft Life expectancy = 3 years
Aircraft utilization = 3000 hours per year No premature failures
Operator “A”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fleet Size 20 40 60 60 60 60 60 60
Failures 20 20 20 20 20
MTBUR N/A N/A N/A 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Operator “B”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fleet Size 20 30 40 48 54 58 60 60
Failures 20 10 10 28 16
MTBUR N/A N/A N/A 7,200 16,200 17,400 6,429 11,250
11
11
MTBUR Hurts the Operator and the OEM
Life expectancy = 10,000 hours
Total operating hours each year = 60,000
Individual “Good”
Unit Removals
TSI 11,000
TSI 14,250
TSI 10,000
TSI 9,000
TSI 250
TSI 16,000
TSI
TSI
TSI
MTBUR 10,000
12
12
Individual “Good” Operator

Unit Removals Impacted
TSI 11,000 500
TSI 14,250 250
TSI 10,000 1,000
TSI 9,000 1,250
TSI 250
TSI 16,000
TSI
TSI
TSI
MTBUR 10,000 15,000
13
13
Individual “Good” Operator OEM

Unit Removals Impact Impacted
TSI 11,000 500 14,000
TSI 14,250 250 18,000
TSI 10,000 1,000 16,450
TSI 9,000 1,250 12,900
TSI 250 550
TSI 16,000 13,500
TSI 19,125
TSI 16,400
TSI
MTBUR 10,000 15,000 7,500
14
14
MTBF is All That - And Worse
• Same inconsistencies and inadequacies as

MTBUR calculation
• Confirmation of failure is determined by shop

technician trying to correlate subcomponent
failure to reported aircraft system failure
• Many times shop technicians aren’t proficient

with aircraft system operation
15
15
The traditional means of measuring
reliability is actually a liability -
Generating more work, providing less results
16
16
The Challenge
• Create new ways of measuring reliability

without using an average or a single number
• It takes a number of new data sources

and processes
17
17
The Trouble With Averages
Windshield Replacements
Annual Totals (Jun - Jul)
Left Right
20
18
Number of Windshields
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year Ending 18
18
<
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 1 0
00 00
15 -15
01 00
20 -20
01 00
25 -25
01 00
30 -30
01 00
35 -35
01 00
40 -40
01 00
45 -45
01 00
50 -50
01 00
55 -55
Average 5167
01 00
60 -60
01 00
65 -65
01 00
70 -70
01 00
Hours of Service
75 -75
Replaced 1994 - 1998
01 00
80 -80
01 00
85 -85
01 00
Left Windshield Times in Service
90 -90
0 00
95 1-9
0 5
10 1-1 00
00 0 0
10 1-1 00
50 05
The Trouble With Averages (continued)...
1- 00
11
00
19
19
<
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10 1 0
00 00
15 -15
01 00
20 -20
01 00
25 -25
01 00
30 -30
01 00
35 -35
01 00
40 -40
01 00
45 -45
01 00
50 -50
01 00
55 -55
Average 5167
01 00
60 -60
01 00
65 -65
01 00
70 -70
01 00
Hours of Service
75 -75
Replaced 1994 - 1998
01 00
80 -80
01 00
85 -85
01 00
90 -90
0 00
95 1-9
0 5
10 1-1 00
00 0 0
10 1-1 00
50 05
1- 00
11
00
20
20
<
0
1
2
3
4
10 1 0
00 00
15 -15
01 00
20 -20
01 00
25 -25
01 00
30 -30
01 00
35 -35
01 00
40 -40
01 00
45 -45
01 00
50 -50
01 00
55 -55
01 00
60 -60
Average 3372
01 00
65 -65
01 00
70 -70
01 00
Replaced in 1994
Hours of Service
75 -75
01 00
80 -80
01 00
85 -85
01 00
90 -90
0 00
95 1-9
0 5
10 1-1 00
00 0 0
10 1-1 00
50 05
1- 00
11
00
21
21
<
0
1
2
3
4
10 1 0
00 00
15 -15
01 00
20 -20
01 00
25 -25
01 00
30 -30
01 00
35 -35
01 00
40 -40
01 00
45 -45
01 00
50 -50
01 00
55 -55
01 00
60 -60
Average 3372
01 00
65 -65
01 00
70 -70
01 00
Replaced in 1994
Hours of Service
75 -75
01 00
80 -80
01 00
85 -85
01 00
90 -90
0 00
95 1-9
0 5
10 1-1 00
00 0 0
10 1-1 00
50 05
1- 00
11
00
22
22
<
0
1
2
3
4
1 0 10
00 00
15 -15
01 00
20 -20
01 00
25 -25
01 00
30 -30
01 00
35 -35
01 00
40 -40
01 00
45 -45
01 00
50 -50
01 00
55 -55
01 00
60 -60
01 00
65 -65
01 00
70 -70
01 00
Replaced in 1996
Hours of Service
75 -75
01 00
Average 4908
80 -80
01 00
85 -85
01 00
90 -90
0 00
95 1-9
0 5
10 1-1 00
00 00
10 1-1 00
50 05
1- 00
11
00
23
23
<
0
1
2
3
4
10 10
00 00
15 -15
01 00
20 -20
01 00
25 -25
01 00
30 -30
01 00
35 -35
01 00
40 -40
01 00
45 -45
01 00
50 -50
01 00
55 -55
01 00
60 -60
01 00
65 -65
01 00
70 -70
01 00
Replaced in 1996
Hours of Service
75 -75
01 00
Average 4908
80 -80
01 00
85 -85
01 00
90 -90
0 0
95 1-9 0
0 5
10 1-1 00
00 00
10 1-1 00
50 05
1- 00
11
00
0
24
24
It Takes Data
• Aircraft system history
• Shop history
• Component tracking by serial number

with reason for removal
25
25
It Takes New Process Techniques
• Data compilation
• Data display
• Information analysis and interpretation
• Qualified analysts
26
26
With innovative reliability measurement and process
techniques, less manpower will be spent on sifting
data and chasing “ghosts”
Problems will be quickly identified and the course

toward solutions easily charted
27
27
Reliability measurement will no longer be a
liability, generating more and more questions
with minimal results...
It will be a tool to improve the performance of

aircraft systems and components, as a
valuable asset
28
28
In other words...
No data - - No peace
Know data - - Know peace
29
29
Reliability Mapping
Charting the Road to Success
Thomas Carroll
NETJETS
1
Reliability Engineering
• During critical times plays a critical role
– Operational effectiveness
– Asset management
– Cost avoidance
– Cost recovery
• What needs to be done to optimize this role?

– Break from the tradition of primarily providing charts
and graphs
2
Reliability Charts and Graphs
• Should do more than show data
• Need to confirm problems or opportunities

and chart a course to success
3
Traditional Charts and Graphs
• Typically called “indicators”
• Could indicate a problem or opportunity,

but then what?
• How do you chart the way from confirmation

to successful resolution?
You need a map
4
What Kind of Map is Needed?
• Quick
– If a problem or opportunity exists, it must be
acted upon as soon as possible
• Accurate
– Confirm whether the problem or opportunity
is real or not
• Efficient
– The first solution needs to be the best solution
5
Traditional Map Building Tools
• MTBUR
• MTBF
• Averages
• Reliability curves, plots and graphs
• Raw Data
– Piles of numbers and samples
6
Traditional Map Building Methods
• Pick a style: • Pick a direction:
– Déjà vu – Rogue unit
– Assumptions – Modification
– “Feelings” – Batch problem
– Knee-jerk – Workscope
– Trial and error – Design
– Old age
– Maintenance program
– Human factors
– Fact of life
– Combinations of the above
7
Traditional Maps
• Utilizing traditional methods and tools
– Are like using a world globe or pieces of a
jig-saw puzzle to find your way across town
• Not very:
– Quick
– Accurate
– Effective
• Not a lot of results

• A lot of opportunities missed
• A lot of time and resources are wasted
8
Breaking From Tradition
• Collect “street-level” data
– Component tracking
• Part and serial number off / on
• Date installed / removed
• Aircraft tail number / position
• Simple reason for removal codes
• Time / cycles since installed / overhauled
• Shop history
– Aircraft tracking
• System complaints by tail number
– Sorted by system
• This simple data provides the building materials
for Reliability Mapping
9
9
Reliability Mapping Methodology
• Gather all the factors affecting the data
– Hardware specifics
• Component serial numbers
• Part numbers
• Reasons for removal
• Aircraft tail numbers
– Stream of time
• Arrange the data in a visual display

– By component or aircraft population
10
10
Reliability Mapping Examples
True Stories!
11
11
Reliability Mapping Requirements
• Willingness to break from tradition
• Collect “street level” data
• Display pertinent data visually
• Learn new interpretation methods
• Customize the display
12
12
Reliability Mapping Benefits
• Reliability Engineering becomes a tool
to manage and optimize assets, processes and
programs
• Operational efficiency
• Repair and modification processes
• Preventive maintenance programs
• Manpower and hardware resources
• Cost avoidance and recovery
13
13
The Greatest Benefit
Controlling your own destiny
14
14
ROGUE COMPONENTS
Their Effect and Control
Thomas Carroll
NETJETS
1
OVERVIEW
• Introduction
• Rogue Effect
• Financial Impact
• The Bottom Line
• Identification and Control
• Success Stories
2
2
Introduction
3
The Industry Has Become Extremely
Cost Conscious
• Dispatch Reliability
• Aircraft Maintenance
• Spare Levels
• Modifications and Upgrades
• Component Repair (NFF)
4
The Single Greatest Cost driver:
The single greatest cost driver for the airline,

repair facility and the component / airframe OEM is:
The Rogue Component
5
Rogue Component Definition
• A component which repeatedly experiences

short service periods, manifesting the same
system fault each time, and whose replacement
corrects the system malfunction
• Its chronic condition cannot be resolved through

standard repair or overhaul procedures
6
Rogue Development
• Bench testing addresses less than 100% of the

component’s operating functions, characteristics
or environment
• Bench tests are designed to identify anticipated

failures
• A unit that fails in an unaddressed or unanticipated

manner will never be resolved - a rogue is born
7
APU Electronic Control Unit
Serial Number XXXX1
Date A/C TSI Fault
5/5/98 X45 2748 No Info

2/24/00 X48 767 No Info
11/29/00 X51 378 Won't start - No EICAS message
1/27/01 X50 360 Air Pump C/B Pops
11/5/01 X46 617 Won't start
1/18/02 X05 60 Autoshutdown
3/17/02 X52 25 No Info
8/5/02 X00 294 Won't start on landing - fault light on
9/14/02 X01 155 Won't start - fails self test
11/11/02 X50 76 Won't start prior to departure
12/26/02 X45 24 Autoshutdown in flight - ECU won't test
1/27/03 X49 0 Autoshutdown - then wouldn't start
7/31/03 X46 307 Won't start - EICAS shows APU fault
8/29/03 X47 62 Won't start - ECU fault
12/3/03 X45 51 Won't start
Confirmed aircraft system repair

8
8
Serial Number XXXX2
Date A/C TSI Fault
8/17/97 X45 753 No Info

12/18/00 X48 364 No Info
3/25/00 X50 86 Won't start - No help
11/5/00 X50 585 Won't carry load
8/22/01 X49 411 Electrics shed when applied
12/3/01 X45 71 "Field" trip on in-flight start attempt
6/3/02 X46 21 "Field" trip , low duct pressure, low RPM
9/18/02 X45 30 Won't hold electric load - RPM 92%
11/5/02 X50 81 "Field" & "Gen OFF" lights when electric load applied
1/10/03 X50 4 Won't hold electric load
1/28/03 X49 9 Won’t accelerate past 92%
5/31/03 X46 0 Drops off line repeatedly - top RPM 94%
7/9/03 X53 10 "Field" light on
7/26/03 X47 22 Fault light on - failed to start
9/7/03 X48 5 When electric load applied, autoshutdown
1/1/04 X55 77 "Field"' light on , APU won't come on line
Confirmed aircraft system repair OEM alerted of chronic condition 9
9
Serial Number XXXX2
Date A/C TSI Fault
8/17/97 X45 753 No Info

12/18/00 X48 364 No Info
3/25/00 X50 86 Won't start - No help
11/5/00 X50 585 Won't carry load
8/22/01 X49 411 Electrics shed when applied
12/3/01 X45 71 "Field" trip on in-flight start attempt
6/3/02 X46 21 "Field" trip, low duct pressure, low RPM
9/18/02 X45 30 Won't hold electric load - RPM 92%
11/5/02 X50 81 "Field" & "Gen OFF" lights when electric load applied
1/10/03 X50 4 Won't hold electric load
1/28/03 X49 9 Won’t accelerate past 92%
5/31/03 X46 0 Drops off line repeatedly - top RPM 94%
7/9/03 X53 10 "Field" light on
7/26/03 X47 22 Fault light on - failed to start
9/7/03 X48 5 When electric load applied, autoshutdown
1/1/04 X55 77 "Field"' light on , APU won't come on line
3/17/04 X54 61 No freqs or volts, won't reset (found on ETOPS check)
Confirmed aircraft system repair OEM alerted of chronic condition 10
10
“Natural Selection” Phenomenon
Rogue components will displace

serviceable spares
11
11
Spare Pool
In-Service Population
Good
Good
Good
Rogue
Good
Good Good
12
12
Spare Pool
Rogue
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good Good
13
13
Spare Pool
Rogue
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good Rogue
14
14
Spare Pool
Rogue
Good
Rogue
Good
Good
Good Good
15
15
Spare Pool
Rogue
Rogue
Rogue
Good
Good
Good Good
16
16
Spare Pool
Rogue
Good
Rogue
Good
Good
Rogue Good
17
17
The Rogue Effect
18
18
Rogue Component Effect
• Operational reliability • Component Spares
• Maintenance • “SOS” program
• Maintenance support • Maintenance programs
• Repair facility • Training programs
• Aircraft systems • Components themselves
• Airline / OEM engineering • FAA
19
19
Maintenance
• Persistent chronic system faults
• Low confidence in replaced components
• Inability to progress in troubleshooting
• Additional fault induction
• Regulatory scrutiny
20
20
Chronic System Fault
Cabin Pressurization System
DATE SYSTEM FAULT ACTION TAKEN
BITE check shows no faults, message erased.

May 5 "Cabin Alt Auto 2" Message
Replaced #2 Cabin Pressure Controller.
BITE check shows fault on #2 controller.
May 6 "Cabin Alt Auto 2" Message
May 9 "Cabin Alt Auto 2" Message Operational check normal per FIM.
"Cabin Alt Auto 2" Message.
Found controller fault.
May 9 Pressurization normal after
message displayed.
Swapped #1 & #2 Cabin Pressure Controllers
May 17
for evaluation per Tech Services Request.
"Cabin Alt Auto 1" message.
May 17 Pressurization normal after BITE checks normally.
message displayed.
Replaced #1 Cabin Pressure Controller
May 22
per Tech Services Request.
NO FURTHER COMPLAINTS AS OF JULY 2
21
21
Operational Reliability
• Increased operational restrictions (MEL)
• Increased delays and cancellations
• Increased maintenance ferry flights
• Regulatory scrutiny
22
22
Engine Indicating System Delays and Cancellations
Greater than 15 minutes per 100 departures
0.09
Six Rogue Units Seven Rogue Units
0.08
0.07
Three Rogue Units
0.06
R
a 0.05
t
0.04
e
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
July 03
Jun 03
Nov-03
Jun-04
Jul-04
Jan-03
May-03
Aug-03
Jan-04
May-04
Aug-04
Feb-03
Mar-03
Apr-03
Sep 03
Oct-03
Dec-03
Feb 04
Mar 04
Apr 04
Sep-04
Oct-04
23
23
Operational Impact
Flight Management Computer
Serial Number XXXXX
Date A/C TSI Fault IMPACT
4/20/03 X83 1296 #1 FMC Failure Maintenance ferry from CAE to PIT
Independent operation.
8/20/03 X94 40 Maintenance ferry from DCA to PIT
No map display.
Independent operation.
12/4/03 X51 13 Maintenance ferry from LGA to PIT
Indicates aircraft mismatch.
24
24
Operational Impact
Hydraulic Control Panel
Serial Number XX
Date A/C TSI Fault
10/7/01 X59 4094 "SYS 1" switch broken. "SYS 2 ELEV" switch broken.
#1 & #2 hydraulic pressure shows no indication .
4/3/02 X85 828
Low Quantity lights on.
11/3/02 X65 154
Low Quantity warnings.
1/22/03 X58 6
Low Quantity warnings.
#1 & #2 hydraulic low quantity lights on with warnings.
5/20/03 X93 0
10/21/03 X96 7 #1 & #2 hydraulic pressure indications blank
This failure resulted in the crew declaring an in-flight emergency,

with subsequent return to the field. This also generated an
overweight landing inspection.

25
25
Maintenance Support
• Excessive man-hour expenditures
• Hangar space requirements
• Additional spare shipments
• Low spare availability
26
26
Aircraft Systems
• High replacement activity
• Hardware stressed beyond normal
27
27
• Shortened interval checks / replacements
• Additional interval checks / replacements
28
28
Training Programs
• Recurrent training requirements
• Additional training programs
29
29
Component Spares
• Sporadically high usage
• Periodic level increases
• Abnormally high levels
• Spares pool pollution
30
30
“Ship or Shelve” (SOS) Program
One rogue component will collapse

the entire program
31
31
R B
FAULT
SOS
A
32
32
R B B
A
FAULT FAULT
SOS SOS
A R
33
33
R B B
A
FAULT FAULT
SOS SOS
A R
A B
FAULT
SOS
R
34
34
R B B
A
FAULT FAULT
SOS SOS
A R
A B
A
R
FAULT FAULT
SOS SOS
R B
35
35
R B B
A
FAULT FAULT
SOS SOS
A R
A B
A
R
FAULT FAULT
SOS SOS
R B
A R
SOS
B
36
36
Airline, Component and Aircraft
OEM Engineering
• Ineffective modification programs
• Needless upgrade replacements
• Perception that modification program had

adverse effect on reliability
37
37
Ineffective Modification Programs
Engine Indication Multiplexer
Serial Number XXX
DATE A/C TSI FAULT REPAIR ACTION
4/21/01 X57 3411 "Single Channel" Fault No Fault Found

1/27/02 X84 94 "EMUX 2" Message No Fault Found
10/12/02 X98 501 "EMUX 2" Message No Fault Found
1/21/03 X87 72 "Single Channel" Fault Modified Unit
7/12/03 X85 33 "Single Channel" Fault Uh - Oh
38
38
Repair Facility
• Low MTBUR
• High NFF incidence
• High volume of returns
• More work stations / personnel required
• Long lead times
• Great demand for spares
39
39
Components Themselves
• Loss
• Shipping damage
• Installation and removal damage
40
40
FAA
• Accurate assessment of operational and

maintenance difficulties
• Airworthiness directives
41
41
Rogue Component Effect
• Operational reliability • Component Spares
• Maintenance • “SOS” program
• Maintenance support • Maintenance programs
• Repair facility • Training programs
• Aircraft systems • Components themselves
• Airline / OEM engineering • FAA
42
42
Financial Impact
43
43
Rogue Components Financially Impact
• Airline
• Repair Facility
• Component / Airframe OEM
44
44
Airline Financial Impacts
• Installation and removal of rogue and associated

system components
• Shipping and handling of components
• NFF charges
• Excessive man-hour expenditures
• Operational impacts
45
45
Average Component Removal and Installation Cost
For Tracked Rotables
Mechanic Stock Clerk
Engine Run Stock Transportation
APU Run Low Spare Availability
Aircraft System Wear and GSE Support
Component / Aircraft Paperwork Processing
Mainframe Processing: Ordering, Issuing, Shipping, Tracking
46
46
Average Component Removal and Installation Cost
For Tracked Rotables
Mechanic Stock Clerk
Engine Run Stock Transportation
APU Run Low Spare Availability
Aircraft System Wear and GSE Support
Component / Aircraft Paperwork Processing
Mainframe Processing: Ordering, Issuing, Shipping, Tracking
AVERAGE TOTAL COST = $2400 EACH R / I

47
47
Typical Financial Impact During
Rogue Unit Life *
• 6 Removal / Installations of rogue part = $14,400
(6 x $2,400 each occurrence)
• 6 No Fault Found charges = $6,000

(6 x $1,000 industry average)
• 4 Extended troubleshooting periods = $2,400

(4 x $50 x 6 hours x 2 men)
• 8 Associated system component replacements = $19,200

(8 x $2,400 each occurrence)
• 8 No Fault Found charges = $8,000

(8 x $1,000 industry average)
TOTAL TYPICAL FINANCIAL IMPACT = $50,000

* Does not include operational delay, cancellation or flight restriction costs
48
48
Additional Airline Financial Impacts
• Added spare inventory
• Component modifications
• Aircraft modifications
• Upgrade replacements
49
49
Repair Facility Financial Impacts
• Lead time excursions
• “Just in Time” parts program failures
• Loss of contract
• Reputation
50
50
Component and Airframe OEM
Financial Impacts
• Modification and upgrade engineering
• Modification and upgrade certification
• “Just in Time” parts program failure
• Spares pooling
• Reputation
51
51
Rogue Components Financially Impact
• Airline
• Repair Facility
• Component / Airframe OEM
52
52
The Bottom Line
53
53
The Bottom Line
• Older, more basic systems have accumulated
significant rogue populations
• Newer, integrated systems have greater
opportunities for rogue development - therefore,
they appear very quickly. Also, design problems
and EMI are variables that cloud the issue
• The single greatest cost driver for the airline,
repair facility and component / airframe OEM is
the rogue component
54
54
Identification and Control
55
55
Identification and Control
Requires a concerted effort involving the airline,

repair facility and component / airframe OEM - -
comprised of these aspects:
4 Realization
4 Recognition
4 Resolution
56
56
Realization (Facts of Life)
• Any component has the potential to develop

rogue characteristics
• If left unchecked, the rogue population will

continue to grow
• More than system maintenance is affected by

rogue components
• There will always be rogue components
57
57
Recognition
• Not all components that have had repeated

short service periods are rogue
• Not all components that have been repeatedly

removed for the same system fault are rogue
58
58
Recognition (continued…)
Rogue components must fit these criteria:
c Repeated short service periods
d Repeated identical system faults
e Failure cannot be detected by standard

bench / overhaul testing
f Replacement resolves the system fault
59
59
Resolution
Requires a non-traditional approach toward
testing
9 Cyclic
9 Extended
9 Environmental
9 Non-standard
60
60
Resolution (continued...)

component repair
9 The component is part of a system
9 It operates in a unique environment
9 The test equipment must match the

component application
61
61
Resolution (continued…)

field evaluation
) Controlled installation
) Performance monitoring
) Feedback of success or failure
62
62
Resolution (continued…)
The final action
Change the OEM / repair facility test procedure

to identify this failure mode before
the next rogue is born
63
63
Success Stories
64
64
Typical “Satisfactory” Results
Generator Control Unit
9000
Began "Poor Performer" Identification
And Resolution Process
8000
7000
Monthly MTBUR (hours)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Jan-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-96
Jan-97
Jan-98
May-92
Sep-92
May-93
Sep-93
May-94
Sep-94
May-95
Sep-95
May-96
Sep-96
May-97
Sep-97
May-98
Sep-98
65
65
What We Expect (77% Increase)
Flight Control Computer
9000
Repaired Rogue and Average 6294 hours
8000
12 Month Rolling MTBUR (hours
Poor Performing Units
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
Average 3554 hours
1000
0
Mar'94
Mar'95
Ma '96
Mar'97
Mar'98
Jun'93
Jun'94
Jun'95
Jun'96
Jun'97
Jun'98
Sep'93
Dec'93
Sep'94
Dec'94
Sep'95
Dec'95
Sep'96
Dec'96
Sep'97
Dec'97
Sep'98
Dec'98
66
66
Radio Altimeter Transceiver
30000
Repaired Rogue Units
25000
20000
Average 23,815 hours
15000
10000
5000
Average 12,007 hours
0
Sep-95
Dec-95
Mar-96
Jun-96
Sep-96
Dec-96
Mar-97
Jun-97
Sep-97
Dec-97
Mar-98
Jun-98
Sep-98
Dec-98
Mar-99
Jun-99
Sep-99
Dec-99
67
67
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Jul'93
Oct'93
Jan '94
Apr '94
Jul '94
Oct '94
Jan '95
Apr '95
Average 1479 hours

Jul '95
Oct '95
Repaired Rogue and
Jan '96
Apr '96
Jul '96
Oct '96
Jan '97
Apr '97
Jul '97
Flight Augmentation Computer
Oct '97
Jan'98
Apr'98
Jul'98
Average 3564 hours
Oct'98
68
68
What We Celebrate
Autopilot Mode Control Panel
25000
20000
MTBUR (hours)
15000
11,832
10000
6923
5000
2,809 2,702
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
69
69
What We Celebrate (8-X Increase)
Autopilot Mode Control Panel
25000
21,006
20000
MTBUR (hours)
16,393 16,135
15000
11,832 10,845
10000
6923 10,696
Repaired
5000
2,809 2,702
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
70
70
What Surprises Us (91% Increase)
Coffeemaker
3000
Repaired Rogue and
Poor Performing Units Average = 2179
2500
2374 2211 2133
MTBUR (hours)
2000
1996
1500 1417
Average = 1141
1193
1000
913 1042
500
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
71
71
System Reliability
72
72
PIREPS per 1000 Flight Hours
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Jan-90
Mar-90
May-90
Jul-90
Sep-90
Nov-90
Jan-91
Mar-91
May-91
Jul-91
Average = 6.58
Sep-91
Nov-91
Jan-92
Mar-92
May-92
What We Expect (45% Decrease)
Jul-92
Autopilot System Pilot Report Rate
Sep-92
Nov-92
Jan-93
Mar-93
Average = 3.65
Pitch Computer
May-93
Reliability Campaign
73
73
Audio Entertainment Pilot Report Rate
9
8
Repaired Rogue
PIREPS per 1000 Flight Hours
Controllers
7
6
5
Average = 5.56
4
3
2
Average = 2.34
1
0
May-95
Jan-95
Mar-95
Jun-95
Nov-95
Aug-95
Jul-95
Feb-95
Sep-95
Apr-95
Oct-95
74
74
APU "Overspeed Light on Shutdown" Complaints
60
Began 3-Speed
Switch Campaign
50
Number of Complaints
40
Completed 3-Speed
Switch Campaign
30
20
Average = 34.57 Average = 7.25
10
0
May-95
Mar-95
Nov-95
Jan-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
Aug-95
Feb-95
Sep-95
Oct-95
Apr-95
75
75
Lean & Six Sigma
Improving
Processes in
Maintenance and
Operations
Presented by: Dale B. Wilen

Six Sigma Master Black Belt
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 1
Agenda
What is Six Sigma?

Field Service approach to 6σ
Focus on the Customer
Six Sigma Project Examples
LEAN Background
Lean Sample Projects
Six Sigma / Lean Collaboration
Questions
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 2
The History of Six Sigma
In the mid 70’s Motorola was unable to make a profit

building TV sets and subsequently sold the entire factory
to Matsushita.
Within a short period of time, Matsushita was making
money building the same TV, with the same design, using
the same tools. What changed – Quality, and Quality
Management. They had cut the amount of defects by 95%.
By the late 80’s, Motorola senior executives had fully
endorsed what was to become known as Six Sigma and
the idea extended far beyond manufacturing; it became a
way of doing business.
In 1995 Jack Welch, G.E. CEO, launched Six Sigma, and in
two years, delivered $320 million in productivity and
profits. Wall Street estimates that GE financial benefits due
to Six Sigma now exceed $4.5 billion per year.
3
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 3
What is Six Sigma?
A Business Strategy:
An overall strategy to improve the business
Six Sigma is a customer focused, data driven
management system
A Set of Methods and Tools:
A set of statistical tools and a disciplined
methodology used by specially trained
individuals to improve processes by reducing
variation and defects
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 4
What is Six Sigma?
An Enabler for Cultural Change:

Creative thinking must be at the heart of any
process improvement project
Common purpose and shared methods on how

to work together lead to synergies and
powerful results
Customer satisfaction: quality, cost, and on-

time delivery translate to every business
process within a corporation
5
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 5
Why is Six Sigma Important?
To our To our
customers…higher shareholders…
quality and lower better returns.
cost.
To our To our
suppliers…new tools employees…pride and
for success. opportunity.
To our customers…higher quality and lower cost. You will

•Have fewer disruptions
•Receive higher-quality products
•Be able to serve your customers better and faster, with lower cost and higher profit
To our suppliers…new tools for success. You will
•Be part of the team recognized as the world leader in all major markets
•Enhance your ability to improve your products and services
•Enhance your ability to improve your productivity and profitability
To our shareholders…better returns. You will
•Be investing in a company committed to operating at world-class productivity levels
•See a better and steady return on your investment
•Be associated with a company recognized as the world leader in all major markets
To our employees…pride and opportunity.You will
•Have the tools and support needed to produce high-quality products and services
•Expand your skills and leadership opportunities
•Have more orderly work processes, requiring less rework
•Be working for a company recognized as the world leader in all major markets
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 6
Measure of Quality
Manufacturing Example Steel Rolling Mill
Sheet Thickness is a
CTQ (Critical to Quality
Parameter)
Nominal Thickness = 1000 mm
Minimum Spec = 950 mm
Maximum Spec = 1050 mm
Scrap Production
Scrap Production averages
averages 100
100 meter/Coil
meter/Coil
7
Note: μm = micrometers
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 7
Manufacturing Example - Steel Sheet
Thickness
Lower Upper
Specification Specification
Limit Limit
Customers are
Customers are
expecting 1000
expecting 1000
mm but
mm but will
will allow
allow
Scrap Scrap some variation
some variation
within the
within the
specification range
specification range
Nominal Thickness
No Less Than
1000 μm
No More Than
950 μm 1050 μm
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 8
Thickness
Lower Upper
Specification
Limit
Specification
Limit
How Capable is
Standard Deviation our Process to
25μm Produce within
Spec?
Sigma Rating = Spec Width / 2* SD
Sigma Rating = 100 / 50

Spec Width (1050-950)
100μm Sigma Rating = 2
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 9
Thickness
Lower Upper
Specification
Limit
Specification
Limit
Reducing variation
is clearly the key
to improving this
process capability
Spec Width Std Dev
100 μm 17 μm
Scrap
Scrap Production
Production is
is significantly
significantly reduced
reduced
3σ
-- but
but by
by how
how much?
much? 10
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 10
Thickness
Lower
Specification
Limit
Upper
Specification
Limit
6 Sigma Lingo
6σ
Unit : Each Measurement
Defect : Measurement out of Spec
Defect Opportunities per Unit : 1
Quality expressed as DPMO
( Defects per Million Opportunities)
Spec Standard Sigma DPMO %
Width Deviation Level In Spec
100 25 2 308,500 69.1

100 17 3 66,800 93.3
100 12 4 6,200 99.4
100 10 5 233 99.98
100 8 6 3 99.9997 11
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 11
Is 99% Good Enough?
Activity 99% In Spec. 99.9997% In Spec.

( 3.8 Sigma ) ( 6 Sigma )
Mail 20,000 lost articles 7 lost articles
Delivery of mail per hour of mail per hour
Drinking Unsafe drinking water Unsafe drinking water

Water for 15 minutes per day for 2 mins per year
Hospital 5000 incorrect 2 incorrect

Surgery procedures per week procedures per week
Air 2 abnormal landings 1 abnormal landing

Travel at most airports each day every 5 years
Who Determines
Who Determines if
if 99%
99% is
is Good
Good Enough?
Enough?
12
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 12
The Focus of Six Sigma
Customer
All Work is a Process
Step Step Step

1 2 3
Y is a unit
x1 x2 x… of output
Xs are the inputs
Y=f(Xs)
Y=f(Xs) 13
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 13
The Focus of Six Sigma
Y X1… XN
Dependent Independent
Output Input
Effect Cause
Symptom Problem
Monitor Control
Focus on
Focus on the
the Xs
Xs to
to achieve
achieve the
the result
result in
in YY
14
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 14
What is Six Sigma?
A Process For Continuous Improvement :

6 Sigma provides a process based approach to
continuous improvement.
It is independent of the measurement involved
and can be used to improve any business
process
It is a rigorous methodology to improve
both manufacturing and business process
control
15
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 15
A Structured Approach to Improvement
5 1
CONTROL DEFINE
4 2
IMPROVE MEASURE
3
ANALYZE
16
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 16
What is the Process for Six Sigma
Projects?
Define Measure Analyze

Project purpose Gather information Identify root
and scope about the current causes and assess
defined process to focus their effect on
the improvement the problem
project
Improve Control
Develop, test and Evaluate
implementation
implement
results and develop
solutions
plans to maintain
the improved
process 17
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 17
Why Use DMAIC?
¾ Provides a framework
¾ Provides common
language
¾ Provides a checklist to
prevent skipping critical
steps
¾ Allows for continuous

improvement
© 2000 Oriel Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Without a map or checklist … 18
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 18
An Organizational Structure for
Improvement Projects
(Leadership Teams, Champions, Green Belt
Key: Councils, MBUs, Program Mgrs.,

Process Management, etc.)
Process
Improvement
Strategic
Project Teams
lem Initiatives
jec c
ro gi
ts
ob
l P ate
Ts
Assist L
Pr
ve tr
Le ad S
Sponsor
Le
t Assist Sponsors
ec
oj
Pr Black Belt
GB Ns Six Sigma Navigator
c h Program Support
Coa
in &
Tra
Green Belt
19
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 19
Roles and Responsibilities
Leadership Team: Focus on the Business and the

Customer
Establish strategic direction
Select, prioritize and authorize projects
Refine and review annual goal performance
Select key measure(s) to focus efforts
Identify sponsor(s), assign Six Sigma Navigators
Ensure organizational support
Review progress on key metrics
Recognize and communicate efforts
Identify candidates for Green Belt and Black Belt
Navigator training
20
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 20
Champion: Focus on the Six Sigma

Navigator Program and the People
Champion the program vision
Support Six Sigma Navigator implementation
Participate on Leadership Teams
Project selection
Select participants – nominate Black Belt
Navigator (BBN) candidates
Mentor BBN career development
21
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 21
Project Sponsor(s): Focus on the Project and its

Success
Provide appropriate resources and remove barriers
Support, guide, and recognize efforts—before, during
and after project completion
Determine processes to improve (Special Projects)
Identify project team leader, team members and other
stakeholders
Collaborate with project team leader, stakeholders, and
Six Sigma Navigator to define projects
Schedule and review progress regularly
Recognize and communicate efforts
22
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 22
Black Belt Navigator: Focus on Strategic Level

Improvement Direction Impacting the Business
and the Customer
Support the training of Green Belt Navigators (GBN)
Lead major projects, share RAA (Responsibility,
Authority, Accountability) with sponsor(s)
Mentor team leaders in improvement efforts
Assist Leadership team in strategic planning and project
management
Model behavior, demonstrate methods and skills to
support organizational change
Coach and mentor Green Belt Navigators
Note: These roles and responsibilities are in
addition to those outlined for a GBN
23
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 23
Green Belt Navigator: Focus on Improvement

within the Scope of your Normal Duties
Lead, plan and guide the improvement team through the
DMAIC process for very focused projects
Train improvement team members on tool application as
required
Help identify opportunities for improvement
Report on project activity and progress
Share responsibility, accountability and authority for
improvement project results with the sponsor
Apply key concepts of Six Sigma Navigator
methodology
24
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 24
A Field Service, Customer Focused
Approach
Program launched in January 2003

Training Waves held worldwide
80 Project Teams of Field Representatives
& Customers
80%+ Field Service Representatives
trained
Some Customers included in training
25
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 25
Process Improvement Practitioners often:

Have no ownership of processes
Have no authority to change anything
Have some influence with the Organization
Strong Sponsorship is CRITICAL!
Atmosphere of trust is absolutely required
Fear of “found failure” must be overcome
Continuous communication is vital
Working together is the key
26
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 26
Projects are coordinated with Customers

Management
Engineering & Maintenance
Spares
Projects focus on Airline or Boeing processes
that are inefficient, costly, or annoying
Projects strive to find win-win solutions
Projects are assessed for leveraging
opportunities
The Customer is asked to help assess the
savings
27
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 27
A Field Service Project – Big Money
Large, very important Customer

Customer installed many “precautionary”
parts
Project sponsored by Airline Divisional VP
Goal was to find improvements to drive
down costs by saving materials and time
Solution found to improve troubleshooting
methods used by Line Maintenance
Annual Savings to airline: $2,900,000
28
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 28
Field Service Project - Error Proofing
Spares documentation was often lost, and

parts were occasionally substituted
Documentation problem was identified as
happening at freight forwarder.
Boeing Spares changed processes to glue
one copy to shipping box so it couldn’t be
separated, and restrict substitutions
Annual savings to Customer: $125,000
29
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 29
Field Service Project – Customer
Satisfaction
Senior executives at airline complained

about proliferation of communications
from Boeing
Elegant error proofing solution was
found to eliminate duplicate copies.
The solution required a software
modification by the Customer
Savings to airlines: $4,900
Key Benefit? Delighted Airline
Management
30
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 30
Field Service Project - Airplane Records
Discovered 6 missing records per

aircraft on average
Undocumented repairs, missing 8110-3s
Implemented formal decision
process
Savings identified: $182,000
Key Project Elements: Customer
Satisfaction, Long Term Savings
31
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 31
757 Door Seal Leakage – Dispatch
Reliability
Item was #6 on top delay drivers

Critical X’s identified: Cleaning of seals
and door sill area
Scheduled cleaning involves cost to
implement
Annual savings declared as $3,900
Highly leveragable findings
By the way…item dropped to #47 on delay
drivers as soon as team looked at it…
32
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 32
Reduction of 737 Loss of Cabin
Pressurization Events
Collaborative effort between airline,

component vendor, and Boeing
Solution involved development of interim
pack confidence test and test equipment
Reduced events from 6.1 per 100,000
flights to 2.8 events per 100,000 flights
Annual savings: $680,000
33
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 33
Miscellaneous Examples
737NG Project focused on delays due to lack of

spare parts at outstations
Identified and located appropriate spares at outstations;
737NG - Return to service from maintenance
Critical X’s: Spares, Repair Capability, Time Allotted;
737NG Project – Premature Tire Removals
Critical X’s: Tire pressure checks and inspection criteria
not followed or misunderstood; Annual savings: $53,000
34
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 34
Project Results to Date
Projects successfully completed

~60
Average savings per project
= More than $283,000
Total Savings to date
= More than $17,000,000
35
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 35
What about Lean?
Boeing has been practicing Lean for many

years, primarily in the production
environment
Lean practices are being pushed into the
back shops and office environments
Boeing considers Lean to be a hand-in-
hand partner with Six Sigma
The collaboration of the two
methodologies as “Lean Six Sigma” is
being studied
36
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 36
Boeing’s Lean Path
Began working with Lean principles in the

late 1980’s—Deming, Quality Circles,
Japan Study Missions, etc.
Benchmarked other industries of all types
through the late 1980’s and early1990’s
and continuing to benchmark today.
Started Lean Journey in 1993, Fabrication
Division.
Developed a variety of lean principle-
based tools.
37
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 37
Boeing’s Lean Path
Performed more than 3,000 factory and non-factory

workshops of all type from 1993-present day,
continuing into next millennium.
Reduced overall inventory levels at 20 Boeing sites
by $1Billion dollars during 1998-1999.
Boeing Fabrication Division, Auburn Washington,
inventory levels reduced from $280M to $183M from
1999-fiscal year 2001.
Reduced Work in Process on 737 Final Assembly
from 1999-2002 by 50% (22-11 aircraft), while
maintaining rate of 28 aircraft/month.
38
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 38
What is Lean?
Becoming ‘Lean’ means embracing and adopting

the Toyota Production System overarching principles
–– Make
Make toto Use
Use
–– Eliminate
Eliminate Waste
Waste
–– Defects
Defects areare not
not made,
made,
passed,
passed, oror accepted
accepted
–– People
People link
link the
the system
system
39
How the principles came about…

• Toyota never had the principles written down, but they embraced these
principles and they live them… it is a culture.
• Principles form the foundation for the system…
KEY MESSAGE: To become lean, you must embrace and adopt the
overarching principles… (reminder: we defined them earlier…to extend
throughout… An essential quality determining characteristic behavior
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 39
40
Boeing Production System is modeled after the Toyota Production System.
The roof of the Boeing Production System house is supported by two major
pillars:
• Just-in-Time
Representing waste elimination and lead time reduction.
• Autonomation: separation of man and machine.
Representing high quality, reliable, and efficient manufacturing
processes.
• Elements: People, Material, and Machines
• Tools: Standard Work, Standard Work-In-Process, Kanban, and Total
Productive Maintenance
• JIT Principles: Takt time production, One-piece flow, and Pull systems.
• Production leveling (Heijunka)
The foundation, representing cost reduction through the process of adapting
production to customer demand.
• All balanced on 5S workplace organization
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 40
The Nine Tactics
1. Understand how value flows

2.Balance the line
3. Standardize work procedures
4. Put visual controls in place
al
trols
5. Put everything at point of use
6. Establish feeder lines
7. Radically re-design products and processes

8. Convert to a pulse line
9. Convert to a moving line
41
Implementing Lean principles and practices can be an exciting process –

one that depends on the experts. These are the people who work with the
processes and products every day. They know best how to eliminate
waste, improve quality, and increase the quality and velocity of their work.
But they do not do it alone. The leaders of the company set the vision and
provide the direction for employees to follow as they improve their work.
The Lean tactics described here represent an approach that can be used in
a manufacturing environment to increase efficiency and the ability to
manage for value. Although each tactic alone can provide immediate
benefits to an organization, it is the integration of these tactics with the
quality system, business plans, and supply chain that will provide the
greatest benefit to the Boeing enterprise and its employees.
When the 737 Program envisioned a moving line, they planned to implement
the vision in nine steps – which later were developed into the Nine Tactics.
This is a proven method for improving operational efficiency.
To complete the first 6 tactics took 2 years for the 737 line. A lot of
improvement work goes on to make this happen. It drives improvement
into all the support functions, also.
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 41
Some of the Lean Tools
Kaizen Events (Accelerated Improvement

Workshops or AIWs)
Value Stream Mapping
Adds time and money elements to process flow
3P - Production Preparation Process
5S – Sort, Simplify, Sweep, Standardize, Self-
Discipline
Chaku-Chaku: Single piece flow
Poka Yoke: Mistake proofing
42
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 42
Tactic
9
All Parts, People, Equipment are supplied to the Airplane As it Moves Continuously
43
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 43
How about Lean at the Airlines?
Operators have found opportunities to

improve line and maintenance operations:
Reduced Quick Engine Change (QEC) Buildup
time
Reduced engine change time
Reduced C-check cycle time
Just in time delivery of parts
Reduced cabin cleaning cycle time
Results? Increase in airplane availability
44
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 44
Six Sigma & LEAN should Complement,
not Compete!
Six Sigma is very good at:

Finding the best solution & Identifying root causes
Six Sigma is sometimes lacking:
with regard to quick resolution of issues
Lean is very good at:
Finding workable solutions quickly
Involving all of the affected people
Lean is sometimes lacking:
with regard to finding the best solution on the first
attempt
Controlling and monitoring the solution
45
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 45
LEAN Six Sigma
Six Sigma alone cannot:

improve process speed, or;
Reduce invested capital
LEAN alone cannot:
Bring a process under statistical control
The answer is marry the two, and “do
quality quickly!”
46
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 46
Does Lean Drive Six Sigma or Six Sigma
Drive Lean?
A Six Sigma project explores an issue:

Examines the data and identifies root causes
Might find several possible solutions
A Kaizen (AIW) event could determine the best
solution choice by involving more of the
people who are part in the process
A Kaizen event (AIW) could determine the best
implementation plan by employing the affected
group’s knowledge and experience
47
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 47
Does Lean Drive Six Sigma or Six Sigma
Drive Lean?
A Kaizen event (AIW) might react to a

critical need:
By involving the affected parties and users
Finds a good solution
A Six Sigma project could then:
Confirm the solution or find a better one by
examining all data
Do a “deep dive” to determine the root cause
of the issue & prevent reoccurrence of the
problem
48
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 48
Customer Focus is the Key Element to
Success
Numerous studies prove that ONLY

organizations who maintain a Customer
focus succeed in the long haul.
This includes internal and external

customers!
49
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 49
Questions and Comments
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 50
BOEING PROPRIETARY
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Lean_Six_Sigma.ppt | 51

BOEING PROPRIETARY
Lean & Six Sigma

Section 21 51
In-Service Data Program
Maintenance Reliability & Cost Analysis Seminar

March 24, 2006
Jim Gordon
BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company.

Speaker Biography:
Jim Gordon
Principal Engineer
In-Service Data Group
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Jim Gordon is a 1982 graduate of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University with a
Bachelor of Science degree in Aeronautical Studies. He also attained his
Commercial, Multi-Engine Pilot’s License and Instrument Rating while attending
Embry-Riddle. Jim is a 24-year veteran of Boeing having joined Douglas Aircraft
Company in 1982. During his tenure at Douglas Aircraft Company, he served as the
Section Manager of Douglas’ Fleet Statistics Group. He joined Boeing Commercial
Airplane Group in Seattle in late 1989. In 1990, he completed his Master’s Degree
studies in Logistics Management through West Coast University in Los Angeles.
Today he is the Lead Engineer of Electronic Data Feeds in Reliability,
Maintainability and Testability Engineering. While in Commercial Airplane Group,
he has also served as Lead Engineer of Data Acquisition, Fleet Analysis,
Engineering Analysis and he is and has been managing the implementation and
evolution of the In-Service Data System and Program from its inception in 1994.
Jim has been a key player in the overall success of the In-Service Data System and
the larger Program thanks to his extensive background in data collection, analysis
and reporting. Jim also serves as the focal for establishing and maintaining external
connectivity of customers to RM&T Engineering’s information and data resources.
1
Presentation Agenda:
Who is RM&T Engineering

What is the In-Service Data Program
Benefits of Participation
Background on the Program
How the Program Works
Process of Participating
Analyzing Reliability Data
Data Tools Provided for Analysis
Questions and Answers
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. 2

3/15/2006
Introduction
What is the In-Service Data Program
Benefits of Participation
How the Program Works
Process of Participating
Analyzing Reliability Data
Data Tools Provided for Analysis
2
RM&T Engineering: Who We Are

3/15/2006
RM&T Engineering is located in the Engineering Division under Airplane

Configuration, Integration and Performance, directed by Mike Garrett. Our Unit
Chief, Partha Mukhopadhyay reports to Mike.
3
What is the In-Service Data Program?
Data Gathering
Reliability Data by Data Subject of Interest
External Interface File Format (EIFF) Compliant
Consistently Sent (Monthly)
Data Transmission
Secured Transmission
Flexible Solutions/Methods
Data Storage
Single Source for Reliability Information
Teradata RDBMS
Secure Views of the Data
Data Reporting
Standard Data Tools
3/15/2006
The In-Service Data Program is a means of:

•gathering data efficiently & effectively
•normalizing and reporting Reliability data
•sharing Reliability data with other participating companies (for the purpose of
improving airplane reliability)
and it is a set of standard business processes for accomplishing the above
4
Benefits of the In-Service Data Program:
Continuing Program Expansion

Consistent Reliability Data Structures
Standardized Reliability Data Attributes and Definitions
Reduction of Multiple Feeds of Reliability Data from your Company
Ability to Identify the Development of Adverse Trends
Schedule Reliability
Logbook Write-Up Rates
Component Removal Rates
Existing Large Body of Historical Reliability Data from Which to Draw
Skilled Team of Information Systems & Reliability Professionals to Draw On
Comparative Analysis of your Fleet to Other Operators’ Fleets
Is My Rate Better or Worse than Other Similar Operators?
No Fault Found Condition: How Big is My NFF Problem?
Industry Support ATA SPEC2000 Compliance (ARDTF Chapter 11)

3/15/2006
Program Expansion Continues with Both Airlines and Suppliers

Airlines:
Recent new airline members include:
Air Pacific
British West Indies Airways
Transavia
Airlines expressing an interest include:
Virgin Blue
Turkish Airways
DHL
Futura
Suppliers Continue to Inquire as Well:
Recent new suppliers include:

Korry Electronics
Several Suppliers from the 787 Program will be joining as well in the next 12 to
18 months
5
Background and Overview:
Scope and Purpose of Program:

Before the Program:
The Airline View: Individual Operator’s World
Meeting Regulatory Reporting Requirements
Providing Guidance/Monitoring to Maintenance Program(s)
Providing Facts and Data for Engineering Decision Makers
The Airline as it Related to Other Airlines: Collective Operator View
Desire to Share Data between Operators and with Manufacturers (+)
Need for Reliability Reporting Consistency Across Aerospace Enterprises (+)
Heterogeneous Mix of Data Attributes, Calculations & Reporting Criteria (-)
The Program’s Purpose:
Standardize the Data Definitions and Calculations
Focus on Managing & Improving Airplane Reliability

3/15/2006
6
In-Service Data Program Development &
Implementation:
Program Development and Refinements:

July 1994 Program Launch
June 1995 Initial Implementation with First 777 Delivery to United
Airlines
Program Expansion
All Production Puget Sound Models (1996)
Merger Activities Started (1997)
Creation of Proprietary Information Agreement
Movement to Create and Align with Industry Standards (ARDTF)

3/15/2006
In July 1994, the program began in earnest. Its goal was to have a deliverable set of
standard reports developed and fully implemented by delivery of first 777 airplane
to United Airlines in June 1995. This objective was achieved and report expansion
and customer participation has been growing since program inception. An
expansion plan to incorporate other Boeing Models was implemented in 1997 and
by 1998, the system was reporting on other Boeing Puget Sound production models
such as: 737, 747, 757, and 767. Next, there was a movement to define and align
Reliability at manufacturers, airlines and suppliers. The Air Transport Association
(ATA) has recognized and sponsored the Chapter 11 Reliability Group.
7
The Proprietary Information Agreement:
Protect All Participants & Shared Data from Misuse

Marketing
Warranty
Indemnification of All Parties Who Provide Data
Includes Language and Identifies a Process for Protecting
Data in the Event of an Accident or Incident

3/15/2006
The purpose of the Proprietary Information Agreement (PIA) is to make sure that all
parties know the context for using the reliability data that is available to them as
part of program participation. It clearly states the sole purpose of this program and
the data sharing relationship, is to improve the reliability of Boeing Commercial
Airplanes. It shall not be used for Marketing, Warranty Claims Processing or other
purposes.
Worthy of note: there are security functions/processes in place in the program that
will allow for the blocking of access to all data relative to a discrete airplane in the
event of an airplane experiencing an incident or accident. These processes can be
easily invoked by an operator by contacting the In-Service Data Program Team
Leader at Boeing.
8
The Reliability Data Subjects Tracked
Today:
Flight Hours and Landing Data
Ownership, Utilization & Flight Length Information
Schedule Interruptions
Schedule and Dispatch Reliability Information
Logbook Information
Airplane Health and Maintenance Effectiveness
Removal Information
Component Removal Rates and Information
Shop Findings Data
Failure Validation and NFF Awareness
Boeing Factory Data
Component Reliability (Pre-Delivery)

3/15/2006
Each data subject has its own external interface file format (EIFF). These file
formats and explanatory notes are available in Boeing’s Data Dictionary for In-
Service Data. Once a company joins the program by signing the Proprietary
Information Agreement, the Data Dictionary and other important process documents
are provided to the new member along with a Welcome Letter. The dictionary,
other important documents, forms and connection software, are typically provided
on a compact disc.
9
The Reliability Data Continuum:
(by Data Subject Stored)
In-Service Data Program Reliability Data
Boeing Rejection
& QA Data
Flight Hours & Landing

Data
Schedule Interruption
Data
Logbook & Removal

Data
Airline & Supplier Shop Repair

Data
Delivery
of Product
3/15/2006
This chart graphically depicts the scope of data to be provided by operators and
suppliers. Notables on this page are the fact that this program covers the full gamut
of reliability data available through participation in the In-Service Data Program
today and shows what reliability data is available to each participating member
company.
10
Data Fidelity: Logbook Data
Logbook Data:
Airplane Complaint Separate from Maintenance Actions Taken
Cabin, Maintenance and Pilot Logs Provided*
Operator, Model, Series and Airplane Identification
Discrete Complaint and Maintenance Action Station Fields
Discrete Complaint and Maintenance Action Date Fields
Type Maintenance Indicator Field
Many Attributes are Common Between Complaint Record and
Maintenance Action Record
Complaint Text
Maintenance Action Text
* Depends on what logbook resources are used at by each operator 11
3/15/2006
With respect to airline logbook data, there are approximately 56 data attributes that
are available for analysis and are provided in the data model (when using the
BI/Query software). Note: not all of these attributes are populated for all airlines
11
Data Fidelity: Removal Data
Component Removal Data:

Supplier Part Number
Supplier Serial Number
Component Nomenclature
CAGE Code
Removal Date
Removal Type Indicator (Discriminates Unscheduled from Scheduled)
Component Removal Text

3/15/2006
In the removal data subject, there are approximately 48 data attributes provided to
the user/analyst through the BI/Query software. Note: several fields in this data
subject are optional (versus required) and may not be provided by some of the
airlines.
12
Data Fidelity: Shop Findings Data
Shop Findings Data:

Available from 4 airlines and all Participating Suppliers
Supplier Part Number
Supplier Serial Number
Acquisition Source (URA, MOD, SCH, OEM)
Defect Type Indicator (H/W, S/W)
Confirmed Indicator
Induced Indicator
Shop Inspection and Maintenance Action Text Fields
3/15/2006
Shop Teardown Data Provided by:

•Air New Zealand
•easyJet
•Virgin Atlantic Airways
•Japan Airlines
•All Participating Suppliers
Note: Air New Zealand has recently begun providing shop data in mid 3rd Quarter
2005
13
The Airplane Reliability & Maintainability System
(ARMS) Database Conceptual Diagram:
Legacy EIFF
Inputs Inputs
Teradata
Database
(ARMS)
Reporting Tools

3/15/2006
Legacy Inputs include information sent to Boeing by tape dataset, hardcopy Field
Service Reports, hardcopy airline data printouts and other older information
transmission methods
EIFF Inputs are those feeds from the Airlines and from Suppliers which are
compliant with the External Interface File Format for each Data Subject. Data
Subjects tracked include:
Flight Hours and Landings
Schedule Interruptions
Logbook Information
Removal Information
Shop Data
Reporting Tools are:
MyBoeingFleet (Main Menu Item called Fleet Reliability Statistics)
BI/Query: Commercial Off-the-Shelf Software from Hummingbird for Performing
Ad Hoc Analysis and Reporting
PCView: Access-Based Data Tool for Creation of Standardized Reports including
Bar Charts, Tabular Reports etc….
14
Legacy ISDP Incoming Data Flows:
B
F o
i e
WTP Airline r Sec
ure
i
n
e Con
Data or w
n ecti
o n
g
a E
l x
l t
e Teradata
r
n Windows
a 2000 Data
F l Server Validation
i Rejected
F
WTP Supplier r
i on
i
e nect r
Data w ure Con e
or Sec w
a
l a
l
l l
Boeing Rejection
Data
FTP
Dropbox 15
3/15/2006
The solid lines represent sending data directly to the server located behind the
Boeing Firewall. Sending data to the server directly is the most secure and direct
means of providing data to the program.
The dotted lines represent two available alternatives which can also be used and one
of those alternatives (Data Upload Service) is going to become our preferred way
for participating operators and suppliers to send data. This method as depicted by
the dotted lines is transmitted across the open internet. It is therefore advised that
data transmittals via this method use data encryption. PGP is Boeing’s preferred
encryption product.
15
Current Working Together Partner Airlines:
Air Canada* Federal Express

Air New Zealand Gemini Air Cargo*
Air Pacific Ltd.* GOL Airlines
AirTran Airways* Japan Airlines
All Nippon Airways
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines*
American Airlines
QANTAS
American Trans Air*
Ryanair
Britannia Airways
Scandinavian Airlines System
British Airways
Saudi Arabian Airlines
British West Indies Airways*
Cathay Pacific Airways Singapore Airlines
Continental Airlines Transavia*
Delta Air Lines United Airlines
easyJet Virgin Atlantic Airways
WestJet*
* Not Providing Production Data as of February 2006
3/15/2006
Current member operators as of the February 2006 reporting cycle. Note that
airlines with an asterisk have signed the Proprietary Information Agreement and
have begun the process of creating the required external interface file formats for
each data subject but are not yet providing production data.
16
Current Working Together Partner Suppliers:
Allied Signal (Subsidiary of Honeywell) Honeywell

BAE Platform Solutions: Korry Electronics*
Rochester England Matsushita Avionics Corporation
Marconi Astronics Moog Inc.
Boeing Electronics Nabtesco Aerospace
Crane Aerospace Parker Aerospace
Eldec Rockwell-Collins
Hydro-Aire Collins
Gables Engineering* Sony Transcom
Goodrich Fuel & Utility Division Rosemount Aerospace
Goodrich Wheels & Brakes Smiths Aerospace
Hamilton Sundstrand Thales (formerly Sextant Avionique)
17
* Not Providing Production Data as of February 2006
3/15/2006
Current member suppliers as of the February 2006 reporting cycle (typically one
month in arrears current month). Note that suppliers, like the operators with an
asterisk have signed the Proprietary Information Agreement and have begun the
process of creating the required external interface file formats for shop data but are
not yet providing production data. Korry Electronics is the most recent addition to
the Program having signed the PIA in early April 2005.
17
In-Service Data Program Growth Plan:
Fleet Reliability Statistics:

SPEC2000 Release
External Interface File Format Changes:
SPEC2000 XML Data Formats
Future Integration of New EIFF’s in SPEC2000 Implementation
Aircraft Status Change
Scheduled Maintenance/Structural Repairs
Summary Records
Service Bulletin Incorporation

3/15/2006
18
In-Service Data Program Growth Plan
(Continued):
Long Beach & Puget Sound Integration:

Terminating Redundant Data Feeds
Optimizing Data Collection & Reporting
Leveraging Best Practices from Both Organizations
Anticipated Growth in Airlines & Suppliers:
Sustaining Airplane Programs
787 Program
Supplier Requirement (Product Support Assurance Agreement)

3/15/2006
19
In-Service Data Program Near-Term
Interested Parties:
Airlines:
Futura Airlines
LAN Airlines (formerly known as LAN Chile)
Turkish Airlines
Virgin Blue
Suppliers:
Goodrich Aerospace
787 Program (Approximately 50 Suppliers)

3/15/2006
20
Connection Methods to Boeing:
Several Avenues Exist for the Provision of Data:

Direct to Windows 2000 Server (Secured VPN Direct Access)
FTP Dropbox (being phased out by 12/2006)
Data Upload Service (Automated)
Implemented in August 2004
(SNET FTP Dropbox Requirement)
Data Upload Service (Interactive)
Implemented in December 2005

3/15/2006
21
New ISDP Incoming Data Provision
Offering:
Data Upload Service
Automated – no human intervention
Manual – interactivity required

3/15/2006
22
Benefits of New Data Upload Service:
Integrated into MyBoeingFleet Interface

Simple and Easy to Use
Secured Transmission of Data
Requires Only an MyBoeingFleet (MBF) Account for Airlines
Requires Only a Boeing Partners Network (BPN) Account for Suppliers
No Need to Know the Precise Destination of Data
Accommodates Automated or Manual Approach to Providing Data

3/15/2006
23
Resources Required for Sustained
Connectivity:
Mandatory Software for Connection to Network (Server Data Placement)

Z-Token Software
VSClient or Nortel IPSec
FTP Dropbox Connection
FTP Dropbox Account
Data Upload Service (Automated)
SNET FTP Dropbox Account
Valid External-Boeing E-mail Address
Data Upload Service (Interactive)
MBF Account
3/15/2006
24
Boeing Connection Methods Diagram:
Z-Token BCAG-ISDS\PROD\
Account L Airlines folders\
__________ L Suppliers folders\
(if applicable) L Support folders\
External VSClient ________ ________

User The
or NT Teradata
IPSec Account Account
VPN Tunnel
FTP dropbox
account Windows BI/Query
Internet Explorer PCView
__________
Teradata
BCAG-ISDS Database
Server
Automated
Monthly FTP dropbox
External Boeing
Data External
Super Firewall
Submittal Customer
Computer Process Data encryption: accomplished as
Firewall required by each external customer
User Software
Z - Token Software used to make dynamic password to be used by VSClient or IPSec
VSClient or IPSec Software used to make connection to VPN Tunnel
BI/Query Software used to query the data in the Teradata Database
PCView Software used to query the data in the Teradata Database

Software used to make a connection to the BCAG-ISDS Server
Windows Explorer
(once you have the VPN Tunnel Open)
3/15/2006
25
Boeing-Provided In-Service Data Program
Data Tools & Accounts:
What is Provided for Accessing Data:
Up to Ten Teradata Accounts are Provided by Boeing (for using the
Data Tools: PCView & BI/Query Access)
One Copy of BI/Query (Two Individuals Can Be Using)
Other SQL Generating Tools Work as Well
PCView (Can Be Installed on Up to Ten Workstations)
Up to Ten Z-Token Accounts for Personnel Using PCView and
BI/Query Data Tools
VPN Software and Z-Token Software Provided by Boeing
Web Browser and MBF/BPN Account for Access to Fleet Reliability
Statistics Reports

3/15/2006
Teradata Accounts (up to ten) are provided for access to the reliability data stored in
the ARMS data warehouse. Tools such as BI/Query and PCView are available for
extracting that data. BI/Query is geared toward power users with a high degree of
knowledge about the data and skill in extracting it. PCView is designed for the
everyday casual user and allows analysts to extract reliability data in standard report
formats on which parameters such as model, series, date range, airplane system etc
can be changed.
There is also a standard report web-based interface called Fleet Reliability Statistics
which is available through MyBoeingFleet and/or Boeing Partners Network (for
suppliers).
26
Reactive Problem Resolution:
Legacy Problem Resolution
Other Party Other Party

(Supplier) (Supplier)
Problem Conveyed
Investigation Quantification
To Boeing Quantification Boeing & Supplier
Resolution & Fix
& Other Parties Difference Root Cause ID &
Presented to Airline
Identified Collaboration
Boeing Boeing
Investigation Problem Quantification
In-Service
Problem Occurs
ISDP Problem Resolution
Problem Conveyed
To Boeing All Parties Analyze Work Together to Work Together to
& Suppliers in Same Reliability Data Determine a Root Determine a Root
In-Service Data Pgm. For Problem ID Cause ID and Final Fix Cause ID and Final Fix
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Elapsed Time to Solve Issue 27
3/15/2006
This notional process chart is intended to show the elapsed time from the time a
problem is communicated to Boeing and other parties, to the time the problem is
addressed (for non-safety issues). The important idea here is that with common data
definitions, charts and reports that all members (and Boeing users) clearly
understand, there shouldn’t be any time spent trying to understand quantitative
assessments of a problem. All companies are looking at the same data from the
same perspective using the same data from which observations can be made.
27
Reliability….More than Just Reacting:
Benefits of Looking Back

Problem or Issue Validation
Problem or Issue Quantification
Limitations of Looking Back
You Can’t See What’s Coming
Lost Opportunity to Sidestep the “Avoidable” Situations
Lost Ability to Plan for Those Inevitable Scenarios
Lost Opportunities to Identify, Collaborate and Address Emerging
Issues
w/Boeing
w/Suppliers
w/Other Airlines
3/15/2006
When reacting to problems, rather than looking for situations leading up to

problems, time and labor are spent on problem rectification and mitigation that
could have been avoided or potentially “planned for” given the right thresholds or
alerts are present. This necessarily means learning how to make effective use of the
reporting tools so that we can be vigilant in our search for potential problems. The
In-Service Data Program encourages communication between member companies
as well learning to use the tools to your advantage. Resources such as Boeing,
suppliers or other operators should be used to help you to better understand your
fleet reliability and to help you maximize airplane reliability by turning the data into
useful information.
28
Pro-Active Problem Identification:
Watching Data Trends

Identification of Fleet Trends
Identification of System Trends
Identification of Component Trends Data
Rogue Unit or Airplane Scenario
Post-Maintenance Check Airplane Health (Pick Up Items)
Leverage Other Operators’ Fleet, System or Component
Problems to Assist You
Forward Thinking and Planning (Spares etc…)

3/15/2006
The Two Data Tools Provided by Boeing (PCView and BI/Query) Provide an
Effective Means to Drill into the Reliability Data and Identify Key Issues and
Concerns about Reliability Performance.
There are many ways that the data in this program can help you see how your fleet
is doing, how well your maintenance organization is sustaining airplane health in
your fleet, and help you to maximize airplane availability. Some examples are:
rogue component analysis, geographic location issues (Line Stations); location of
spare components, location of manpower (proper location of the correct skill
mixes), component wear-out (inspection escalation/de-escalation issues).
29
A Glimpse at the Data Tools Provided:
Reliability Data Reporting Tools:

BI/Query: Ad Hoc Queries
Full Selectability of Constraints and Reporting Criteria
PCView: Parametric Reports
Tabular Reports
Pareto Charts
Scatter Charts
Trend Charts
Text Reports
Fleet Reliability Statistics: Standard Reports Thru Web Interface

3/15/2006
Today there are 3 tools used for reporting reliability data. Two of these tools
(BI/Query and PCView) run directly against Boeing’s data warehouse (refreshed
monthly) and Fleet Reliability Statistics is a set of static reports generated from that
same data warehouse that can be accessed directly through MyBoeingFleet.
30
BI/Query Main Menu Screen:

3/15/2006
This is the Main Interface for BI/Query Ad Hoc Tool. From this screen, a user will
select the Data Subject he or she would like to extract data from.
31
BI/Query Flight Hours & Landings Screen:

3/15/2006
This screen is known as the attribute window. The attribute window allows users to
constraint data attributes for a particular data subject; in this case, Flight Hour and
Landing data. Attributes can be selected as part of an answerset, columns can be
ordered the way you desire, and result sort order can be specified and changed as
desired.
32
BI/Query Flight Hours Answerset

3/15/2006
This screen shows Operator, Model, Series, Airplane Serial Number, Cumulative
Flight hours, Landings and Revenue Departures, Roll Out and Delivery Dates.
33
PCView Main Menu Screen:

3/15/2006
This is the Main Menu of PCView for a WTP Airline.
34
PCView Pareto Chart Selection Criteria
Screen:

3/15/2006
This is the selection screen for a Pareto Chart. Seen here are selections for a report
for Model = 777, Operators = AAL, CAL and DAL and Unplanned Maintenance
items only. This report will provide 2 digit ATA bars in the results.
35
PCView Pareto Chart Results:

3/15/2006
This is the resultset for the Pareto Chart from PCView. The results are displayed
using Microsoft Excel.
36
Fleet Reliability Statistics Main Menu
Screen:

3/15/2006
This is the Main Menu of Fleet Reliability Statistics (FRS). FRS is available to both
participating airlines and suppliers (for airlines through MBF and for suppliers
through BPN). These are the Standard Reports. Working Together Partner
Members see a higher fidelity version of FRS than what is available to non-
participating companies. This includes access to the Shop Data as well as higher
fidelity views of other data subjects. Documentation is also provided under the
WTP Documentation button. Here, the member company will see monthly
deadlines which identify when data must be provided. Also included here are
documents like a manual which describes Data Upload Service, our Data
Dictionary, and a Data Provider Guide.
37
Fleet Reliability Statistics Reports
(Parameter Selection)

3/15/2006
38
Fleet Reliability Statistics Reports:
(Flight Hour Data Subject)

3/15/2006
This is a flight hour report for United Airlines’ 777 fleet showing cumulative hours,
landings and revenue departures sorted by model, series and line number.
39
Cost of Participation in the Program:
No Direct Costs to Participate

No Recurring Membership Fees
Cost (Non-recurring) to build EIFF’s for Transmission of Data
Requires Information Systems Expertise (Build EIFF’s)
Requires Some Network Expertise to Connect to Boeing
Small Recurring Cost to Run Reliability Data Monthly and Send to
Boeing
No Cost for Data Tools (Provided by Boeing)*
No Other “Hidden” Costs Involved
* Only One copy of BI/Query provided per company (up to two people can use
the software
3/15/2006
There are no direct program costs associated with joining the In-Service Data
Program. There will be non-recurring labor and computing dollar expenditures
made by each company as they examine the external interface file formats for each
data subject (Flight Hours, Schedule Interruptions, Logbook, Removal and
potentially Shop), create data extraction routines, and provide test data. Once each
data type has been validated and data streams established, the only recurring costs
would involve extracting the data to send to Boeing on a monthly basis.
40
Steps to Becoming a Working Together
Partner Member:
1. Make Contact with Boeing ISDP Focal (John Kneuer)
2. Request Presentation and Program Details
3. Review the Proprietary Information Agreement
4. Sign and Return the Proprietary Information Agreement
5. Follow “Welcome Letter” steps for:
External Interface File Format Creation and Test Data Submittals
Network Connections to Boeing (Providing Data and Reporting)
Account Management (Creation and Administration)
6. Provide Reliability Data for All Production Boeing Models
7. Data Tools Sent to You for Extracting Reliability Data from Teradata and
MBF Fleet Reliability Statistics Interface Opened for Views of Additional ISDP
Data not Available to Non-Participants
8. Training Provided Annually Around All Team Meeting (Dates Before and
After the Meeting)

3/15/2006
Contact:
Jim Gordon
Principal Engineer, RM&T Engineering
(425) 234-1816
(425) 234-4543 Facsimile
james.c.gordon@boeing.com
ISDP Team Leader:

John Kneuer
Reliability Engineer, RM&T Engineering
(425) 234-1921
(425) 234-4543 Facsimile
john.a.kneuer@boeing.com
41
Copyright © 2005 Boeing. All rights reserved. Filename.ppt (add in slide master) | 42
3/15/2006
42

Boeing. Maintenance Reliability. An Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Boeing. Maintenance Reliability. An Overview PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Reliability Measures the Probability of Survival: Reliability is defined as:

Quantitative In Its Terms Of Reference: Probability of survival is the

Measurable : Because it is quantitative Reliability is measurable.

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

 Reliability Measures the

Reliability Measures the Probability of Survival: Reliability is defined as:

Quantitative In Its Terms Of Reference: Probability of survival is the

Measurable : Because it is quantitative Reliability is measurable.

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Failure: A loss of function, or a malfunction, of a system or part of a system

Functional Failure: Failure of an item to perform its normal or characteristic

Potential Failure: An identifiable physical condition which indicates that a

Failure evidence/condition depends on three factors:

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Conditional Probability of Failure

Age Reliability Patterns: The conditional probability of failure curves

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Conditional Probability of Failure

The Bathtub Curve

The typical bathtub curve has three distinctive regions or stages:

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Conditional Probability of Failure

Age Reliability Patterns

The Bathtub Curve: Infant mortality, followed first by a

Constant or gradually increasing failure probability,

Gradually increasing failure probability, but with no

11% Might Benefit From A Limit On Operating Age 8

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Conditional Probability of Failure

Age Reliability Patterns

Low failure probability when the item is new or just

Constant probability of failure at all ages

68% Infant mortality, followed by a constant or very

89% Cannot Benefit From A Limit On Operating Age 9

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

The consequences of a functional failure determine the priority of maintenance

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

 Inherent Reliability Level

The design characteristics of an item or of equipment that is attainable with an

Inherent Reliability Level: Scheduled maintenance cannot increase inherent

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Modification: Design modification (Service Bulletin)of an existing item to

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Reliability Centered Maintenance

 Potential Failures are Detectable

Current maintenance program development is driven by these Reliability

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

A Reliability Program is a tool for measuring the effectiveness of the maintenance

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

JAR OPS 1.910

Continuing Analysis Maintenance Event Oriented

There are three types of Reliability Programs:

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

People, Policies & Procedures Equipment & Hardware

Continuing Analysis and Surveillance Program (CASP) looks at airline’s maintenance

Maintenance Reliability - An Overview

Statistical Reliability Program

8. Reporting Requirements 2.Data Collection

Reliability Measures the

Inherent Reliability Level

Potential Failures are Detectable

Sort the data by various

Config. Dev. List (CDL)

Reliability Department Size and Skill Level

Reliability Department Size and Skill Level

RCB Duties and Responsibilities

Reliability Department Size and Skill Level

Regulatory Authority Approval