World AirNews June 2018

MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
AIRCRAFT
MAINTENANCE TAKES
CENTRE STAGE
By Mark Martin
C
OMMERCIAL AVIATION maintenance
models have changed
drastically over the last 20 years. New
industry standards, shorter asset lifespans
and a new generation of technologically
advanced aircraft have constantly kept
operators and maintenance providers on
their toes.
James Elliott, Director, MRO Product Line
at the Aviation and Defence Business Unit
for IFS, explains how airlines and MROs
need granular insight into every part of
every asset as new maintenance and planning
models enter the commercial aviation
industry.
Just 20 years ago, aircraft maintenance
was a rigid A, B, C, D check process based
on a batch of maintenance tasks executed
at specific times in an aircraft’s lifecycle.
When an aircraft came in for a D check,
there could be over 1 000 maintenance
items, meaning a ‘plane could be out of
service for six weeks.
Fortunately, the industry then migrated
to a more flexible model, MSG-3 - packaging
up individual maintenance items in
any way an airline wanted. For example,
if there was an opportunity to carry out D
check maintenance during a C check, this
could now be done.
Fleet usage was optimized and balanced
because maintenance could be managed
more fluidly – no tasks were missed and
there was no unnecessary duplication.
‘PHASED’ MAINTENANCE APPROACH
New generation aircraft – such as the
Boeing 787 or the Airbus A350 – have
been designed with MSG3 in mind. These
aircraft are now maintained with ‘phased’
maintenance programmes with the aim
of achieving the shortest possible maintenance
turnarounds.
When launching the A350, Airbus aimed
for the ‘plane to be maintained under its
“usage parameter” concept – based on
flight hours, flight cost and other parameters
rather than traditional checks – “to
ensure optimized utilization of available
resources.”
The base check interval of the A350
has extended to 36 months, meaning the
average number of base checks over 12
years has halved to just four compared to
previous generations of aircraft.
But with fleets expanding and more
routes being flown than ever before, this
presents a challenge for operators as they
are now looking at maintenance windows
on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis.
For any fleet over 100 aircraft, managing
a maintenance plan and schedule for all
aircraft becomes a complicated issue.
SHORTER VISITS, MORE CONVENIENT
TIMES
Resource constraints, such as hangar
availability and number of available
technicians, also influence the ability to
carry out maintenance.
Airlines must also manage known requirements
such as seasonal fluctuations – fleet
utilization and air passenger traffic is much
higher during holidays such as Christmas.
The question then becomes how do operators
move hundreds of aircraft through
MRO hangars during these busy spells?
Maintenance planning tools must look to
align flights, optimizing fleets for usage and
yields, then individual aircraft going in to
hangars for as little time as possible.
CHANGE AND OPPORTUNITY
Alongside this, MRO is currently in a boom
period – older fleets are yet to retire, while
new aircraft are being delivered at a rapid
rate. Oliver Wyman estimates a steady
3,8% CAGR MRO market growth, with 58%
of fleets being new-generation aircraft by
2027.
However, legacy aircraft are not as old as
they used to be. The lifespan of a narrow-bodied
jet used to be 25 years, now it
is closer to 14 years.
At MROs and airlines, technicians who
are undergoing training to deliver staged
maintenance services are the younger
generation – “millennials” for whom using
technology in the workplace is a necessity,
not an option.
Maintenance is no longer about simply
“turning wrenches” - some of those
technicians who have been around longer
are not as interested or as fast at learning
new software techniques as the younger
generation.
Some MROs are responding with new
services such as mobile technology and
applications – HAECO now have a mobile
team that can work anywhere without a
hangar.
MIRRORING DEFENCE MARKET
Historically, maintenance plans and
schedules were certificate-based and
ultimately the responsibility of an airline to
report their practices to the FAA or IATA.
This schedule was then translated into the
task cards to use for the tools, licenses and
parts required for maintenance.
The “wrench turning” required in the
airline’s plan could be outsourced to an
MRO, which would take the task cards and
execute according to the airline’s parameters.
Now, OEMs and MROs are transitioning
towards new business models to take the
whole maintenance aspect away from
the airline. In a highly competitive arena,
airlines want to concentrate on flying passengers,
selling tickets, managing fuel costs
and beating competition from international
and low-cost airlines.
Commercial aviation is following the
defence model of in-service support ¬ --
contracting out maintenance to OEMs or
third-party providers. Outsourcing of line
maintenance was one of the top three 2017
MRO trends outlined by Technavio, while
Boeing and Airbus have set up their own
MRO divisions where they are looking to
generate $50-billion in annual revenue.
But OEM contracts are taking a while to
be introduced as airlines are reluctant to be
locked into an expensive in-service support
contract. Independent MROs are realizing
they occupy a competitive position to
provide fleet planning and the “wrench
turning” associated with meeting that new
model.
NEW APPROACH REQUIRED
Regardless of the chosen model, the end
goal is to reduce aircraft maintenance
windows – the number one competitive
differentiator between maintenance
providers. From a planning perspective,
what used to be called “out of phase maintenance”
in the days of ABCD is now the
industry standard -- whole maintenance
programmes are planned with individual
tasks in mind.
This requires MRO software which
recognizes and packages individual tasks
where they fit best according to scheduling
parameters – flight hours, flight cycles etc.
Software with a component-based view
offers significant advantages by getting
part numbers and granular detail into each
maintenance programme. That information
should then be packaged into the required
maintenance format – task by task, component
by component.
This means as maintenance models and
standards continue to shift, the software
can easily adapt to keep track of all components.
ADAPT TO SURVIVE
As commercial aviation MRO continues
to move forward, those who adapt fast
will remain competitive in a consolidating
market.
But these opportunities cannot be realized
without component-centric support,
providing the granularity required to react
and take advantage of new maintenance
models. Q
World Airnews | June 2018
— 16 —
World Airnews | June 2018
— 17 —