ASCI 491 Module 3 Blog Post

Technology and Data in Aircraft Maintenance

Over the last two decades, and especially in the last ten years, I have seen a shift in aviation maintenance practices toward technology driven maintenance plans.  Technology has enabled aircraft operators and maintenance technicians to use sensors, failure data, and predictive analytics to determine when systems and components fail.

In the civilian sector as well as the Department of Defense, aircraft and accompanying ground systems will tell the user when they need to be fixed.  While the “glossy brochure” may not always equal the reality of what happens on the flight line, it is truly amazing how far we have come in predictive analytics and conditioned based maintenance.

The Government Accountability Office published a report in Dec 2022 titled “Military Readiness: Actions Needed to Further Implement Predictive Maintenance on Weapon System” that included 16 recommendations for the Military Services to implement predictive maintenance and assess performance (Defense Acquisition University, n.d.).

Definitions:

• CBM (Condition Based Maintenance) – the practice of performing maintenance only when a specific condition warrants the action, as opposed to time based or predictive maintenance (Meissner et al., 2021).

• CBM+ (Condition Based Maintenance Plus) – a Department of Defense readiness enabler and strategic approach to life cycle management that is cost effective.  It uses hardware, software, communication, processes, and other tools to improve maintenance processes and practices (Crooks & Plawecki, 2021).

• IVHM (Integrated Vehicle Health Management) – Sensors and technology onboard an aircraft that can collect, analyze, record, and transmit performance data to determine future failure conditions (Crooks & Plawecki, 2021).

• PHM (Prognostics and Health Management) – technology used for early fault detection and projection of fault detection (Meissner et al., 2021).

In some platforms it is now possible to: 

• Determine failures on engines and transmissions based on sensor data from onboard collection during a normal flight (i.e. non-functional check flight).

• Perform early removal of components ahead of failure based on mean time between failure data.

• Adjust scheduled maintenance intervals based on use IVHM feedback and criticality.

Maintenance professionals that can interpret and understand the outputs of the information age and then convert outputs into more reliable systems and airframes will succeed in the maintenance departments of the future. 

References:

Crooks, K., & Plawecki, N. (2021). Novel Approach to CBM+ Implementation on Aviation Systems. 2021 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS48097.2021.9605703

Defense Acquisition University. (n.d.). Condition Based Maintenance Plus. Retrieved on August 22, 2023 from, https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia/pages/ArticleContent.aspx?itemid=503

Meissner, R., Rahn, A., & Wicke, K. (2021). Developing prescriptive maintenance strategies in the aviation industry based on a discrete-event simulation framework for post-prognostics decision making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 214, 107812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107812

ASCI 491 Mod 1 Blog Post

Boeing 737 MAX Drives Certification Reform

One series of events that impacted the U.S. transportation industry are the two Boeing 737 MAX accidents that occurred in the later half of 2018 and the first half of 2019.  During my Management of Production and Operations course, there were several students that chose to focus their final research presentations about the two crashes that claimed 346 lives and destroyed two Boeing 737 MAX airframes (Picheta, 2019).  

Investigations determined that the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) was not an adequate design due to lack of redundancy, poor software programing, and a sensor system that is prone to failure (Demirci, 2022).

This highlighted a failure in the monitoring and certification of commercial airline products by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  The FAA had delegated up to 96 percent of certification processes to Boeing, which started as far back as 2005 (Herkert et al., 2020).  Positive change was manifest in certification reform efforts by the FAA.  In the last two years, the FAA has delegated less responsibility to manufactures, provides more oversight, conducts more thorough reviews of aircraft system operations, and utilizes independent safety experts for certification projects (Federal Aviation Administration, n.d.).  

While the loss of life in these two aircraft mishaps is tragic, the event caused positive change in the FAA’s certification process, which will help prevent future mishaps from occurring.

Resources:

Demirci, S. (2022). The requirements for automation systems based on Boeing 737 MAX crashes. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 94(2), 140-153. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-03-2021-0069

Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Aircraft certification: Certification reform efforts. Retrieved August 6, 2023, from https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/certification_reform

Herkert, J., Borenstein, J., & Miller, K. (2020). The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for Engineering Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(6), 2957-2974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00252-y

Picheta, R. (2019, March 11). Ethiopian Airlines crash is second disaster involving Boeing 737 MAX 8 in months. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/10/africa/ethiopian-airlines-crash-boeing-max-8-intl/index.html