CAVU Café: Royboy’s Prose & Cons, Page 10 of 17

Ok, time to wax cynical and poke fun at some non-performers in the aerospace and aviation industry.

Ah, the tyranny of the ‘but’ word. ‘But’ is a conjunction used to introduce something contrasting with what has been already mentioned. Anticipation of the ‘but’ word most of the time makes us cringe. For example, ‘Joe you’re a good worker but…’ oh no, here it comes, the compliment- criticism strategy. Really now, is it worth anything at all to the listener to hear that compliment? Probably not, especially when followed by the ‘but’ word. Management mentors would suggest that use of the compliment-criticism is too blunt and ineffective. The compliment-neutral transition/positive reinforcement-coaching strategy might be more palatable, e.g. ‘Joe you’re a good worker but we have suggestions for improvement to make you a star performer.’ Hmm, nice landing boss as you prepare to jolt me. Speak of jolting, there are some things in our industry which people or firms say they do, but…

24/7/AOG SERVICE

Really? This is an overused claim in the aviation support sector. What it really means (at 2am your time) is that you’ll take the information (while assuring the caller that you’ll get right on it) but (there’s that word) really get to it at the first opportunity of regular working hours. At worst it means that you have 24/7 voicemail capability which someone will access during regular working hours. Oh, you got the hot call but have no inventory? Hopefully the source of the part you intend to call has a genuine 24/7 AOG capability; good luck with that.

As a young Supervisor over two avionics shops at a major airline, I recall the 24/7 AOG service we had to give to our internal airline customer and our external customers who used us for repair and overhaul services. During the week it seldom was an issue since we had 2 and 3 shift services for the shops, but during the weekends the supervisors rotated having ‘weekend duty coverage’. Friday afternoon you’d sign out the ‘briefcase’ which was prepared that day. It had the latest seniority lists of all the technicians, contact phone numbers, and a dedicated pager (yes those are still used today for critical applications). If I got a call it was from Maintenance Operations Control, usually.  the AOG desk. You had all the resources and authority to get people into the shops to get the product out, and yes, pity the poor fellow on Monday who might have to explain an unfulfilled need. That was indeed 24/7 AOG service.

Excuses for saying you have the service but not living up to it varies and are well rehearsed. Royboy’s counsel is that if you’re an operator and considering signing on with a service provider, don’t sign anything until you’ve made a test call at 3am Sunday morning. The results will surprise you.

 

YOUR INVENTORY

You list inventory on public websites as if you actually had the parts but you don’t. On the other hand you know who certainly does have it, but you list it in your name in the hope that you, instead of them will get the call. When you get the call you simply place an immediate order to the source (there were two buts in this one…).

MISSION STATEMENT

There are a few blue-chip companies which are absolutely driven and consumed by their mission statement; in fact that’s what contributed to their being classed as a ‘blue-chip’ performer. The military is 100% mission driven. Your rank, promotions, awards, and decorations are all dependent on your contribution to attainment and sustainment of the mission.  For these reasons it’s surprising how many firms have hollow mission statements. You see the statements in manuals, banners, and marketing channels. The problem is there’s no follow-up, targeted metrics, or performance accountability; in short, the mission statement is Papier-mâché window dressing designed to mostly impress outsiders.

I recall when creating a mission statement was quite a deal. It might have involved a weekend retreat with key employees and a professional facilitator. After the meeting room was impressively plastered with post-it posters of draft statements (which made you feel quite productive), the group arrived at the pinnacle consensus mission statement with the requisite oohs and ahhs; this, while you all stared in wonderment at the creation.  This was followed by the trumpeted roll out and broadcasting of the statement on shiny wood and brass plaques posted in high visibility areas…to be quickly forgotten.

Maybe you really meant it when you said it but…

 

STATEMENTS ABOUT QUALITY

It’s expected and quite fashionable to make grand statements about corporate policy regarding the quality of its products. Do you want to know who really lives up to their quality policies? Just ask the receiving inspectors at any firm and you’ll get an ear full of those who don’t. I guarantee that the firms being cited by those inspectors have impressive grandiose statements purporting to support quality as if their very life depended on it, but…

 

CUSTOMER SERVICE

The quality of customer service seems inversely proportional to the size of the firm. Cynical perhaps, but it seems to apply to many firms. You can order that car in any color as long as it’s black (a famous quote from when Ford Model T’s were the dominant car). Many times the big supplier hubris seems directly tied to the amount of exclusive distribution rights they have; you can’t get it from anyone but me and you’ll like it…

The biggest complaint I hear is how big suppliers treat small customers. Those big suppliers no doubt have avowed policy to treat all customers fairly and equally, but…  

 

PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY’RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING

Of all the areas I have cited in the article, without question the biggest source of disappointment is when someone says they are going to do something but don’t. I’m sure in fact, that when they said it they meant it, but time fly’s by and guess what? Zip, nada. I charitably attribute this to poor management skills. Purveyors of this behavior are chronic, and particularly skilled at making excuses.  I’ve seen this same pattern among persons who are habitually late, but that’s a topic for another time.

 Don’t say you’re going to do something unless you’re organized to do so. If you get sidetracked by other priorities, let the other person know. This always impresses them; you’re on your game. Remember, you may have forgotten the topic, but the other person has not. Most of the time they’ll be polite and not bother you with the issue, but they’ve mentally written you off as unreliable. Just sayin…

 

ROAD RUNNER ACME AERONUATICS MISSION STATEMENT

We shall deliver unsurpassed quality supported by unrivalled customer service, 24/7.

“And I’ll get you that information by COB Tuesday…” but of course…

 

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com

If a tree falls in the forest and the wife does not hear it, is the husband still wrong? Of course he is, or will be! So, if reporting or notifications of certain events appear to be waning, does that infer those events are correspondingly declining?

Regarding Counterfeit Parts, consider the following:Regarding Counterfeit Parts, consider the following:

Your initial impression of this graph might lead you to conclude that Counterfeit parts are on the decline...unless of course there are problems with the methods used in the reporting system. That's the conclusion reached in a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report titled "COUNTERFEIT PARTS: DOD Needs to Improve Reporting and Oversight to Reduce Supply Chain Risk ¹."

How about the reporting of Suspected Unapproved Parts (SUPs)? Consider this illustration:

According to an FAA Report, the "FAA's" process for monitoring and investigating SUPs is not as effective as it could be, because of recordkeeping weaknesses and the lack of a management control to capture and accurately report the number of SUPs." This, from a report by the Office of Inspector General titled "ENHANCEMENTS ARE NEEDED TO FAA'S OVERSIGHT OF THE SUSPECTED UNAPPROVED PARTS PROGRAM ^2"

In this blog we'll address the following:

• Selected topics from the Counterfeit Parts report including GIDEP information
• Observations and selected topics from the SUPs report
• Conclusions

Selected topics from the Counterfeit Parts report including GIDEP information

When it comes to jeans, purses, shoes, jewelry, watches, and paper money, counterfeit activity is well known and quantified, but what about our segment of business? Consider this from the GAO report:

"Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors submitted 526 suspect counterfeit parts reports in the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) from fiscal years 2011 through 2015..."

That figure should raise some eyebrows, especially considering that "The DOD supply chain is vulnerable to the risk of counterfeit parts, which have the potential to delay missions and ultimately endanger service members.¹" 

For those of you involved in supplying parts and services to the DOD, I'd like especially to remind and/or introduce you to GIDEP, the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program. According to their website³: "GIDEP (Government-Industry Data Exchange Program) is a cooperative activity between government and industry participants seeking to reduce or eliminate expenditures of resources by sharing technical information essential during research, design, development, production and operational phases of the life cycle of systems, facilities and equipment."

Now or in the future you will be required to participate in GIDEP by clause and/or DFAR. If you encounter any instances of impropriety including suspected counterfeit parts, the preferred means to report it is the GIDEP. 

The report cited some weaknesses with this process however, which the DOD has acknowledged and is in the process of fixing. These include the following portions of the report which I've bolded:

• DOD is not conducting oversight to ensure that defense agencies are reporting as required. As a result, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for example, may be underreporting suspect counterfeit parts in GIDEP.
• Defense agencies typically limit access of suspect counterfeit GIDEP reports to government agencies, so industry is not aware of the potential counterfeiting issues identified. DOD policy does not include guidance about when access to these reports should be limited.
  

Observations and selected topics from the SUPs report

Following Congressional hearings in the 90's, the FAA created a SUPs Program Office. It was the focal point for fixing known issues regarding unapproved parts. Part of its charter was to flow-down training to the rest of the FAA on how to handle SUP reports. By the way, for most of its years, the FAA Program Office was headed by Mr. Ken Reilly, who became a recipient of the ASA's life-time achievement recognition, the Edward J. Glueckler Award. The Program Office hosted and worked closely with the SUPs steering committee which the ASA and I participated in for many years. In 2007, the program office was disbanded after the Agency determined its functions had been firmly established at FAA offices at the regional, directorate, and local levels². 

Although in theory the disbanding of the SUPs Program Office was based upon sound training and planning flowed down to other FAA employees and departments, this subsequent FAA report has determined that enhancements are needed to shore up apparent shortfalls on the handling of SUP issues. The issues identified in the report included:

• FAA Does Not Consistently Notify the Industry About Unapproved Parts
• Industry Lacks Information Needed To Identify and Eliminate Unapproved Parts
• FAA SUP Investigations Lack Uniformity
• FAA Neither Accurately Accounts for SUPs Nor Conducts Trend Analyses of SUPs Data
  

The FAA response to the report was contained in a Memorandum (attached to the published report) in which the FAA concurs with all 11 recommendations and established closeout corrective-action deadlines. All very good developments.

By the way, I researched the amount of FAA Unapproved Parts Notices since their inception. Here are the results in graph form:

It seems the instances of UPNs are trending down. If that is the result of our industry taking effective steps to mitigate and eliminate Unapproved Parts, then that is a good thing. If however that is the result of less reporting and/or less of an industry focus on the issue, is not clear, and certainly remains un-analyzed and unquantified.  

Since the disbanding of the FAA SUPs Program office, one of the things we don't have is in-depth analysis of quantified data. When the Program Office was active, we on the steering committee would see such useful analyzed data as follows (of course this is quite dated):

Today it does not appear we have such useful data. 

An interesting observation regarding the report is that it seemed to focus exclusively on Hotline reports (calling in a report). Certainly there are other means of reporting such as use of the FAA Form 8120-11, Suspected Unapproved Parts Report. It would have been interesting to see the same investigative report cover a broader scope of reporting. Also, it would be interesting to see the raw numbers for all types of reporting; are they on the decline? Keep in mind that although we see UPNs, we in the public don't know how many reports are being submitted. In my opinion this is an important indicator of program effectiveness. 

Also, in the same way I encouraged those in the DOD market to sign up for GIDEP reporting, I encourage anyone in Quality and Logistics in the civilian sector to access FAA Unapproved Parts Notices (UPN) and sign up for distribution of all new notices. Go to the FAA UPN website⁴, pick a year, and click on the email icon. You don't need a pw.

  

CONCLUSION:

Both reports should be welcomed by our industry community in that they identified areas which could be improved upon, with the DOD and FAA both largely acknowledging the report's recommendations. Advancements are thus forthcoming. 

Finally, we are tempted to wonder if the DOD and FAA collaborate on investigations; intelligence sharing for example? There is some recent evidence to indicate yes, thankfully. In 2016 the FAA issued a UPN on counterfeit parts. Based on background information not reflected in that UPN, it is almost certain the FAA UPN was based on DOD reports and investigations.   

One thing is for sure, counterfeit parts and other types of unapproved parts are not going away. Let's hope the industry has indeed instituted effective countermeasures into our routines to properly mitigate this activity. Bravo to the FAA and DOD for leading the way.

Over 'n out

Roy 'Royboy' Resto

www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com

¹COUNTERFEIT PARTS: DOD Needs to Improve Reporting and Oversight to Reduce Supply Chain Risk; Report Number GAO-16-236; Date Issued: February 2016; Government Accounting Office

²ENHANCEMENTS ARE NEEDED TO FAA'S OVERSIGHT OF THE SUSPECTED UNAPPROVED PARTS PROGRAM; Federal Aviation Administration; Report Number: AV2017049; Date Issued: May 30, 2017

³ http://www.gidep.org/about/about.htm

⁴ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn/

Some documents, as Rodney Dangerfield might say, ‘’’…get no respect.” That is of course, until the mud hits the fan. So it is with the supposedly lowly tear-down report. Day in and day out we routinely check for the presence of these documents, checkoff a box on our receiving checklist, then add them to the scan/file pile. Done. There are situations however, when those reports are going to demand a lot of attention, which is the focus of this blog.

Tear-down reports may go by many names such as ‘Work Shop Reports’, ‘Shop Findings’, and ‘Work Order’, among others. Essentially they are a summary of the work performed, parts replaced, the reason those parts were replaced, and other pertinent data. Generally the regulations of the respective country’s Civil Aviation Authority require such information be recorded when aircraft components are being repaired and overhauled. The tear-down report accompanies the Airworthiness Release Certificate such as an EASA Form 1 or FAA 8130-3.

Many times preliminary tear-down reports are created in order to facilitate the customer quoting process. For example, a maintenance shop receives a component for overhaul but first the customer wants a quote of what the price will be before authorizing the commencement of work.

In this blog we’ll review the following:

1) Reliability: Identifying trends in failed parts

2) Establishing warranty claims

3) Does the stated work and parts replaced align with the price charged?

Sidebar Fun Fact: Rodney Dangerfield, whose name at birth was Jacob Cohen, took on his stage name based on a cowboy character in a Jack Benny radio show. 

Reliability: Identifying trends in failed parts

I recently attended the AMC/AEEC (Avionics Maintenance Conference/Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee) Conference; more on them later¹. The AMC for many years has been a platform for airlines to collectively express their concerns with certain Avionics systems and components. Their questions and concerns are submitted ahead of the conference so as to give the respective OEM and/or airframer the opportunity to respond during the conference. The entire process is quite orderly and organized, and typically well researched. I estimated there were about 600 attendees from around the world made up mostly of Avionics Engineers, Customer Support Representatives, and Avionics Maintenance Managers, among others.

What follows is a classic use of tear-down reports which were analyzed in order to address reliability problems. This is a redacted posting from one of the discussion items:

“An analysis of 124 landing light assemblies’ teardown reports was accomplished over the period xx/xx/xx to xx/xx/xx with the top issues reported as lens cracked/broken (77%), wire harness cracked/broken (77%), and lamp harness open (61%). (Airline) xxx and (OEM) xxx reviewed a corrective action plan to improve the lamp harness with a service loop (bulletin). (Airline) xxx has just implemented this so it’s too early see if this action will correct the harness issues.”

When component removal rates within an ATA chapter exceed a specified threshold, alerts are generated and issued to the airline maintenance organization. Investigative actions typically include analysis of tear-down reports as just illustrated.

Establishing warranty claims

Warranties for components that have undergone maintenance typically extend to the work performed and the parts replaced at the last visit. When there is a premature removal from the aircraft, the question arises by the operator if the part is under warranty, and if so, to return the part for a warranty claim to the maintenance shop. The maintenance shop will have to analyze two questions to establish whether they will honor a warranty claim:

•         Did the removal occur during the covered period of the warranty?
•         Did something fail that was ‘covered’ (previous task performed, previous parts replaced)?

Enter the Tear-down report. A simple example: The part was removed from the aircraft after 2 months since the last shop visit. At the last shop visit the failure was confirmed by the removal and replacement of transistor Q1. The unit passed all subsequent tests and was returned to service. This time however, the failure is confirmed by the removal and replacement of transistor Q2, which was not touched the last time since it was working just fine. Will the warranty be honored? To be clear, I don’t wish to get into a side discussion about warranties, but it should be evident that referring to the details contained in tear-down reports help establish grounds for warranty claims.

Does the stated work and parts replaced align with the price charged?

You just charged your customer a hefty price for an overhaul. You can expect that tear-down report to receive quite a bit of attention. Hopefully the work performed and parts replaced align with the price you charged or you can expect an ear-full.

Irresistible sidebar: Rodney Dangerfield famous one-liners:

"I bought a new Japanese car. I turned on the radio... I don't understand a word they're saying."

"I bought a perfect second car... a tow truck."

"What a dog I got, he found out we look alike, so he killed himself."

"When I was a kid my parents moved a lot, but I always found them."

"I looked up my family tree and found three dogs using it."

"With my old man I got no respect. I asked him, 'How can I get my kite in the air?' He told me to run off a cliff."

 

 

¹AMC/AEEC background: From their respective ARINC website:

·     About AMC: The AMC is an air transport industry activity organized by ARINC Industry Activities. The objectives of AMC are to promote reliability and reduced operating cost in air transport avionics by improving maintenance and support techniques through the exchange of technical information.  AMC consists of representatives from the technical leadership of the air transport avionics maintenance community. The voting membership of AMC consists of the representatives of commercial air transport operators.

·        About AEEC: The Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) creates value for airlines and the aviation industry by developing engineering standards and technical solutions for avionics, networks, and cabin systems that foster increased efficiency and reduced life cycle costs for the aviation community.

It’s been my experience that these groups over the years have quietly, continuously, and collaboratively made significant contributions to increased reliability, standardization, and safety.

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com

Time to stir the pot again

I continue to hear moans about the issues we’re about to discuss, so I dusted off and updated this classic prose which will address the purchasing of aftermarket spares (other than new condition). Many of you have shared privately with me that you forwarded links to the older blog to your customers, and this too prompted this update. In this blog we’ll review the following:

• OVERHAULED vs. REPAIRED or INSPECTED
• Reliability study
• Lack of Overhaul instructions for many parts
• Possible effects of unnecessary disassembly
• Degrees of Airworthiness?
• TWO YEAR TAGS
• Concerns about degradation/deterioration
• Concerns about the latest S/Bs, ADs, or software updates

OVERHAULED vs. REPAIRED or INSPECTED.

I’m perplexed that so many purchasers continue to demand that parts, other than new, on the aftermarket must be in “Overhauled” (OH) condition. That’s for every part. Everyone knows that you will be charged more for OH condition than for Repaired or Inspected parts. When I question the practitioners of such requirements, the first answer I get is “It’s our policy.” OK, what’s that policy based on? If the person wears glasses, they’re seen to slide the spectacles down to the tip of their nose, and lower their head; the better to give your direct eye contact while they give you the lecture you deserve. “Why, don’t you know (you silly boy) that Overhauled parts last longer on the airplane? This translates to requiring fewer spares.” And there it is, the reason for the policy. Here are some thoughts to challenge that:

1. For the overwhelming majority (not all) of your parts, you will not be able to statistically prove that use of purchased Overhauled parts vs. Repaired or Inspected last longer on the aircraft.
2. Most Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM) do not literally contain “overhaul” instructions.
3. The act of performing unnecessary disassembly may introduce the very reliability problems you hoped to avoid by using overhauled parts exclusively.
4. Keep in mind that when you get a part with a serviceable tag from a repair station, an 8130-3 for example, the side that is signed says “Certifies that…was accomplished in accordance with Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 43 and in respect to that work, the items are approved for return to service.” In other words, for either OH, Repaired, or Inspected parts, you are getting an airworthy product! Repaired or Inspected parts are no less airworthy than Overhauled parts.

• Reliability Study:

Let’s forget about statistics for a moment.

First jot down a few parts you’d like to test and research.

Start with your engineering department. Ask if any of the following programs address the parts you’re researching: MRB (Maintenance Review Board), MPD (Maintenance Planning Documents), and the MSG (Maintenance Steering Group) programs for your aircraft. A discussion of these programs is beyond the brevity of this blog, but your reliability engineer will assist. Suffice it to say that these programs form the basis for your Maintenance Operations. Do any of these address your components? Does it say anywhere that the part must be overhauled upon removal or replacement? There may be a few, but these are in the minority; it’s likely you will not find any such requirements for the majority of parts on your list.

OK, let's assume you can’t substantiate the 100% Overhaul Policy through any of those documents. Talk to your reliability engineer and ask if there has been any past “history” forming the basis of the overhaul policy. If not, talk to the engineer and apprise them that you are switching your policy to accept Repaired or Inspected parts. The engineer will monitor the MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) trends. If there is a correlation between MTBF negative trends and the use of Repaired and Inspected parts vs. Overhauled parts, then your policy would be vindicated. I’m here to prophesy to you that you’ll likely not see any such negative trends. Such data would form the statistical basis for your policy if it existed. If you don’t have it, why continue doing business the same expensive way? Read on please.

• Lack of Overhaul instructions for many parts:

Most Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM) do not literally contain “overhaul” instructions. If this is true how can repair stations accommodate your request to have parts overhauled? Let’s look at an example. Let’s assume you have an avionics computer of some sort. Its CMM does not contain any ‘overhaul’ instructions (just the typical inspection, check, and repair instructions), but you insist that it be in overhaul condition. They’ll be happy to accommodate you, and the expected higher fees they’ll charge, by following the FAA’s definition of ‘Overhaul’ found in FAR 43.2. It states that no person may describe a part as being overhauled unless “Using methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, it has been disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled; and it has been tested in accordance with…”. So, the CMM would not have required a disassembly and cleaning unless there was a failure of some sort, but because you insist on an Overhaul, they’ll do it anyway so as to meet the requirements of the FAA’s definition of Overhaul, and to be able to list its condition as such in block 11 of the 8130-3. Keep in mind this was a simplistic example, but it is quite realistic.

• Possible effects of unnecessary disassembly:

One more thing, a subject for profound thought and fluttering of the eyebrows: there is a great body of folks in our industry whom believe that parts should not be disassembled unless specifically called for in a CMM because this act in itself greatly increases the risks that an error, bug, or mechanical deficiency could be introduced when reassembled; such is the reality when human factors are involved, so keep in mind that your insistence for fulfilling the requirement for an overhaul may introduce the very reliability problems you thought you’d avoid with the overhaul policy.

• Degrees of Airworthiness?

I’d like to conclude the discussion on the OH requirement by addressing a veiled apprehension: You may be concerned about the parts you buy on the aftermarket, and thus have those concerns assuaged by having all the parts Overhauled. I may not be able to argue you out of that position, but I do suggest the following: Send it to the MRO of your choice, and ask them to inspect and repair the part as necessary. In addition, specifically ask for a hidden damage inspection on your Repair Order. They’ll look at it closer, and you’ll likely get charged less that a full overhaul. Cool idea huh? Oh, and one more thing (I feel the urge to pontificate): If you feel proud of the fact that you supposedly have a higher standard requiring the overhaul policy, I’m here to tell you that you’re selling yourself short. A higher standard than overhaul is the condition of “Rebuilt” (ref FAR 43.2). Yes this is an acceptable term for block 11 of an 8130-3. Your part will meet all the testing requirements of a new part with the exception that it did not just roll off the assembly line. Price that with the OEM!

TWO YEAR TAGS:

Another black and white policy that continues to make me shake my head in amazement is some operator’s policy that any parts purchased must have tags no older than two years. When I ask why, the glasses are seen to slide to the front of the nose again. “Don’t you know (you silly boy) that parts can deteriorate or degrade just sitting on the shelf?” Oh brother…, What are the historical arguments for this policy?

1. Concerns about deterioration of one sort or another
2. Concerns about SB’s, AD’s, or software changes that may have taken place while sitting on the shelf

• Concerns about degradation/deterioration

First, what ever happened to following manufacturer’s recommendations for shelf life as may be contained in a CMM if applicable? Typically, if there is a shelf or storage life, the CMM will contain it in its Storage section, or equivalent, of the manual. If it does not exist, why pay for the additional expense of having it sent back to a shop for a fresh tag? Alternatively, this is only defensible if you have supporting statistical or reliability issues as previously discussed. Do you?

• Concerns about the latest S/Bs, ADs, or software updates

Questions about SB’s, AD’s, or software changes that may have taken place while on the shelf represent the best concerns for the 2 year tag defense.

Let’s not overlook the obvious, however: if this is indeed your concern, those issues could have manifested themselves in the two year time frame for the parts you’d accept with tags less than two years, right? So how do you currently address that possibility? The person is seen to retract the glasses to its proper position on the nose bridge. A probable response is that you know the product you are assigned to purchase, and thus would likely know about AD, SB, or software issues. Your Purchase Order (PO) should always include special instructions to your supplier that you require the part delivered with SB’s, AD’s or software installations accomplished when applicable. After all, there are many SB’s, AD’s and Software installations whose implementation method and requirements depend on the operator’s management of those issues. Finally, we are fortunate that many SB’s, AD’s, and Software installations change the part number, so if you get the part number you’ve ordered you’ve likely got the AD, SB, or software level required. If still worried, put the required level on the PO.

Over ‘n out.

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

AimSolutionsConsulting.com

Would you like me to gift-wrap this for you? We wish that packaging of aircraft parts was as easy as adding a satin bow and ribbons to make it look pretty. The fact is that proper packing and preparation for shipment of aircraft parts requires a degree of know-how, and in some cases knowledge of some fairly specialized processes or procedures. Consider some of these topics, applicable as required:

• HAZMAT marking in accordance with applicable regulations.
• Posting of certain documents on the outside to facilitate exporting/importing.
• Marking contents (magnetized material, ESD, ‘This side up’, ‘Do not stack’ etc.)
• Limitations on the type of wood (used in the construction of shipping pallets and containers/boxes) that is acceptable for exporting.
• Requirements to put 2D or 3D bar coding on the outside of the package.
• Requirements to affix RFID to the outside of the package.
• Use-of shipper’s software, filling out, printing, and affixing of shipper’s labels (such as FedEx, UPS, etc.).
• Specific requirements on the construction of the shipping container/package

That's a lot, and to get it right every time means you have a good crew in the shipping department, so don't forget to thank these unsung employees for their efforts.

In aviation there is a standard for just about everything, and there is no exception for packaging aircraft parts. My experience is that deliveries destined for Government or Defense customers tend to have the most burdensome requirements. Globally, for both the Civilian and Government/Defense markets, consider the following available standards:

• ATA (Now A4A) Specification 300: Specification for Packaging of Airline Supplies.
• MIL-STD-2073-1: Department Of Defense, Standard Practice For Military Packaging.
• ASTM D-999 Standard Test Methods for Vibration Testing of Shipping Containers.
• NOTE: Globally, there are numerous packaging standards, notably most are defense derived.

Why do I need the ATA Spec 300?

For all of you who are Accredited to the ASA-100, you are required to have this on-hand and available per the standard.  The first release of this specification went back to the 90's, when many airlines had the requirement in their T&C's to assure the parts purchased were packaged in accordance with the spec. Many firms today still state this T&C on their Purchase Orders. In fact it was not just the ASA-100 that required use of the spec. CASE and ATA Spec 106 also called for it.

Many are under the assumption that the spec exists only to designate how those hard-shelled shipping cases are designed, such as this well-worn example:

Note the ATA Spec 300 designation within the circle.

There are, according to ATA Spec 300, three categories of packaging:

• Category I Reusable for a minimum of 100 round-trips
• Category II Reusable for a minimum of 10 round-trips
• Category III Usable for a minimum of 1 trip

 The picture above is of a Category I box. It's going to survive at least 100 round trips. Unless you're an engineer, you're unlikely to set about designing a Category I box. The Spec has all the engineering requirements for construction and testing of the box to assure conformity. There are firms that specialize in building these in case you're ever asked to provide these for your customer.  Needless to say, they're expensive, and are typically used to protect costly rotables. If you're a repair station and your customer sends you product in these, you had better send it back in the same box lest they charge for a replacement; trust me. Many repair stations don't account for these during the receiving process and subsequently ship the part back without it; you're going to hear about it.

In fact many of you are already, likely shipping parts in packaging that is Category III compliant, and you may not be aware of it.

Here's a picture of some category II packaging:

What else about the Spec 300?

• It contains instructions on packaging ESD parts.
• Hazmat packaging.
• Instructions on interfacing with ATA Spec 2000, which many of you use to conduct business with.

By the way, regarding the use of ‘peanuts’ as interior cushioning, the spec states “Miscellaneous wadding such as newspaper or rags, and loose fill packing materials such as plastic 'chips' or 'peanuts' shall not be used as dunnage or cushioning material.”

MIL-STD-2073-1:

ATA Spec 300, all 36 pages, may seem complicated in some aspects. If so, MIL-STD-2073-1 is a heavyweight at 208 pages. If you're consulting this Military Standard, it's only because you have been required to so by a government solicitation award contract. Some shippers of these parts find the Standard complicated and beyond their core skill sets. Because of this, there are firms that have specialties in packaging meant to meet the Standard. In some cases a government Inspector must inspect the parts and packaging before it's shipped to the government. These Inspectors typically represent the DCMA (Defense Contract Management Agency).  

Whereas ATA Spec 300 recognizes and defines the three aforementioned categories, the Mil-Std generally recognizes over 18, which are called ‘Methods’. For example:

Method 10 - Physical protection

Method 20 - Physical protection with preservative (with greaseproof wrap, as required)

Method 30 - Waterproof or waterproof-greaseproof protection with preservative

Method 31 - Waterproof bag, heat sealed

Method 32 - Container, waterproof bag, heat sealed

Method 33 - Greaseproof-waterproof bag, heat sealed

Method 40 - Water vaporproof protection with preservative as required

Method 41 - Water vaporproof bag, heat sealed

Method 42 - Container, water vaporproof bag, heat sealed, container

Method 43 - Floating water vaporproof bag, heat sealed

Method 44 - Rigid container (other than metal), sealed

Method 45 - Rigid metal container, sealed

Method 50 - Water vaporproof protection with desiccant

Method 51 - Water vaporproof bag with desiccant, heat sealed

Method 52 - Container, water vaporproof bag with desiccant, heat sealed, container

Method 53 - Floating watervaporproof bag with desiccant, heat sealed

Method 54 - Rigid container (other than metal) with desiccant, sealed

Method 55 - Rigid metal container with desiccant, sealed

 

And... as those cheesy $19.95 TV commercials always state: But wait! There's more! The standard includes references to these other nifty specifications:

 

QQ-A-1876 - Aluminum Foil.

PPP-B-1672 - Box, Shipping, Reusable with Cushioning.

A-A-3174 - Plastic Sheet, Polyolefin.

MIL-DTL-117 - Bags, Heat-Sealable.

MIL-PRF-121 - Barrier Materials, Greaseproof, Waterproof, Flexible, Heat-Sealable.

MIL-PRF-131 - Barrier Materials, Watervaporproof, Greaseproof, Flexible, Heat-Sealable.

MIL-PRF-3420 - Packaging Materials, Volatile Corrosion Inhibitor, Treated, Opaque.

MIL-D-3464 - Desiccants, Activated, Bagged, Packaging Use and Static Dehumidification.

MIL-DTL-6060 - Bags, Watervaporproof, Heat-Sealable, Complex.

MIL-I-8574 - Inhibitors, Corrosion, Volatile, Utilization of.

MIL-PRF-16173 - Corrosion Preventive Compound, Solvent Cutback, Cold-Application.

MIL-PRF-22019 - Barrier Materials, Transparent, Flexible, Sealable, Volatile Corrosion Inhibitor Treated.

MIL-DTL-22020 - Bags, Transparent, Flexible, Sealable, Volatile Corrosion Inhibitor Treated.

MIL-PRF-22191 - Barrier Materials, Transparent, Flexible, Heat-Sealable.

MIL-PRF-81705 - Barrier Materials, Flexible, Electrostatic Protective, Heat-Sealable.

MIL-STD-129 - Military Marking for Shipment and Storage.

MIL-STD-3010 - Test Procedures for Packaging Materials.

MS20003 - Indicator, Humidity, Card, Three Spot, Impregnated Areas (Cobaltous Chloride).

 

Hmm…that $600 hammer (of dubious fake news fame) has to be packaged in MIL-STD-2073-1 compliant material, I’m sure…

 

Over ‘n out

 

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

AimSolutionsConsulting.com

When I hear popular culture terms, I tend to borrow the lingo so I don’t seem remote and out of touch. A term I’ve heard bandied-about is ‘TMI’, or Too Much Information. ‘TMI’ might be uttered by you following a conversation with an acquaintance who shared information that was socially awkward, over-the-top, or just plain overwhelming. But this is the age of information, which reportedly is the new gold standard. If so, when is information too much?

Having information or data does not necessarily make you smart; any more than having a big collection of books in your home or office library makes you well-read. Data becomes gold when we put it to work for us. And so it is with the big data being generated by today’s aircraft.

So Royboy, TMI? What TMI? Consider the following:

“An A320 generates information from about 20,000 data sources, Airbus says, compared to 200,000 for an A380 and more than 400,000 for an A350.” ¹

How about:

“Take an average jet engine from a commercial airliner, which can be equipped with over 5,000 individual sensors, as an example. According to SAP business software, these engines can generate around 20 terabytes of data per hour.”²

And there you have it; that is big data! Let’s develop this; there are many dots to connect. Here are the topics to be discussed:

•     Sources Of The Data

•     Immediate Uses

•     Collateral Uses

•     Who Will Mine The Data?

•     Possible Effects Upon The Aftermarket

•     Future Enhancements

•     Broad Acceptance Has Been Slow

 

SOURCES OF THE DATA:

In order to gain a proper perspective on the evolution and typical sources of aircraft data, I encourage you to read a previous blog: “AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS”, here’s the link:

 

http://www.aviationsuppliers.org/index.asp?bid=222&BlogEntryID=76&FormID=300

 

IMMEDIATE USES:

 

Various OEMs are going to call these uses by any number of names, but generically we can refer to the following:

 

·       Aircraft/Engine/Helicopter Health Monitoring: Simply, the data being generated is telling us something has failed.

 

·        Predictive Maintenance: Based on trending data, something, if left unaddressed, may fail in the near future.

 

·      Analytics: This emerging field is software based and designed to sift through the reams of data and perform the required analysis. The desired result is that, in the parlance of the CIA and NSA, you get ‘actionable intelligence’.

 

COLLATERAL USES:

 

Here are the existing and developing uses of all this data:

 

• Timely resolution of write-ups/pireps/unscheduled, non-routine maintenance. While in flight, data is transmitted to the ground apprising Maintenance Control that a failure has occurred. Labor, tools, and parts are dispatched or scheduled, and ready sooner.

 

• Delays and cancellations: a measureable percentage of these are caused by maintenance issues. With Predictive Maintenance (driven by the big data), the theory is that some maintenance events will be addressed prior to the hard failure; this has great potential to mitigate delays and cancellations due to maintenance. By the way, the biggest cause of delays and cancellations is weather related, unless of course there are labor problems occurring, but don’t get me started on that one!

 

• Reliability: Monitoring reliability of the various aircraft systems indexed by ATA Chapter and then the respective LRU is critical to running an efficient, productive, on-time operation. In addition, airframe and engine OEMs choose suppliers based on guaranteed on-wing reliability performance. The data to substantiate such performance comes increasingly from these systems.

 

• Warranty: Debates about units under warranty going to the shop and resultant NFFs, No Fault Found (meaning the airline is going to be charged for the service which, if there had been a failure, would have been covered by the warranty agreement) are rife in the industry. But what if collected aircraft data clearly pointed to a certain LRU failure (which is under warranty), which then went to the shop but the shop states its NFF? Will the shop still honor the no charge warranty? Hmmm…fluttering of the eyebrows please…

 

• Better analysis of Rogue or Chronic components and/or aircraft. For an in-depth introduction to this topic, see my blog on the issue at:

          http://www.aviationsuppliers.org/CHRONIC-OR-ROGUE-PARTS

 

• Management of MSG-3 programs. Many airlines model their maintenance programs on the MSG-3 standard, which is driven by data. Moves are afoot to make the big data generated by aircraft systems an authoritative source of such data.

 

WHO WILL MINE THE DATA?

 

Right now the big airframers offer fee-based programs for operators. The engine OEMs are very strong in similar programs, and perhaps history will write that they indeed pioneered the evolving techniques. Following the airframe and engine OEMs are the OEMs of the systems and LRUs, particularly since the aforementioned issues of reliability and warranty are in play; they are highly motivated to mine the data for those reasons, and to perform what I call ‘Targeted Analytics’.

How about MROs? Many airlines outsource a significant portion of their maintenance programs to MROs. This ranges from line maintenance, to component maintenance, to full airframe and engine overhauls. Will the airline give big data access to the MRO? Will the airline accept the MRO fees for acting on ‘actionable intelligence’ derived from management and analysis of the data?

 

POSSIBLE EFFECTS UPON THE AFTERMARKET:

 

Currently, other than the aforementioned OEM use of the data, there does not appear to be direct aftermarket use of the data; indeed its use is still evolving. In the near future however, there will be a trickle-down effect upon the accuracy of the following:

 

• Pooled parts: The number and types of parts pooled will increasingly be driven by big data.

 

• Analysis of spares: This too will be gradually derived from the data.

 

• Power By the Hour: The performance data used (for example MTBR or MTBF) as the basis to calculate PBH will be based upon and adjusted on this new source of data.

 

• Exchange programs: The use or non-use of exchange programs will progressively be based upon and adjusted by the analysis of spares tied to the data.

 

• ALIS: In the blog “AUTONOMIC LOGISTICS” mentioned earlier, there is a critical introduction into the Lockheed F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS). In Royboy’s opinion:

 

 

ALIS is going to be the harbinger and standard-setting system by which such big data integrates into logistics and aftermarket support systems. What works and doesn’t work is going to have a major trickle-down effect on nascent civilian programs.

 

FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS:

 

• Analytics: Algorithms reflected in software offerings promise to systematically sift through the big data and provide meaningful analysis. These systems continue to evolve.

 

• Artificial Intelligence, AI: Analytics will help us arrive at a given conclusion derived from a given set of data. Then what? The conclusion should be actionable; but who’s going to follow through? Enter AI. We are on the cusp of seeing Analytics coupled to AI. A simple possible example: Big data is driving analytics to conclude that an in-service engine’s Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) is starting to climb toward upper limits and may fail in the near future. AI steps in, analyzes the aircraft routing, availability of tools and skilled labor at the available maintenance stations, and issues a work order to perform borescope inspections at a suitable overnight station with a spare engine in stock; all without human intervention. We’re not there yet.

 

• Sharing data: ATA/A4A Spec 2000 chapter 11 already provides a standardized means for airlines to share and exchange reliability and performance data. According to their website, the purpose and outcome of this reporting is the following:

 

o   Assist operators and manufacturers to attain and maintain higher reliability through trend monitoring

o   Evaluate if certain problem areas are unique to an operator or observable throughout the industry

o   Monitor which modification has a better payback by comparing removal and failure rates of operators who have incorporated various service bulletins/modifications

o   Determine utilization rates through aircraft flight hours, flight lengths and number of landing cycles

o   Assist operators and manufacturers in determining the effectiveness of aircraft maintenance programs

There is no doubt that the new big data will progressively become the source of such information sharing systems.

 

BROAD ACCEPTANCE HAS BEEN SLOW

 

Finally, it seems that broad acceptance and implementation of the benefits of aircraft big data has been slower than anticipated¹. This is curious since OEMs continue to market their data-driven support systems as producing maintenance savings of approximately 10-15%. How about:

 

“…with 10 times return on investment for aviation companies and a potential 70 to 75 percent reduction in airplane breakdowns, there is a clear case for automated predictive maintenance in the aviation industry.”²

 

Sounds convincing, but reluctance may be driven by the following:

 

• OEM Support Systems driven by this big data are fee based. I suspect current cost-benefit math is not a slam-dunk selling point…yet. After all, there is the cost-benefit analysis performed by the seller, and one performed by the buyer. Is there a gap to be closed here?

 

• It seems there is lingering suspicion that using the data will require a small army of new employee/analysts to monitor the data…yet another system to monitor and dedicate labor to; more overhead (perish the thought!).

 

• Lingering suspicion of ‘false positives’. For example, a system used by flight crews (for example, a navigation system) is reported by big data as having failed in flight, but the aircrew did not write it up. Is it actionable? Did I just increase my mx costs by servicing “nuisance faults’?

 

We’ll see…

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy” Resto

AimSolutionsConsulting.com

 

¹ Surely, but Slowly; Aviation Week & Space Technology; April 11-24, 2016; Page 36

² http://www.aviationpros.com/article/12236185/man-versus-machine-aviations-predictive-maintenance-challenge