CAVU Café: Royboy’s Prose & Cons, Page 9 of 17

A growing trend I’ve observed in my consulting and auditing activities involves Maintenance Repair and Overhaul MROs) organisations opening up affiliated aftermarket distributorships. For example, an MRO opens up a separate but affiliated firm, and gets that distributor firm to be accredited to the ASA-100. From all appearances there seems to be many benefits for the MRO with this arrangement, and these will be reviewed.

This trend also extends to OEMs, Airlines, and tear-down/disassembly facilities starting their own affiliated aftermarket distributorships, but in this article I’ll stick to MROs. Also, for a certainty, there is also the same reverse trend wherein distributors open up affiliated MROs.

The following will be addressed:

• Existing and emerging business practices.
• Royboy’s recommendations regarding structure and startup.

EXISTING AND EMERGING BUSINESS PRACTICES:

The following are what appears to be emerging uses of distributorships to support MRO Operations:

• Part outs: The distributor engages in part-out, disassembly projects and targets assets that that can be routed to the MRO either for complete repair and overhauls or as spare parts.
• Purchasing expertise: A core expertise for any distributor is purchasing. In recognition of this, the MRO uses the distributor to perform all of its purchasing activity.
• Leases. It may be that the MRO repairs or overhauls assemblies which are classic lease candidates including aircraft, engines, APUs, Landing Gear etc. Leasing is one activity the distributor may engage in which will also drive business to the MRO.
• Exchange Management: For operators who are under-spared, exchanges are a popular alternative, but are typically labor intensive for the service provider requiring careful management of fees, the exchange agreement, ERP entries, accounting, and the documentation. Let the distributor handle these and drive the repairables to the MRO.
• Contract/Agreement management: Let the distributor be the signatory and contract manager for subsequent customer agreements. For example, Power by the Hour contracts and their equivalents are popular. Let the distributor administer the details of these.

For successful MRO-distributor relationships, the following are apparent:

• The affiliated distributor becomes one of the MRO’s most prominent customers.
• The affiliation allows the MRO to concentrate on and specialize on its core tasks.

If not obvious, advantages of having your own separate but affiliated distributorship, which may tickle your imagination include:

• Unlike your MRO, the distributor is not encumbered by restrictions on what parts it can trade. We know your MRO is limited by its Certificate, Operations-Specifications or Capabilities List. Now, as an example let’s say your MRO only works on engine accessories. The Distributor buys an entire engine, has it parted out, sends all the accessories to the shop, but independently sells the remaining disassembled parts as it pleases.
• Seizing upon this example, it may be that you wish to make it known to the world that you’re thee one-stop engine accessory specialists. The distributor can stock, buy, sell, exchange, and manage outsourced repairs for any engine accessory even if it’s not on the MRO Capabilities List (please read “Be careful” below). In this case the MRO is not used at all, but your reputation and expertise base has accordingly increased significantly.

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING STRUCTURE AND STARTUP

• Establish the distributorship as a wholly separate and independent firm. This makes it easier to track ledgers, profitability, and cash flows, and to facilitate independent business ventures not encumbered by MRO restrictions.
• Even though employees, floor space, and the ERP system may be shared, each firm should treat each other in a typical Customer – Supplier relationship. For example, any work the Distributor sends to the MRO is accomplished with a Repair Order. Parts the MRO obtains from the Distributor are accomplished with a Purchase Order.
• Keep the Quality Systems and their Manuals wholly separate from each other. I have seen where the MRO tries to incorporate elements of their Distributor’s Quality requirements into the MRO Manual/Quality Control Manual and/or Training Manual or other Expositions. At first this may seem efficient since so many requirements are shared; for example both must have strict controls on shelf life inventory. The problem emerges that these manuals will have frequent revisions due to the Distribution operation, and since the manuals will have to be approved/accepted by the respective Civil Aviation Authority, you will soon find your CAA contact asking why are you bothering them to approve/accept non-MRO related revisions.
• Segregate the inventory of two firms. Your CAA regulator and ASA auditor will look for physical evidence of this.
• Accreditation. It is well known that getting the distributor operation Accredited per the FAA’s AC 00-56 and ASA-100 will greatly assist in getting the firm on your customer’s Approved Supplier’s List, and adds a degree of credibility to your operation’s quality. You will also enjoy the visibility of having your firm listed on the FAA database of accredited distributors.
• Share the Approved Suppliers List. You will likely discover that there are many resources that can be shared, duplication eliminated, and efficiencies realized. One of the pesky quality requirements is that you have an Approved Suppliers List (ASL). I have written quality manuals and systems which plainly state the two firms will share a common ASL. There are other commonality candidates you may consider such as:
• A common database used to manage shelf life products.
• A common database for tracking training.
• If needed, the distributor’s equipment requiring calibration is managed by the MRO.
• Be careful: If the distributor is trading parts that are not on the MRO Capabilities List, which is OK, be careful that the distributor’s paperwork and documents do not exercise the MRO Certification Number possibly falsely misleading the customer or buyer that they have trace to an MRO/145, or that any product was an extension of the MRO’s approved quality system. Give that some thought please…

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com

I love reading about facts, figures, and forecasts, or as my military friends would say, F³. I come across quite a few of these and thought you’d enjoy reading them in summary form. Each entry is properly cited. I’ll do these for you once or twice a year.

Airbus forecasts nearly 37,400 new aircraft valued at US$5.8 Trillion required over 20 years.¹

• Fleet will more than double to 48,000 in 20 Years based on traffic growing at 4.4% per year.
• Growth drivers include private consumption increasing 2.4 times in emerging economies, higher disposable incomes and a near doubling of the middle classes globally.
• Emerging countries will account for over 60% of economic growth, with trips per capita to multiply 2.5 times for these nations.
• Of the 37,390 new aircraft required, 26,540 are for growth and 10,850 will replace older generation less fuel efficient aircraft.
• The more than doubling in the world fleet to 48,000 aircraft results in a need for 540,000 new pilots.

ATR Forecast Demand for new turboprops to exceed 3,000 over next 20 years.²

• Valued in excess of US$80 Billion.
• Over the next 20 years 2,770 new routes will be created and that 30% of regional traffic will come from routes which do not currently exist.
• According to ATR, turboprops operate half of the flights below 330nm all over the world, the most fuel-efficient solution for short-hauls.

Raw Deals. ³

• The Global Aerospace Industry consumes some 1.7 Billion Pounds of raw material per year worth an estimated $13 Billion.
• Titanium comprises 30% of this total, followed by aluminum 22%, composites 21%, super alloys 14%, and steel 9%.

The number of aircraft owned by the US Military: ⁴

• 13,000

Lines of code in Military and Commercial aircraft: ⁵

• “Military and Commercial aircraft can contain more than 75 million lines of code.”

Monies spent by the US Agriculture Department in 2017 fighting wildfires (including firefighting aircraft):⁶

• $2.4 Billion – 56% of its budget

For my fellow Avionics geeks: Number of accidental false alerts generated by ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitter) in all of 2017:^{7, 17}

• 8,786 false alerts in just the USA. These accidental activations can be caused during testing, mishandling, improper installation, or unfamiliarity with beacon operation.
• Search and Rescue (SAR) personnel respond immediately to every activation of a 406 Hz SAR Satellite -Aided Tracking (SARSAT) beacon. This response will stop only when it has been proven that the activation was a false alert.
• A false alert is a non -distress activation of a 406 MHz emergency beacon (either an ELT, Personal Locator Beacon [PLB], or Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon [EPIRB] for maritime use).

The US Air Force recently retired the history-setting Predator UAS, Unmanned Aerial System or RPA, Remotely Piloted Aircraft (Drone to outsiders). This is the Drone that made Drones a household name in the military and changed ISR, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, forever. Here are some interesting stats: ^{8, 9}

• From its first operational missions through early 2018, the Predator flew a total of 135,750 sorties and 2,061,864 flight hours. Of that total, 1,904,287 flight hours were in combat—92.4 percent of its flying total.
• Number built: 360, by General Atomics.
• Major Variants; At first, RQ-1 (for reconnaissance) then MQ-1 (“Multi Mission” after it was armed with the Hellfire Missile).
• Engine: Rotax 914F.
• Replaced by the MQ-9 Reaper.

Last year in 2017, the NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, analyzed: ¹⁰

• 432 recording devices across different transportation modes. About 10% came from foreign accident investigations. These included:
  • 82 GoPro Cameras or other image recorders.
  • 49 personal electronic devices such as mobile phones and tablet computers.
  • 45 Flight data recorders.
  • 29 Locomotive event data recorders.
  • 4 Marine voyage data recorders.
  • 26 Cockpit Voice Recorders.
  • It categorized the remaining 197 as ‘other’ devices such as engine monitors, glass cockpit displays and handheld GPS units.

2018 Commercial Aircraft Stats: ¹¹

• Commercial In-Service Fleet: 28, 854
• Commercial Aircraft Order Backlog: 15, 169

3D Printing stats: ¹²

• ‘Frost & Sullivan anticipates the global 3D printing materials market to for the aerospace industry to US$535.1 Million by 2024, with an impressive compound annual growth rate of 20.3% between 2017 and 2024.’

Suspect Counterfeit and Non-Conforming parts in the global electronic parts supply chain: ¹²

• ERAI reported a total of 771 suspect counterfeit and nonconforming parts in 2017

The number of Aerospace companies globally, listed in OASIS (Online Aerospace Supplier Information System) as accredited to ISO/AS/EN standards: ¹³

• 19,232 Certifications listed.

Various stats from Oliver Wyman: ¹⁴

• Current Global Commercial Air Transport MRO Market: $77 Billion.
• 2028 Global Commercial Air Transport MRO Market: $114.7 Billion.
• A survey of MRO’s found that 84% of respondents are currently experiencing labor imbalances.
• The US commercial MRO workforce has 86,000 maintenance technicians with a median age of 51, 9 years older than that of the US labor force.

Various stats from ICF: ¹⁵

• Number of airliners expected to be retired between 2017-2026: Approximately 9,100.
• Of the $75.5 Billion MRO market recorded in 2017, the spends broke down as follows:
  • Engines: 42%
  • Components: 21%
  • Line: 17%
  • Airframe: 13%
  • Modifications: 7%
• The air transport industry spends ~$31.5B on aftermarket material, including OEM material, surplus parts and PMA alternatives.
• 2017 commercial air transport PMA demand was ~$650M, N. America and Europe remain the key regions.
• PMA spend (~$650M) by segment:
  • Cabin & Components: 60%
  • Engine: 33%
  • Airframe: 7%
• PMA is set to grow significantly over the next decade, growing at a 5.8% CAGR to >$1.15B by 2027.

Many of you who are personally certificated or credentialed by the government to perform your aviation duties are aware of NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System. ASRS captures confidential reports, analyzes the resulting aviation safety data, and disseminates vital information to the aviation community. Persons who voluntarily report incidents are given a degree of immunity from enforcement actions against their certificates or credentials. The success of this program in protecting individuals (Pilots, Technicians, Dispatchers, Controllers, Cabin Crew, others) and as a means of gathering safety information has led to various Civil Aviation Authorities around the world instituting similar programs. According to ASRS: ¹⁶

• Over 95,000 reports for 2017.
• Over 7,944 reports per month, or 378 per working day.

Space Cadet:

• Since 2014, there has been a nearly 90% increase in the number of satellites in orbit, to a current estimated 2,270.¹⁸
• Space X and OneWeb are planning mega constellations of smaller satellites which will boost this to over 12,000 by the mid 2020’s.¹⁸
• Number of Launches from Air Force Ranges:¹⁹
  • 2016: 25
  • 2017: 33
  • 2018: 50 (projected)

Crazy Busy Airport/Fly-in. Put this on your bucket list. Attend an EAA air show fly-in (called Airventure) at Oshkosh, WI. You have never seen anything like it; a hoot. Regarding air traffic control: ²⁰

• Oshkosh (KOSH) is the busiest control tower in the world during EAA AirVenture.
• 64 controllers from around the US come to Oshkosh to work the show.
• Controllers work in 4 person teams, with a total of 16 teams.
• During AirVenture, air traffic controllers have reduced horizontal separation minimums of 1,500 feet between airplanes. Normally, separation minimums are 3,000 feet between aircraft. This allows controllers to land up to 3 aircraft at a time on a runway. How is that done? There are different colored dots painted on each runway. Aircraft are cleared to land on a specific colored dot.
• An estimated 10,000 aircraft will land at the fly-in.

Global Defense Spending Rising: ²¹

• In 2008 the amount spent globally by all nations on defense: ? 1.6 Trillion $USD
• Forecasted for 2022: 2 Trillion $USD

Flight delays in Europe due to Air Traffic Management issues: ²²

• Data from The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) shows that in the first half of 2018, Air Traffic Management (ATM) delays more than doubled to 47,000 minutes per day, 133% more than in the same period last year.
• Most of these delays are caused by staffing and capacity shortages as well as other causes such as weather delays and disruptive events such as strikes. The average delay for flights delayed by air traffic control limitations reached 20 minutes in July, with the longest delay reaching 337 minutes.

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

AIM Solutions Consulting

www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com

¹ Airbus Global Market Forecast 2018-2037.

² https://www.avitrader.com/2018/07/03/atr-forecasts-demand-for-new-turboprops-to-exceed-3000-over-next-20-years/

³ Up Front, Kevin Michaels; Aviation Week & Space Technology; May 21-June3, 2018; Page 12.

⁴ How the Pentagon Tries to Stay Ahead of Cyberattacks, Jen DiMascio; Aviation Week & Space Technology; June 18-July 1, 2018; Page 49.

⁵ Synopsys Advertisement; Aviation Week & Space Technology; June 18-July 1, 2018; Page 2

⁶ Fires Fuel Renewal, Graham Warwick and James Drew; Aviation Week & Space Technology; February 26-March 11, 2018; Page 44.

⁷ SARSAT Beacon Accidental Activation Prevention Initiative; Avionics News; June 2018;

Page 9.

⁸https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

⁹ Elegy for the Predator, Brian W. Everstine; Air Force Magazine; July 2018; Page 19

¹⁰ More data Infuses NTSB’s Proven Approach, Bill Carey; Aviation Week & Space Technology; April 9-22, 2018; Page 68.

¹¹ Orders and Deliveries; Flight International; 5-11 June, 2018; Page 27.

¹² http://www.erai.com/ERAI_Blog/3139/__2017_ERAI_Reported_Parts_Analysis

¹³ Update on Transition Timeline, Walter Sam O’Connor; Presentation during the 2018 ASA Conference to the QA Committee.

¹⁴ AVIATION LABOR SHORTAGE FORECAST, Neil McConachie; June 26, 2018; Presentation at the 2018 ASA Conference.

¹⁵ THE MRO MARKET & KEY TRENDS, Richard Brown; ASA Annual Conference

26 June 2018.

¹⁶ NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), Linda J Connell; https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170010289.pdf

¹⁷https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USAFAA/2018/07/18/file_attachments/1041070/InFO18007.pdf

¹⁸ Viewpoint: Space Congestion Threatens To ‘Darken Skies’, Bill Beyer and Nicholas Nelson; National Defense; July 2018; Page 35.

19 By the Numbers; National Defense; July 2018; Page 5.

²⁰ http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2018/07/ten-things-you-should-know-about-the-busiest-control-tower-in-the-world/

²¹ Boom Times, Michael Bruno; Aviation Week & Space Technology; July 16-29, 2018; Page 77.

²²https://www.aerotime.aero/aerotime.team/21607-iata-calls-for-urgent-action-to-tackle-european-atc-delays?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sas_faces_crewing_issues_says_theyre_blown_out_of_proportion_aerotime&utm_term=2018-07-31

Like many of you, I’m a ‘morning person’ meaning I go to sleep early and rise early to start my day. When challenged with a big project, my preference is to wake up early and get to work to put in that long day. When it’s time to go home, I leave on time even though I may have worked extended hours by coming in very early. In discussions with persons of similar dispositions, it seems we all have one common gripe; very few people notice our extra effort. For example, we routinely may come in hours-early to get it done, but leave on time…the extra effort not noticed, therefor not acknowledged. That might be ok if it weren’t for the fact that the person who came in on time but stayed an hour over is given credit by management for being a ‘company person’ and being dedicated. Managers who engage this behavior are likely to alienate the early risers; lesson learned – take notice of, and value your early birds. They are in fact likely among your most productive employees.

Another company asset whose value is frequently overlooked is the Internal or Self Audit. In my career I have taken notice of what seems to be 3 models of the practitioners of this recurring requirement:

• The self/internal audit ‘form’ is filled out impeccably with all required entries and attachments…with zero findings.
• The audit is performed and a couple of token findings are recorded.
• The audit is performed and is an in-depth look at the state of the quality system. The findings drive continuous improvement.

Which one are you?

Whatever your feelings regarding this task, know that you are not alone. A short list of the standards requiring internal self-audits would include:

• ISO 9000 series
• AS/EN 9100
• AS/EN 9110
• AS/EN 9120
• ASA-100
• AFRA BMP
• EASA 145 Repair Stations/Approved Maintenance Organisations
• Safety Management Systems
• IATA Operational Safety Audit
• Myriad Military Procedures

Internal self-audits came into prominence following the Japan/Dr. Deming quality revolution where there was a shift from reliance on Quality Control to Quality Assurance, among many other changes. One of the ways of gaining the ‘Assurance’ in ‘QA’ is by the performance of this task. Simply put, these audits are a means of internal surveillance; are your quality systems working as they should? Without question there is strong and consistent correlation between your internal audit findings and external audit findings; an inverse correlation. Firms with strong and aggressive internal audits tend to have fewer external findings and vice a versa. External being those performed by regulators, customers, and accrediting organizations.

Zero Findings during internal audits:

Think about it, for firms with zero internal audit findings, they’re really saying ‘we’re perfect’; Really? When you think you have that perfect system, please call me; no one has figured out how to have a perfect system yet. Consistent zero findings could be caused by:

• The auditor(s) not being not being sufficiently trained. The lack of training may be related to actually performing the task, not understanding the standard, or both.
• The sampling size of the areas you audit is too small. For example, you may have 20 employees but during an audit of training compliance, you look at the training records of only one employee.
• Any findings generated are looked upon by management as ‘rocking the boat’ and/or there is no support from management to implement the needed corrective actions. The audit is treated as a form to be filled out.
• Any honest discussion would have to include complacency; get it done as quickly as possible for compliance and move on to other more important tasks. The audit is treated as a form to be filled out.
  

The external auditor’s perspective:

When an external auditor sees that there is an aggressive audit program with meaningful findings, its sets the external auditor at ease because it reflects that the auditee is on their game; they are adequately surveilling themselves. The fact that you may have many internal audit findings will not reflect poorly on your operation; quite the opposite.

Speaking just for myself, when I see that the internal audits have zero findings, I increase the sampling size of the audited areas and know I will have to spend more time with the audit. If I have significant or numerous findings, I can put in the audit report that performance of the internal audit can be improved-upon, given the number or scope of the external audit findings. In other words, the internal audit does not appear to have the level of effectiveness needed to intercept and prevent quality issues from occurring.

Management Support:

In the ISO/EN/AS world, internal audit findings are shared with upper management, typically during the required management reviews. The data from this and other sources in the quality system are designed to drive continuous improvement in the operation. But what if you’re not ISO/EN/AS certified?

Among those firms who are not ISO/EN/AS accredited, there appears to be great variation among upper management and the value placed by them on this process. In some cases, outside of the QA Office, the results of the internal audits are not known by upper management. Some defenders of this might counter that there is no requirement to do so…and they would be right, but what a wasted opportunity to benefit your organisation!

Books, textbooks, and many courses address auditing techniques, so it is not the purpose of this article to restate those many works. There is no question that in the world of aviation, aggressive meaningful internal audits have contributed to heightened levels of safety and compliance; it is one of many tools used in quality to affect safety and continuous improvement. How sharp is your tool?

PS: Morning people really like premium coffee…

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

AimSolutionsConsulting.com

I’d like to add a new choice of terms to our ever evolving aviation lexicon. When an aircraft reaches the end of its life and it’s being parted out, we’re not removing the parts- we’re harvesting the parts from the legacy asset.

A word that has managed to survive the trendy, revisionist makeovers is ‘cannibalize’, as in cannibalizing aircraft parts. Used interchangeably is the equally, potentially offensive word, ‘robbed’ aircraft parts. My, oh my, I want to retreat to a safe place and curl into a fetal position at the use of such utterances. We certainly need kinder-gentler expressions! But guess what? They’re here to stay. Get over it.

So…what are we talking about? A likely scenario:

An aircraft is at the gate for the first flight of the day and passengers are loading. By the way, at any given airline, the bank of first flights is closely monitored in real time by many different organizations, and the percentage of flights making it out of the chocks on time is a key performance metric; this, since any delay or cancellation is going to have a cascading effect on the subsequent flights of the day. For the first flight of the day, the flight crew has to perform lengthier aircraft systems checks, and during these checks our air crew observes a fail during a bite test (Built-In-Test-Equipment). The air crew consults its MEL (Minimum Equipment List) and confirms the failure can’t be deferred; it must be fixed. The aircrew calls its Maintenance Operations Control center (MOC), who dispatches technicians to the aircraft. The techs note that the Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) requires the replacement of an LRU (Line Replaceable Unit). The problem is there is zero stock; and the parts-pooling partners are similarly zero stock; drats! These savvy technicians know however, that an identical aircraft is parked on the ramp awaiting lengthy repairs due to a bird strike. The techs call MOC for authorization to take the part off the idle asset, and use it on the now-waiting aircraft full of passengers. Twenty minute later the techs are on the flight deck signing off the offending write-up with the aircrew, and minutes later the tug spews its first puff of smoke as the aircraft backs out of the gate. In many an airline’s GMM or GPM (General Maintenance Manual or General Procedures Manual; in the USAF the equivalent is Air Force Instruction 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management), this procedure is referred to as cannibalizing or robbing the part. To be sure, there are probably, other more kinder-and-gentler titles of the procedure, but these are the prevalent ones.

In the USAF, the same action is also called cannibalizing, and only certain Maintenance Management persons are certified to authorize such an action on the scene. I had this certification. Without doubt, cannibalizing or robbing must always be an option of last resort; all efforts must be expended to locate the part first from normal supply channels. It is no surprise then, that cannibalization rates in the airlines or military are a closely monitored metric since it reflects on the effectiveness of the inventory control system. Higher cannibalization rates tend to be accepted through clenched teeth for parts that are out of production. Higher rates may also be the natural consequence of operators who deliberately choose to be under-spared for certain assets to conserve cash.

Up to this point, the process to rob that part sounds easy…but it’s not. Consider the following:

• Before the part is robbed (yes I switched to using this other term, from cannibalizing, since it’s easier to type), you must establish that the aircraft being robbed from has no existing write-ups against the system you intend to rob the part from. This is routinely accomplished by exam of the aircraft log book or equivalent electronic listing. In many cases you’re looking for the associated ATA chapter system. The idea here is that if the ATA system you intend to rob the part from has no write-ups, you can reasonably conclude the part remains in airworthy serviceable as installed.
• The logbook entries in both the aircraft involved must be made precisely and in accordance with the written procedures.
• In many cases, the part was initially ordered against the original aircraft with the write-up before the discovery of zero-inventory was confirmed. Since the part has now been robbed to fill the need, procedures must include that the part-order be amended to show that the aircraft robbed-from is now in need of it.
• Many procedures I’ve seen require that as soon as the part is removed from the robbed-from aircraft, a tag must be affixed. Often it is this tag that facilitates the corrections to inventory orders previously discussed.
• There are two special cases for close attention when considering robbing a part:

           o Is it a part that has scheduled overhaul or other maintenance requirements? If so, the airline’s tracking system must be amended to show the current                    installed-position of the part.

           o Is the part an LLP, Life Limited Part? My experience is that these parts are rarely robbed since nearly all require extensive disassembly in order to                          facilitate the removal and installation. Nonetheless, it remains a possibility and must be carefully considered for remaining time or cycles and to be                        tracked as concerns its current installed position.

How about swapping?

Swapping exists for one reason: To facilitate the troubleshooting process. For example, an aircraft has a write-up, but experience has shown that several LRUs (Line Replaceable Units) are equally capable of causing the fault. Any experienced technician will tell you that there has never been written a perfect Troubleshooting Logic Tree or FIM. Swapping parts that are the same part number to see if the fault is eliminated, or follows to the other swapped position, is really a great troubleshooting tool to confirm the source of the fault. This also helps reduce those pesky No-Fault-Found (NFF) charges. There are two scenarios for swapping:

     1. Swapping in the same aircraft tail number:

         Due to redundant aircraft systems, it is not unusual to find the same part number LRU installed for a Right or Left system, or in some cases a left, center,               and right system, or system 1, 2, 3, or colored systems. It’s been my experience that technicians often perform this type of troubleshooting without the                 necessity of informing anyone or filling out any tags or other documentation. The conscientious technician always will return the parts to their original                   positions once the troubleshooting process has concluded. In some cases the airline may have a hard rule that any such activity is strictly documented                   in accordance with their manuals, and for good reasons.

     2. Swapping between aircraft of different tail numbers.

         In some cases, this is the preferred or only option for swapping during troubleshooting. In this circumstance there are usually strict controls on                             documenting the actions taken.

If you know of any kinder-gentler, mood-ameliorating terms in use to describe these actions don’t hesitate to post a comment.

Over ‘n out

Roy “Royboy” Resto

www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com

Can I order a Big Mac with bitcoin? Not yet, but bitcoin (cryptocurrency) excites many, and is based entirely on blockchain. But is blockchain ready for prime-time in aviation?

Use of popular words is observed to cycle through articles, literature, and social media with some regularity. For example, use of the terms ‘core competency’ and ‘paradigm’ seem to be waning. On the other hand, use of the word ‘disruptive’ seems to be peaking. Initially, use of this word demanded our attention; a herald of a new order of things, but alas, marketers have been attaching this adjective to too many products and ideas, and many simply are not worthy of the term, thus the effectiveness of the word has been diluted.

Predictably an idea we often see described as ‘disruptive’ is blockchain technology. Will it truly be ‘disruptive’, and further, what may be its implications on aviation, if at all?

WHAT’s BLOCKCHAIN?

In the excerpt below, the italics are my own for emphasis

”A blockchain, originally block chain, is a continuously growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked and secured using cryptography. Each block typically contains a hash pointer as a link to a previous block, a timestamp and transaction data. By design, blockchains are inherently resistant to modification of the data. It is an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way. For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires collusion of the network majority.

Blockchains are secure by design and are an example of a distributed computing system with high Byzantine fault tolerance. Decentralized consensus has therefore been achieved with a blockchain. This makes blockchains potentially suitable for the recording of events, medical records, and other records management activities, such as identity management, transaction processing, documenting provenance, food traceability or voting.

The first blockchain was conceptualized in 2008 by an anonymous person or group known as Satoshi Nakamoto and implemented in 2009 as a core component of bitcoin where it serves as the public ledger for all transactions. The invention of the blockchain for bitcoin made it the first digital currency to solve the double spending problem without the need of a trusted authority or central server. The bitcoin design has been the inspiration for other applications.”¹

BLOCKCHAIN IN AVIATION?

Aviation is dependent on strict record keeping. Much of today’s record keeping procedures are required by regulation and yet others by de-facto industry practice. The continuum of aviation records typically starts in manufacturing during/before metal is cut, software written, or assembly tools laser measured, and extends the entire life cycle to the end with a record of being scrapped.

For all of us in the aftermarket, we are intensely attuned to the issue of impeccable records. There is after all, clear correlation between the value of the parts (assets, articles) and the quality of its records. We tend to be particularly sensitive to these records:

• Traceability – That pesky unbroken chain of custody demanded by end users
• Part Status – Life Limited Parts, Existing Time and Cycles, Time Since Overhaul, Existing Condition, Modifications, Alterations, Service Bulletins, and Airworthiness Directives among others

The known problem of these records is that they tend to take many forms: Paper, digital, Logbooks, and Scanned PDFs, and that there is no single repository of these records. Often the records are archived; a polite way of really saying it’s in the black hole of hundreds of those legal cardboard boxes in the warehouse…good luck with that…

So…can blockchain be the answer? According to some; yes.

According to Mr. Bas De Vos:

“…what if all of these participants submitted a transcript of the transactions into a purpose-specific, distributed ledger — like blockchain — which only authorized participants would have access to?

The manufacturer would initially start the blockchain for the asset and each participant would add the relevant blocks to it. The distributor would let the chain’s participants know that the asset was transported from point A to point B, while the operator would register the number of flight hours that the asset has undergone.

Using blockchain for this asset management scenario would give you a 100 percent verifiable, traceable, and trustworthy history of the asset’s lifecycle in real-time.”²

And according to AeroTime Staff:

“…blockchain technology has the power to transform the asset management value chain—and the firms that adopt it early will reap the rewards. Commercial aircraft assets are definitely an untapped market, with a visible lack of standardization. A blockchain solution could potentially replace the network of disparate systems, Justinas Gilys, COO at AviaAM Leasing believes.

“A blockchain registry would, first of all, provide a high degree of transparency,” Gilys told AeroTime.

Transparency brought by a secure ledger would increase the efficiency of transactions for all the parties involved, Justinas Gilys of AviaAM Leasing believes.

“A secure blockchain solution would help to effectively secure the interests of both aircraft owners and financiers.”

Unlike traditional databases, blockchain-based registries are consistent, immutable and secure from outside tampering.”³

Sounds pretty promising, but to be sure, there are detractors. For example:

“ ‘The thing is that this technology is way over-hyped and filled with over-positive expectations,“ Beliunas told AeroTime. As I’ve been arguing this for quite a while, many leaders and executives see it as a magic word and a solution to all of their pain points. And this is most definitely not the case. What they should be doing is their research trying to identify their specific use cases and tailored solutions instead of jumping straight on the bandwagon. But lessons will be learned, one way or another.’ “³

There are also existing avenues within the industry attempting to address the aforementioned records problems. Among these:

• Placing RFID chips on assets. The chips would be the repository of the records.
• ATA Spec 2000 protocols for traceability and part marking.
• Still other independent firms have tried being the repository, safety deposit box of records.

I distinctly remember years ago in my avionics and flying ventures of a new system called MLS: Microwave Landing System. It was supposed to allow curved instrument approaches and multiple approaches among its many benefits. In fact the USAF for example went through considerable expense to install the required hardware on many aircraft while the FAA was installing the systems at a few airports. Then out of left field came GPS. MLS was forgotten, and today GPS-based instrument approaches are common place. GPS was disruptive before disruption was hip. Will blockchain be to RFID what GPS was to MLS?

GOING FORWARD

In an article Titled “Microsoft Azure Supporting Blockchain Test by AFI KLM E&M, Ramco,”⁴ it appears that

“Microsoft has developed a solid infrastructure on its Azure Cloud platform for a variety of implementations of Blockchain and is now working with AFI KLM E&M and Ramco Systems on a test of Blockchain for providing back-to-birth records of aviation parts.”

The bold italics are mine, and wow, fasten your seatbelts.

I hope that global Civil Aviation Authorities are paying attention. Regulations and guidance regarding electronic recording keeping may have to be updated to accommodate this new platform.

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

AimSolutionsConsulting.com

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain

² http://www.aviationpros.com/article/12363451/using-blockchain-to-reinforce-aviation-asset-management

³ https://aerotime.aero/en/civil/20680-3-ways-blockchain-technology-is-disrupting-aviation

⁴ www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/microsoft-azure-supporting-blockchain-test-afi-klm-em-ramco