Maintenance Planning Optimization - Research Publication

Maintenance Planning Optimisation for the Boeing 737 Next Generation
Masters Thesis By ir. Anthony K. Muchiri
Supervisors: Prof. ir Klaas Smit ing. Willem van Steenis
Delft/ Schiphol East, 30 May 2002
Colophon
Colophon
Final Report Title: Maintenance Planning Optimisation for the Boeing 737 Next Generation Anthony K. Muchiri Thursday, 30 May 2002
Author: Date: Board Of Examiners:
Prof. Ir. K. Smit Ir. B. Agusdinata ing. W. van Steenis Ir. R. Hol
- TU Delft (Coach) - TU Delft - Transavia Airlines (Supervisor) - Transavia Airlines
Delft University of Technology Faculty of Aerospace Engineering Department of Industrial Engineering and Technical Management P.O. Box 5058, 2600 GB Delft The Netherlands
Transavia Airlines Technical Department Maintenance Planning & Support P.O. Box 7777, 1118 ZM Schiphol Airport The Netherlands
Preface
Preface
This thesis represents the results of my graduation assignment, a research project carried out to conclude the Master Phase of the Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, of the Delft University of Technology. The assignment was assigned and carried out at the Maintenance Planning and Support (MP& S) department of Transavia Airlines Technical Department, and it entails the optimisation of maintenance planning for the 737 Next Generation fleet of the airline. The report has been subdivided into five chapters, and it can be read as follows: - For readers interested in the development of a new maintenance planning strategy, Chapters 3 and 4.4 are recommended - For readers interested in the analysis of the current situation and the proposed situation, it is recommended that they read Chapter 4.4 - For readers interested in the conclusions and recommendations, they should look at Chapter 5 - For readers interested in the development of the whole research, all chapters and Appendix documents are recommended. A summary highlighting all major items from the report has also been included In all cases, some knowledge on aircraft maintenance is needed. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my professor, Prof. Ir. K. Smit of the TU Delft, and my supervisor, Mr. W. van Steenis, Maintenance Manager Transavia Airlines, for their coaching and encouragement. My thanks also go to all staffers of the MP&S department for their assistance and for the good time they gave me at the department, the head of Engineering, Mr. R. Hol, all maintenance engineers - and especially the maintenance programme engineers, and all members of the technical department for their corporation.
Anthony Muchiri Delft, May 2002
iii
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
With the increasing need to reduce maintenance costs and increase aircraft availability, the need to simplify the way maintenance is planned and executed has become a major issue in the aircraft industry. Aircraft manufacturers continue to develop aircraft with a low maintenance demand, while airlines strive to keep their maintenance costs as low as possible. The Boeing 737 Next Generation (737 NG) is an example of such an aircraft, developed to demand less maintenance, as compared to previous versions of the Boeing 737 series. This 737 NG aircraft has a Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document that is based on the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG)-3 philosophy. This is a task-based maintenance philosophy that looks at maintenance more at a task-level, as compared to previous philosophies, which were more focused on maintenance processes. Transavia airlines currently possesses 13 737 NG aircraft, but has a maintenance program that strongly borrows from other aircraft models in its fleet (namely the B 757-200 and the B 737-300). This assignment is aimed at developing a cost-effective maintenance planning and packaging method that will lead to the reduction in direct maintenance costs, yet maintaining the reliability of the 737 NG fleet. Maintenance Planning and Scheduling Background Maintenance at Transavia is broadly categorised into Line Maintenance (maintenance performed within Transavia), and Base Maintenance (Maintenance work contracted out). Line maintenance is performed at short intervals (given in weeks). Currently, line maintenance is performed at a frequency of 5 weeks. Every line maintenance visit is planned in a so-called hangar slot. A single hangar slot is 7.75 hours long and it can produce 55 maintenance man-hours, while 2 slots produce 100 man-hours. Three slots lead to 300 man-hours. Each aircraft receives 14 maintenance slots a year for routine line maintenance. These slots have a repeating distribution rhythm of 1-12-1-1-3-1-1-2-, and are also planned in this rhythm. However, the realisation of the planning for these slots deviates from the pattern above. A reason for this may be attributed to the dependence of maintenance on the utilisation of the aircraft, unpredictable events, large work packages that are not executable within the stipulated time, and aircraft operations. Base maintenance is performed every 1-years (18 months). Transavia has an operational pattern that is strongly seasonal (high between April October, and low between November - March). Base maintenance is preferably planned in the low season, because it requires aircraft to be withdrawn from operations for multiple days. However, a frequency of 18 months will always lead to maintenance due dates that fall in the high season. This problem is solved by performing the maintenance in advance (at 16 or 17 months), an undesired situation. Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development Clustering is the process of grouping maintenance tasks together into packages that can be planned in for execution. Clustering can be done by following two
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG approaches, namely the Top-Down approach (answering the questions When maintenance and What maintenance), and the Bottom-Up approach (answering the questions What maintenance and When maintenance). The Bottom-Up approach begins by evaluation what maintenance has to be done. By considering that the MPD document is a task-based maintenance document, a look is taken into the properties of each maintenance task. Thereafter, all tasks requiring the same fixed conditions/procedure/cost, and the same maintenance interval limit, are grouped together to form Maintenance Task Packages. This applies to all maintenance tasks intended for line maintenance (at Transavia). All other tasks are grouped together based on their maintenance interval, and become Base Maintenance Checks. This process is illustrated in Figure 0. 1 below.
OMP Maintenance Tasks
Line? Base?
Line Maintenance Tasks Transavia L/B Classification Criteria Set-up properties Maintenance Intervals (CT/FH/FC) Maintenance Task Packages Maintenance Checks Base Maintenance Tasks
Figure 0. 1 Creation of Line Maintenance Task Packages and Base Maintenance Checks
The Transavia Line/Base classification criteria classifies all tasks, for which Transavia is equipped to perform, has the certified personnel and materials needed, as line maintenance tasks. All other tasks are base maintenance tasks. The next step in the Bottom-Up approach is to determine when the Maintenance Items (Maintenance Task Packages or Maintenance Checks) are due for performance. This follows from combining the aircraft utilisation (flight hours and flight cycles) and calendar with the maintenance interval limits of the various Maintenance Items. The Top-Down approach begins by analysing the aircraft utilisation requirement at an annual, weekly and daily level. The annual level reveals a seasonal pattern while the weekly and the daily levels do not reveal specific patterns. Slot allocation follows these patterns; fixed slots are allocated at an annual level (for line and base maintenance). Ad-hoc slots can be located at a weekly and daily level (for base maintenance). Cluster Formation and Evaluation Through the implementation of the Bottom-Up and the Top-Down approach, Maintenance Task Packages and Maintenance Checks can be grouped together into maintenance clusters. Such clusters can either be static (base maintenance clusters) or dynamic (line maintenance clusters) vi
Executive Summary The clustering process is done using a computer model, developed in Visual Basic and MS Excel. The model combines maintenance item intervals with simulated aircraft utilisation scenarios (high, average and low utilisation) and maintenance scenarios (such as low maintenance frequencies). From these, the Maintenance Demand (in number of visits and maintenance man-hours) is calculated. Further, the model also calculates losses following from maintenance performed before the interval limits are reached. Line Maintenance clusters are evaluated for frequencies ranging between 4-6 weeks, for a period of 6 years (starting from 2001, where an assumption of aircraft introduction is made). Frequencies above 6-weeks would lead to the escalation of maintenance interval limits. It is observed that line maintenance is strongly utilisation dependent (in terms of flight hours and flight cycles). The results of the evaluation are tabulated in Table 0. 1 below. It follows that the maintenance demand decreases with a decreasing maintenance frequency, as does the de-escalation.
Table 0. 1 Maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft by a varying maintenance frequency
Line Maintenance Man-hour demand 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 4-weeks 440 734 821 762 634 845 4235.2 5-weeks 409 684 705 664 687 696 3845.9 6-weeks 362 626 606 584 677 573 3428.5 De-escalation (in man-hours) 4-weeks 27 51 60 55 52 52 296.0 5-weeks 11 37 31 29 31 42 182.0 6-weeks 17 48 33 28 26 30 181.3
Base maintenance clusters are evaluated for an 18-month and a 24-month interval, starting from April 2001, where an assumption of aircraft introduction is made. Larger intervals would result in the escalation of maintenance interval limits. The results of the evaluation are tabulated below.
Table 0. 2 Base Maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft: 10 yr period
Base Maintenance at an 18-Month Interval Base BMV BMV BMV BMV BMV Mx Visit Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs) 1 [Sep-02] 211 17 2 [Mar-04] 236 20 3 [Sep-05] 303 25 4 [Mar-07] 244 21 5 [Sep-08] 303 18 557 1854 49 150 Total Base Mhrs 1288 341 Base Maintenance at a 24-Month Interval Base Mx Visit Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs) BMV 1 [Mar-03] 107 22 BMV 2 [Mar-05] 199 53 BMV 3 [Mar-07] 119 26 BMV 4 [Mar-09] 515 142 BMV 5 [Mar-11] 348 98
BMV 6 [Mar-10] Total Base Mhrs
It follows from Table 0. 2 that base man-hour demand decreases significantly when the maintenance interval is raised to 24 months. The de-escalation does, however, increase. Further analysis reveals that by performing the first base maintenance visit a month before it is due (initial de-escalation), more gains can be made in reducing the base maintenance man-hour demand. The lowest man-hour demand follows from a 30day initial de-escalation. This is shown on Table 0. 3 below.
vii
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG
Table 0. 3Base maintenance man-hour demand per aircraft: Before/After initial deescalation
First Base Maintenance at 24-Months Base Mx Visit BMV BMV BMV BMV BMV 1 2 3 4 5 [Mar-03] [Mar-05] [Mar-07] [Mar-09] [Mar-11] Base Man-hours 107 199 119 515 348 1288 De-escalation (Mhrs) 22 53 26 142 98 341 First Base Maintenance at 23-Months Base Mx Visit BMV BMV BMV BMV BMV 1 2 3 4 5 [Feb-03] [Feb-05] [Feb-07] [Feb-09] [Feb-11] Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs)
Total Base Mhrs
Total Base Mhrs
100 199 119 279 336 1033
13 29 15 28 10 95
Conclusions and Recommendations Optimising the clustering of line maintenance is achieved by utilising Maintenance Task Packages (as developed in this report), and by minimising the number of times the aircraft visits the hangar. This mainly reduces repetitive maintenance. By performing line maintenance at a 6-week interval, the total de-escalation of manhours is brought down from as high as 29%, to as low as 10% of the exact maintenance demand. This translates to an average annual reduction of about 12,691 per aircraft, in terms of cost reduction. Base maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months. However, this optimum is achieved through the application of an initial deescalation, which schedules the performance of the first base visit at a date, not later than 23 Months after the introduction of the aircraft into the fleet. A 30-day initial deescalation leads to the least total de-escalation on the maintenance man-hours (7%), and consequently to the most optimum clusters for Base maintenance. The 7% translates to 95 man-hours, as compared to 341 man-hours (23%) before the initial de-escalation a reduction of losses by 248 man-hours. This, in turn, translates to an average saving of 12,181 per aircraft, over a period of ten years. In order to maximise the maintenance advantages that come along with the B737 NG, the following is recommended: The application of Maintenance Task Packages for line maintenance, in place of the current Line Maintenance Checks An annual review of the planning versus realisation. This should serve as a gauge for the planning accuracy, and establish trends that should follow from the application of Maintenance Task Packages The standardisation of Base Maintenance through the utilisation of base maintenance phases The use of initial de-escalation at the first base maintenance visit. This should serve as a tool to reduce the total maintenance man-hours contracted out, and the total maintenance interval de-escalation resulting from maintenance clustering.
viii
Samenvatting
Samenvatting
Door de toenemende behoefte om onderhoudskosten te verlagen, en de beschikbaarheid van vliegtuigen te verhogen, is er een behoefte om het plannen en uitvoeren van onderhoud te vergemakkelijken. Vliegtuigfabrikanten blijven vliegtuigen ontwikkelen met weinig behoefte aan onderhoud. Tegelijkertijd streven vliegtuigmaatschappijen er naar om de onderhoudskosten zo laag mogelijk te houden. De Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG) is een voorbeeld van zo'n vliegtuig, ontwikkeld met een lage onderhoudsbehoefte, in vergelijking met voorgaande versies van Boeing 737 Series. Dit 737NG-vliegtuig heeft een Onderhouds Plannig document (MPD) dat gebaseerd is op het MSG-3 onderhoudsconcept. Dit is een taakgericht onderhoudsconcept, dat het onderhoud bekijkt van een taakniveau, vergeleken met voorgaande concepten, waar gekeken wordt naar onderhoudsprocessen. Transavia Airlines heeft momenteel 13 vliegtuigen van het type 737NG, met een onderhoudsprogramma dat sterk ontleend is aan andere vliegtuig modellen in haar vloot (de B757-200 en de B737-300). Deze opdracht is gericht op het ontwikkelen van een kosten-effectieve onderhoudsplanning en pakketerrings methode, dat zal leiden tot het verminderen van directe onderhoudskosten, en toch de betrouwbaarheid van de 737NG vloot behouden. Onderhoudsplanning en inplanningsachtergrond Vliegtuigonderhoud binnen Transavia is verdeeld in lijn/hangar-onderhoud (onderhoud uitgevoerd door Transavia zelf), en groot-onderhoud (onderhoud uitbesteed aan derden). Lijn-onderhoud wordt uitgevoerd binnen korte intervallen (beschreven in weken). Momenteel is dit met een regelmaat van 5-weken. Elk hangarbezoek wordt gepland in een zgn. "Hangar-slot". Een enkel slot duurt 7 uur, en zorgt voor 55 man-uren. Twee slots leveren 100 man-uren op, terwij drie slots voor 300 man-uren zorgen. Elk vliegtuig krijgt 14 hangar-slots toegewezen per jaar voor routine onderhoud. Deze slots hebben een herhaaldelijk ritme van 1-1-2-1-1-3-1-1-2-, en worden met hetzelfde ritme ingepland. In werkelijkheid, wijkt de realisatie van deze van de planning af van het ritme hierboven. Oorzaken hiervan zijn: afhankelijkheid van het onderhoud op vliegtuig utilisatie en operaties, onvoorziene gebeurtenissen, en werk-pakketten die niet uitvoerbaar zijn binnen de aangegeven tijd. Groot-onderhoud wordt uitgevoerd om de 18 maanden. Transavia heeft een operationeel patroon dat sterk seizoen-gebonden is (met een hoog-seizoen van april tot oktober, en een laag-seizoen van november tot maart). Groot onderhoud wordt bij voorkeur gepland in het laag seizoen, want het vereist het weghalen van een vliegtuig van de operatie. Een gevolg van een regelmaat van 18 maanden is dat groot-onderhoud soms uitgevoerd moet worden in het hoog seizoen. Dit probleem wordt opgelost door het onderhoud naar voren te schuiven (met een maand of twee), een ongewenste situatie.
ix
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Definite en ontwikkeling van Onderhoudsclusters Clusteren is het proces om onderhoudstaken te groeperen in paketten die gepland kunnen worden voor uitvoering. Clusteren kan gedaan worden met behulp van twee benaderingen, namelijk de "TopDown"-benadering (geeft een antwoord op de vragen: wanneer en welk onderhoud) en de "Bottom-Up" benadering (geeft antwoord op de vragen: welk onderhoud en wanneer). De "Bottom-Up"-benadering begint bij het evalueren wat voor onderhoud gedaan moet worden. Aangezien het MPD een taakgericht onderhoud beschrift, wordt er eerst gekeken naar de eigenschappen van elke taak. Alle taken met dezelfde vaste condities/procedures/kosten, en dezelfde onderhoudslimiten, worden gegroepeerd in zogenaamde Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten (Maintenance Task Packages). Dit geldt alleen voor taken die bestemd zijn voor lijn onderhoud (bij Transavia). Alle andere taken worden gegroepeerd op hun onderhoudslimieten, en worden Onderhoudsinspecties (Maintenance Checks) genoemd. Zie figuur 0.1 hieronder
Line? Base?
Figuur 0.1 Ontwikkelen van Onderhoudstaken-Paketten en Onderhoudsinspecties
De Transavia L/B classificatie-criteria wordt gebruikt voor de identificatie van taken waarvoor Transavia gecertificeerd is om uit te voeren (Lijn-onderhoudstaken). Alle andere taken zijn groot-onderhoudstaken. De volgende stap in de "Bottom-Up"-benadering is om te bepalen wanneer de Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten en de onderhoudsinspecties uitgevoerd moeten worden. Dit gebeurt door de vliegtuig-utilisatie te combineren met de onderhoudslimieten van taken-pakketten die voortvloeien uit Figuur 0.1. De "Top-Down" benadering begint met het analyseren van utilisatiebenodigdheden van het vliegtuig op jaarbasis, wekelijkse basis en een dagelijkse basis. Utilisatie op jaarbasis vertoont een seizoenspatroon, terwijl de wekelijkse en de dagelijkse basis geen specifieke patronen vertonen. De verdeling van slots gebeurt dus op jaarlijkse basis, voor zowel lijn- en groot onderhoud. Ad-hoc slots kunnen gelokaliseerd worden op wekelijkse en dagelijkse basis.
Samenvatting De samenstelling en evaluatie van onderhoudsclusters Door de implementatie van "Bottom-up" en "Top-Down"-benaderingen, Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten en Onderhoudinspectie kunnen worden gegroepeerd in onderhoudsclusters. Zulke clusters kunnen of statisch of dynamisch zijn. Het clusteren gebeurt door middel van een computermodel, ontwikkeld in Visual Basic en MS Excel. Het model combineert onderhoudslimieten met gesimuleerde vliegtuigutilisatiescenarios (hoog-, gemiddeld- en laagutilisatie), en onderhoudsscenarios (zoals lage onderhoudfrequenties) . Hieruit wordt de onderhoudsbehoefte berekend (d.w.z. aantal hangar-/groot-onderhoudsbezoeken en benodigde man-uren). Verder berekent het model het verlies als gevolg van onderhoud uitgevoerd voordat de onderhoudslimieten zijn bereikt (de-escalatie). Lijn-onderhoudsclusters worden gevalueerd voor frequenties van 4 tot 6 weken, voor een periode van 6 jaar. Frequenties van hoger dan 6 weken leiden tot escalaties van onderhoudslimieten, en worden dus niet berekend. Het is te merken dat lijnonderhoud sterk afhankelijk is van vliegtuig-utilisatie.De resultaten van deze evaluatie zijn weergegeven op Tabel 0.1.
Tabel 0.1. Variatie van de onderhoudsman-uren behoefte per vliegtuig
Line Maintenance Man-hour demand 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 4-weeks 440 734 821 762 634 845 4235.2 5-weeks 409 684 705 664 687 696 3845.9 6-weeks 362 626 606 584 677 573 3428.5 De-escalation (in man-hours) 4-weeks 27 51 60 55 52 52 296.0 5-weeks 11 37 31 29 31 42 182.0 6-weeks 17 48 33 28 26 30 181.3
De tabel hierboven laat zien dat de onderhoudsbehoefte vermindert met een lagere frequentie, zo ook de de-escalatie van onderhoudslimieten. Groot-onderhoudsclusters zijn gevalueerd voor een herhalingsfrequentie van 18 maanden en 24 maanden. Grotere intervals zou resulteren in de escalatie van onderhoudslimieten. Zie Tabel 0.2 hieronder voor evaluatie-resultaten.
Tabel 0.2: Onderhoudsman-uren behoefte per vliegtuig over een periode van 10 jaar
Base Maintenance at an 18-Month Interval Base BMV BMV BMV BMV Mx Visit Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs) 1 [Sep-02] 211 17 2 [Mar-04] 236 20 3 [Sep-05] 303 25 4 [Mar-07] 244 21 303 557 1854 18 49 150 Base Maintenance at a 24-Month Interval Base Mx Visit Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs) BMV 1 [Mar-03] 107 22 BMV 2 [Mar-05] 199 53 BMV 3 [Mar-07] 119 26 BMV 4 [Mar-09] 515 142 BMV 5 [Mar-11] Total Base Mhrs 348 1288 98 341
BMV 5 [Sep-08] BMV 6 [Mar-10] Total Base Mhrs
xi
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Tabel 0.2 toont aan dat de man-uren behoefte voor groot-onderhoud vermindert, wanneer het onderhoudsinterval verhoogt wordt naar 24 maanden. Tegelijkertijd neemt de de-escalatie toe. Verdere analyse wijst uit dat als de eerste grootonderhoudsbeurt uiterst een maand eerder wordt uitgevoerd (initile de-escalatie), meer winst behaald kan worden in het reduceren van de man-uren behoefte voor groot-onderhoud. De laagste behoefte aan man-uren volgt uit een initile de-escalatie van 30 dagen. Zie ook Tabel 0.3 hieronder.
Tabel 0.3 Manuren behoefte per vliegtug: vr en na initile de-escalatie.
First Base Maintenance at 24-Months Base Mx Visit BMV BMV BMV BMV BMV 1 2 3 4 5 [Mar-03] [Mar-05] [Mar-07] [Mar-09] [Mar-11] Base Man-hours 107 199 119 515 348 1288 De-escalation (Mhrs) 22 53 26 142 98 341 First Base Maintenance at 23-Months Base Mx Visit BMV BMV BMV BMV BMV 1 2 3 4 5 [Feb-03] [Feb-05] [Feb-07] [Feb-09] [Feb-11] Base Man-hours De-escalation (Mhrs)
Total Base Mhrs
Total Base Mhrs
100 199 119 279 336 1033
13 29 15 28 10 95
Conclusies en aanbevelingen Geoptimaliseerde clusters voor lijn-onderhoud kunnen worden bereikt door het gebruik van Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten (zoals ontwikkeld in dit rapport), en door het minimaliseren van het aantal hangarbezoeken. Dit leidt hoofdzakelijk tot vermindering van herhaald onderhoud. Door lijn-onderhoud uit te voeren op een 6weken interval wordt de de-escalatie verlaagt van 29% naar 10% van de berekende man-uren behoefte. In termen van kostenreductie is deze procentage gelijk aan een gemiddelde vermindering van ?12.691 per vliegtuig per jaar. Groot-onderhoud kan worden uitgevoerd op een interval van 24 maanden. Optimale clusters worden bereikt na een toepassing van initile de-escalatie, waardoor de eerste groot-onderhoudsbeurt niet later dan 23 maanden na de introductie van het vliegtuig in de vllot plaatsvindt. Een 30-dagen initile de-escalatie leidt tot de minste totale de-escalatie van ongeveer 7%, en vervolgens leidt tot de meeste optimale clusters voor groot-onderhoud. De 7% staat voor 95 man-uren, vergeleken met 23% (341 manuren) vr een initile de-escalatie. Dit leidt tot een gemiddeld besparing van ?12.181 per vliegtuig per jaar. Om de onderhoudsvoordelen van de 737NG te maximaliseren, wordt het volgende aanbevolen: - Het toepassen van Onderhoudstaken-Pakketten voor lijn-onderhoud, in plaats van lijn onderhoudsinspecties - Een jaarlijkse terugblik op de realisatie van de planning - Een standaardisatie van groot-onderhoud, door het gebruik van grootonderhoudsfasen. - Het toepassen van een initile de-escalatie bij het eerste groot-onderhoudsbezoek.
xii
Acronyms
Acronyms
737 NG AD AM APU ATA AV AWL BM CMR Cons. CPCP CPV CYC DDS FAA FAR FC FH HMx HRS HV JAA JAR LM MEL METALS MI ML MP MP&S MPD MRB MRI MSG MSI Mx NLA OMP Opt. RI SB SL SPL SSI Boeing 737 Next Generation Airworthiness Directive Aircraft Modification Auxiliary Power Unit Air Transport Association Annual Visit Air Worthiness Limitations Base Maintenance Certification Maintenance Requirements Conservative Corrosion Prevention Control Program Commercile Planning en Verkoop Cycles Dispatch Deviation Sheet Federal Aviation Authority Federal Aviation Requirement Flight Cycles Flight Hours Heavy Maintenance Hours Transavia airlines Joint Aviation Authority Joint Airworthiness Requirements Line Maintenance Minimum Equipment List Maintenance Engineering Transavia Airline Logistics System Maintenance Instruction Most Likely Maintenance Program Maintenance Planning and Support Maintenance Planning Data Maintenance Review Board Maintenance Requirement Items Maintenance Steering Group Maintenance Significant Items Maintenance Nederlandse Luchtvaart Autoriteit Transavias Operators Maintenance Program Optimistic Repair Instruction Service Bulletin Service Letter Schiphol Structural Significant Items
xiii
Definition of Terms
Definition of terms
Airworthiness: Conformation to the regulations under which an aeronautical product is certified Groups of maintenance tasks packaged together for repetition at specific intervals A collection of Maintenance items, grouped together under specific circumstances Loss of man-hours resulting from the execution of a maintenance task before the maintenance limit is reached Groups of maintenance tasks arranged into many small packages, all having approximately the same ground time Reliability with which the aircraft is designed A group of maintenance tasks that share the same maintenance interval, as defined in the OMP The total amount of man-hours required to perform all maintenance work due on an aircraft A collection of Maintenance Task Packages and Maintenance Checks A specified amount within which an aircraft is withdrawn from operations for the purpose of maintenance Unit task as defined in the MPD
Block Checks:
Cluster: De-escalation:
Equalised Checks:
Inherent Reliability: Maintenance Check:
Maintenance Demand:
Maintenance Items: Maintenance Slot:
Maintenance Task:
Maintenance Task Package: A group of maintenance tasks that share the same setup activities, and have a common maintenance interval Maintenance Visit: The presence of an aircraft in a maintenance facility for the purpose of maintenance A specified period of time in which the aircraft is not utilised, considered sufficient enough for the execution of maintenance
Maintenance Window:
Maintenance Work Package: A collection of maintenance tasks specifically prepared for execution on the work floor Total De-escalation: Summation of all de-escalations for a given situation Transavia Check: Equivalent to Maintenance Check
xv
Outline
Outline
Colophon .................................................................................................................................. i Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... v Samenvatting.......................................................................................................................... ix Acronyms.............................................................................................................................. xiii Definition of terms................................................................................................................ xv Outline.................................................................................................................................. xvii 1 Assignment Analysis ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Background.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem formulation .............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Research environment ........................................................................................... 6 1.5 Approach Strategy .................................................................................................. 6 1.5.1 Assignment analysis....................................................................................... 7 1.5.2 Background research ...................................................................................... 7 1.5.3 Maintenance program analysis: 737NG ...................................................... 8 1.5.4 Maintenance planning definition and development ................................. 9 1.5.5 Report phase .................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Requirements, constraints and assumptions ...................................................... 9 1.6.1 Requirements .................................................................................................. 9 1.6.2 Constraints ....................................................................................................... 9 1.6.3 Assumptions...................................................................................................10 2 Maintenance Planning and Scheduling ......................................................................11 2.1 Maintenance Program (MP) Development ........................................................11 2.1.1 MRIs based MPD items:................................................................................12 2.1.2 MRIs based on non-MPD items ...................................................................12 2.1.3 Maintenance Checks......................................................................................13 2.1.4 Maintenance Task Cards and task card control ........................................14 2.1.5 The B737-300 MP vs. the B737 NG MP .......................................................15 2.2 Maintenance Planning and scheduling ..............................................................17 2.2.1 Long term planning .......................................................................................18 2.2.2 Medium term planning .................................................................................18 2.2.3 Short term planning ......................................................................................18 2.3 Line Maintenance ..................................................................................................19 2.3.1 Scheduling of hangar visits ..........................................................................19 2.4 Base Maintenance ..................................................................................................22 2.4.1 Scheduling of Base Maintenance .................................................................22 2.5 The Planning department vs. the Sales department .........................................25 2.5.1 Commercial Planning....................................................................................25 2.6 Maintenance planning and the cost of ownership ............................................26 2.7 Conclusions: ...........................................................................................................27 3 Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development ................................................29 3.1 Approach ................................................................................................................29 3.2 Bottom-Up approach .............................................................................................30 3.2.1 Maintenance Checks......................................................................................30 3.2.2 Maintenance Task Packages .........................................................................30 xvii
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG 3.2.3 Aircraft utilisation: Determining due dates and due items .....................32 3.2.4 Maintenance Scheduling ..............................................................................35 3.3 Top-down approach ..............................................................................................38 3.3.1 Aircraft utilisation requirement...................................................................38 3.3.2 Maintenance scheduling ...............................................................................41 3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................43 4 Cluster formation and evaluation ...............................................................................45 4.1 Approach ................................................................................................................45 4.2 Maintenance Item Clustering ...............................................................................46 4.2.1 Clustering method selection ........................................................................46 4.2.2 Calculation and simulation software ..........................................................47 4.3 Simulation process description ............................................................................48 4.3.1 Simulation Components: ..............................................................................48 4.3.2 Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM): Model design .................51 4.3.3 Clustering: Line Maintenance Transavia Hangar ..................................53 4.3.4 Clustering: Base Maintenance MRO Station ...........................................53 4.3.5 Maintenance item Interval de-escalation ...................................................54 4.3.6 Model Validation and verification ..............................................................55 4.4 MIAM Results ........................................................................................................56 4.4.1 Base Maintenance ..........................................................................................56 4.4.2 Base Maintenance Optimisation ..................................................................62 4.4.3 Line Maintenance ..........................................................................................67 4.4.4 Line Maintenance Optimisation ..................................................................75 4.5 Summary .................................................................................................................80 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................81 5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................81 5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................83 References ...............................................................................................................................85 A. Assignment .................................................................................................................87 B. Transavia Airlines......................................................................................................89 B.1. History.....................................................................................................................89 B.2. The fleet ...................................................................................................................89 B.3. Maintenance Facilities ...........................................................................................90 B.4. Organisation ...........................................................................................................90 B.5. Operational area ....................................................................................................93 C. The MSG-3 Philosophy .............................................................................................97 C.1. MSG Development: ...............................................................................................97 C.1.1. MSG-2 (Process oriented) .....................................................................97 C.1.2. RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance) ............................................98 C.1.3. MSG-3 (Task oriented maintenance)...................................................98 C.2. Maintenance program objectives (MSG-3) .........................................................98 C.3. MSG-3 Logic flow analysis ...................................................................................99 D. Maintenance Program Packaging Methods .........................................................101 D.1. Maintenance program packaging methods .....................................................101 D.2. Block Packaging ...................................................................................................101 D.3. Equalised/Phased or progressive packaging: .................................................102 E. Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition .............................................................105 E.1. Cause .....................................................................................................................105 E.2. Aim ........................................................................................................................105 E.3. Approach ..............................................................................................................105 E.3.1. Engineering...........................................................................................106 xviii
Outline E.3.2. Purchases and Logistics ......................................................................107 E.3.3. Maintenance planning and support ..................................................107 E.3.4. Safety & Quality Assurance (S&QA) ................................................107 F. Transavia Airplane Reliability Program ...................................................................109 G. Maintenance Governing Regulations ...................................................................113 G.1. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ..................................................113 G.1.1. Reliability program requirements .....................................................114 G.1.2. Airworthiness Directives (ADs) ........................................................114 G.1.3. Airworthiness .......................................................................................115 G.2. The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) ..................................................................115 H. Line Maintenance Planning Norm ........................................................................117 I. List of Line and Base Maintenance Checks ..............................................................119 I.1. Line Maintenance Checks ...................................................................................119 I.2. Base Maintenance Checks ..................................................................................120 I.3. List of all Line Maintenance Tasks in Task Packages .....................................120 J. The Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM) .................................................131 J.1. Necessity ...............................................................................................................131 J.2. Hybrid Simulation ...............................................................................................131 J.2.1. Components of a Discrete-Event simulation model ...............................131 J.3. Library Routine: Utilisation Simulation ...........................................................131 J.3.1. Actual Aircraft Utilisation ..........................................................................131 J.3.2. Variable Aircraft Utilisation .......................................................................133 J.4. Visual Basic Code ................................................................................................135 J.4.1. Line Maintenance Codes ............................................................................135 J.4.2. Base Maintenance Codes ............................................................................140 J.5. Model Verification and Validation....................................................................142 Figure J. 3 Model Verification and Validation Process ..........................................142 J.5.1. Validation .....................................................................................................142 J.5.2. Verification ...................................................................................................144 K. MIAM Results - Tables ...........................................................................................153 K.1. Base Maintenance ................................................................................................153 K.2. Line Maintenance ................................................................................................157 L. Appendix L ...............................................................................................................161
xix
Introduction
1
1.1
Assignment Analysis
Problem Background
In order to sustain the inherent reliability1 of an aircraft, the aircraft manufacturer develops a document referred to as Maintenance Planning Data (MPD). This is a generic document as it contains all Maintenance Review Board (MRB) requirements, plus Boeing requirements that result from service experience. It also includes aircraft information such as zonal diagrams, ground rules, and recommended check intervals. The document provides maintenance planning information necessary for an operator to develop a customised scheduled maintenance program [Boeing CAS, 2000]. On top of tasks stipulated in the MPD, airlines also have additional tasks that follow from Airline specific task cards. These tasks are meant to satisfy the operators specific needs for aircraft utilisation. Such tasks may be scheduled in as routine maintenance. Other tasks follow from incidents and accidents (Repair Instructions), Deferred Defects (non-routine maintenance tasks), Maintenance Instructions and Aircraft Modifications (from Service letters, Service bulletins and Airworthiness Directives). These are tasks that are performed when opportunity arises, but may also have specified time limits. Following the stipulated maintenance tasks and intervals from the MPD, an operator develops a Maintenance Program (referred to as the Operators Maintenance Program OMP- by Transavia). The maintenance program has to be approved by the local Aviation Authority. This document reflects how an operator intends to schedule, package and perform maintenance (maintenance checks). The operator arrives at an OMP by reviewing the aircraft anticipated utilisation, fleet size, seasonal constraints, and maintenance capabilities, operational requirements, dispatch reliability, amongst other factors, and combining these with aircraft operational requirements. The band of possible task packages2 for a given aircraft can range from: 1. A program consisting of a large number of progressively performed small packages, resulting from Task-Based Maintenance (Equalised/Progressive check) 2. A program which bundles most scheduled tasks in relatively few large checks performed at higher intervals (Block check). Traditionally, the MPD documents recommended the use of Block checks (letter checks A, B, C, D), by pre-determining the packages for each letter check. However, with the advancements in aircraft maintenance analysis brought about by the task-oriented MSG-3 and its revisions (rev.1 en rev.2)3, the Boeing Company is tending to opt for non-packaging of maintenance tasks in the MPD, leaving this open for the operator. This has been the case with the Boeing 737 Next Generation (henceforth referred to as 737NG) MPD document. The main reason for this is that the operator gets more freedom to plan maintenance based on aircraft scheduling and utilisation, hence having more control over direct maintenance costs. By reviewing an operators anticipated utilisation, environmental considerations, fleet size, seasonal constraints, and other factors, it is possible to package an aircrafts maintenance program taking full advantage of the allowable utilisation parameters as specified in the MPD document.
See also Appendix F: Airplane Reliability Program See also Appendix D: Maintenance program packaging methods 3 See also Appendix C: The MSG-3 Philosophy
1 2
The planning and execution of maintenance tasks can be boldly classified into two categories: a. Line maintenance: This can generally be defined as maintenance activities with a preflight, daily, weekly, and periodic (A Check, B Check) frequency (JAR-145 Section 2, paragraph 3.2.2). It mainly consists of visual inspections, lubrication, and general servicing of aircraft and does not require the opening of panels and access doors for detailed inspections. Line maintenance is mainly characterised by short downtime periods of twenty-four hours or less and small maintenance packages, quantified in terms of man-hours. b. Heavy (Base) maintenance: This can generally be defined as maintenance activities falling under C Checks and D checks (JAR-145 Section 2 paragraph 3.2.3), requiring panel and access doors opening and disassembly for deeper inspection and eventually repair. Base maintenance is mainly characterised by long downtime periods and large maintenance packages, quantified in terms of man-hours
1.2
Problem formulation
Transavia airlines (henceforth referred to as Transavia) operates 13 737NG aircraft (see fleet composition in Appendix B: Transavia Airlines). As mentioned earlier, the MPD for this type of aircraft does not use letter checks to categorise maintenance intervals. It lists maintenance tasks in intervals based on Flight Hours (FH), Flight Cycles (FC), or Calendar Time (CT). Transavia has to sort out and package maintenance tasks for line maintenance as well as base maintenance. The initial approach to this sorting task was to borrow the maintenance patron from other aircraft models in the Transavia fleet, namely the B 737-300 (line Maintenance) and the B 757200 (base maintenance). This resulted in a 5-week interval hangar visit for scheduled line maintenance and an eighteen months interval for base maintenance. This eighteen months interval is not preferable, considering that the airline operations vary heavily on seasonal basis as illustrated in Figure 1.1 below.
Tr a ns a v ia 's A irc r a ft Se a s o na l Ut ilis a t io n (B737 NG) 450.0
High S ea son
400.0
Low S e ason
Flight hours per aircraft 350.0
Low S e ason
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0 Ja n F eb M ar A pr May Jun Jul A ug S ep O ct Nov De c
Figure 1.1 Annual utilisation, 737NG
(Source: Aircraft Technical Administration)
Introduction
Maximum aircraft availability is desired during the summer (high) season (May - October) when fleet utilisation is high. During the winter (low) season (November - April), the aircraft utilisation demand is low. Maintenance tasks requiring significant downtime (mainly base maintenance tasks) are, therefore, performed during the winter season. This often results in the de-escalation of task-intervals for items performed much in advance (e.g. by performing base maintenance at a frequency of 18 months, all maintenance tasks that will be due between 19-35 months will have to be performed then, leading to an interval de-escalation of between 19-35 months, depending on the task interval). There is, therefore, a need to determine when, and how often, maintenance should be performed, in order to reduce task deescalation and consequently, maintenance costs. In an effort to reduce maintenance costs arising from work contracted out and task-interval de-escalation, line and base maintenance has been redefined within Transavia [Stam, 2001]. The new definitions for these terms are as follows: a. 1. Line Maintenance: defined as all Pre-flight checks, Daily Checks, Service checks, and all MRIs classified upon their demand for certified staff, required tools/equipment/materials and facility demands, for which Transavia can provide, i.e. Transavia meets these demands. Base Maintenance: defined as all MRIs classified upon their demand for certified staff, required tools/equipment/materials and facility demands, for which Transavia cannot provide, i.e. Transavia does not meet these demands. (See also Appendix E: Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition)
a. 2.
These two definitions, which differ from those given in section 1.1, imply that each individual task has to be analysed before being classified into either line or base maintenance. They also imply that the line maintenance tasks (work performed in-house) will significantly increase (coupled with a decrease in Base Maintenance tasks), hence demanding a new approach in the planning and scheduling of maintenance in-house and maintenance work contracted out. There is, therefore, the need to determine the impacts of the increase in line maintenance tasks, and how this should be dealt with within the Transavia, with as end-result the reduction of maintenance costs. Finally, there is also the need to define exact work packages for both line and base maintenance in order to facilitate easier financial budgeting. This financial budgeting is done once a year, and it creates a capital reserve for base maintenance, as well as line maintenance. The base maintenance reserve is based on the anticipated work to be issued out, and the current/ projected rates of base maintenance. The definition of exact work packages would also help monitor and evaluate the impact of line and base maintenance redefinition and hence facilitate further optimisation of the maintenance program and maintenance planning. This assignment can therefore be formulated as follows: Develop a cost-effective maintenance planning and packaging method that will lead to the reduction of direct maintenance costs, yet maintaining the reliability of the 737 Next Generation fleet.
1.3
Objectives
The objectives of the above-stated assignment can be achieved by answering the following major questions, which will serve as the main topics: 3
A. What are the most significant factors determining maintenance task clustering and planning optimisation within the Transavia organisation? B. What is the most optimum way of clustering maintenance tasks to be performed by the maintenance department at Transavia, and by a base maintenance station? C. What impact do such clusters have on the cost of ownership4 of the aircraft (with regard to maintenance)? These questions have in turn been split into sub-questions for a deeper analysis of the assignment. These sub-questions will also serve as the sub-topics for the research. The assignment will be carried out in four phases (see the next chapter), in the course of which the following sub-questions will be answered. Ad A. The following sub-questions will be used to collect facts on the current situation within the organisation, and to establish a base on which an eventual clustering will be implemented. A.1 How is the maintenance execution department of Transavia airlines structured? It is important to establish the structure of the technical department in order to determine where different responsibilities fall in the maintenance process. How is the maintenance execution planned? The end result of this research should be an optimum maintenance planning. This implies that there is a need to look into the current maintenance planning structure in order to establish elements that need to be optimised. Such elements may include: total maintenance items, manpower demand and availability, maintenance capacity and maintenance planning tolerances. A constraint on the maintenance planning is the certification of Transavias maintenance department (see A.4 below) How do the maintenance costs of the old and new fleet compare (-300, -800 Cost breakdown)? As mentioned in section 1.2 above, the B737-300 MPD differs in many aspects from that of the 737 NG. The aircraft operator (Transavia) expects a reduction in maintenance costs through the maximisation of improved maintenance characteristics of the 737 NG. It is, therefore, necessary to establish whether this is currently the case. What are the boundary conditions for operations and maintenance? The research results are expected to be as realistic as possible. Therefore, various factors that may limit the implementation of results should be established early in advance in order to realise the objectives of the research.
A.2
A.3
A.4
Ad B. The following sub-questions will be used to guide the formation of maintenance task packages. B.1 What are the significant differences between the old and the new operators maintenance program? The maintenance planning is based on an approved maintenance program. The maintenance program identifies all maintenance tasks that have to be performed, and how often they have to be performed.
See definition in section 2.6
Introduction
This sub-question should lead to the determination of the key differences between the traditional maintenance program structure and the new maintenance program structure for the 737NG. B.2 How are the new tasks quantified? This entails establishing what kind of system is used to group maintenance tasks and maintenance checks, and what information can be derived from this coding system How do the tasks interrelate? This sub-question should establish whether the maintenance execution department sets certain conditions on when various tasks should be performed (e.g. day or night), and what tasks should not be combined in a package (relationship between set-up activities). What are the lessons learnt from the past on scheduled and unscheduled maintenance? This is to establish whether the maintenance execution department employs a certain policy as pertains to performing unscheduled maintenance in combination with routine maintenance. This sub-question should also determine how Deferred Defects are dealt with within the organisation. What is the policy of the Boeing Company on B737NG maintenance? The MPD document normally includes a customised maintenance program, in which various maintenance check intervals are recommended. It is therefore advisable to look at whether the recommended program is of any significance to the Transavia program. What conclusions can be drawn from the answers to the questions above on fields that need to be optimised? Information gathered through sub-questions B.1 B.5 should form a base on which maintenance clusters should be built on to satisfy the needs of Transavias technical department What is the criteria to be used in the clustering of maintenance tasks? The end result of the research will be maintenance clusters for the 737NG aircraft. This sub-question should therefore lead to the establishment of a system to be utilised in packaging maintenance tasks, and consequently maintenance clusters.
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
Ad C.After the formation of clusters, an evaluation will have to be done in order to establish their effectiveness within the organisation. Sub-questions to be used in the evaluation are: C.1 How do the new task packages and tasks compare/differ from the previous task packages? It will be necessary to establish the main similarities and differences between the current and the new maintenance packages. This will be the first step in the evaluation of maintenance packages resulting created from section B.7 above. Is it possible to determine what impact the new work schedule will have on the maintenance department? The second step in the evaluation and optimisation of maintenance clusters is establishing what impact such clusters have on the planning and execution of maintenance, both on the work floor and at the planning department
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
Is it possible to determine the financial implications of the new planning? It is also important to establish how the new packages behave under different circumstances, based on the aircraft utilisation. This also forms a part of the optimisation process. Further, it is necessary to establish whether the new planning will lead to the reduction of maintenance costs, as indicated in the assignment. Will the new clusters have an impact on the organisation on the work floor? Is there any reorganisation required? This sub-question is meant to establish what impact the new packages might have on the general organisation on the work floor. Are these clusters also applicable for the KLM Business Unit 737? Finally, it is desired that the maintenance packages developed should also be applicable for the KLM Business Unit 737. This sub-question should, therefore, assist in establishing the applicability of the clusters to the KLM 737NG fleet.
1.4
Research environment
The research is to be carried out at the Maintenance Planning and Support (MP&S) department of the Transavia airlines (Appendix B).
1.5
Approach Strategy
This research will be carried out in four phases, namely A. (1) Assignment analysis B. (2a.) Background research B. (2b.) Maintenance program and maintenance planning analysis C. (3) Maintenance planning definition, development, and implementation D. Report phase This subdivision is necessitated by the following factors: 1. The research requires a strategy that reflects what the assignment is about, what is expected from the assignment, why, and how these expectations are to be met. 2. The research requires a schedule illustrating what is being done at what stage and what the various deliverables are. 3. The assignment creates the need to assess the situation within the organisation in order to establish the organisation requirements. This has been translated to main question 1.3.A (See section 1.3) 4. The end result of the assignment should be an optimum packaging of maintenance tasks. Optimisation entails identifying areas needing improvement, identifying elements of maintenance that are directly associated with task packaging (such as maintenance downtime, maintenance frequency)- main question 1.3.B, and combining all these such that the most favourable situation is achieved- main question 1.3.C 5. The documentation of all findings from the research.
Introduction
The following diagram (Figure 1.2) illustrates the relationship between elements of the phases listed above and the documents resulting there from:
R ese arch P h ase C on te n ts A ssig n m e n t an alysis R e su ltin g D ocu m e n ts
P H A SE 1
C h ap te r 1: A ssig n m e n t A n alysis
B ackg rou n d R e se arch
P H A SE 2
M ain te n an ce P rog ram an d P lan n in g A n alysis M ain te n an ce P lan n in g d e fin ition an d d e v e lop m en t
C h ap te r 2: M ain te n an ce P lan n in g an d Sch ed u lin g :
B ackground R esearch & M ain tenance Program an alysis
P H A SE 3
M ain te n an ce P lan n in g O p tim isation R e port ph ase
C h ap te r 3: M ain te n an ce C lu ste rs d e fin ition an d d e ve lop m e n t C h ap te r 4: M ain te n an ce C lu ste r form ation , e valu ation an d op tim ization C h ap te r 5: C on clu sion s an d re com m e n d ation s:
P H A SE 4
O ptim isation proposal
Figure 1.2: Relationship between phases and chapters
The following diagram is an illustration of how these phases interrelate
Assignment Analysis Phase 1 Background Research
Literature Study
Maintenance Program and Planning Analysis Maintenance Planning definition And Development Maintenance Planning Evaluation And Optimization Phase 3
Phase 2
Optimization Proposal Phase 4
Figure 1.3: Approach strategy
The following is a motivation and a description of the above-mentioned phases.
1.5.1
Assignment analysis
This is the initial phase of the research. During this (current) phase, the assignment is reviewed and reformulated. The objectives of the assignment are identified and an approach strategy set. This phase will be concluded with an Assignment analysis report (this document).
1.5.2
Background research
This first part of phase 2 will assess the current situation within the Engineering and maintenance department of Transavia, as pertains to the maintenance of its B737 fleet. Information gathered from this phase will be used to form a technical and economic base for the research. The following is a description of the approach for this phase: a. Consultation of records and relevant publications Relevant documents on the organisation of the technical department, maintenance procedures, and maintenance governing regulations are readily available from the technical library of the engineering department. Other documents such as Transavias OMP and the NG MPD document, need to be consulted owing to the fact that they are the guiding documents for maintenance planning. b. Interviews and information systems such as the organisations intranet Interviews form a good source for undocumented information, and especially information on past experiences and on various traditions in maintenance planning and execution. The organisations intranet is a good source for up-to-date information. Information gathered from this may include: fleet mutations, new maintenance strategies and aircraft utilisation trends. c. Literature Study Literature references may provide an insight on various elements affecting maintenance planning and maintenance processes, and also proposals for solutions on similar problems.
1.5.3
Maintenance program analysis: 737NG
During this second part of phase 2, a deeper look will be taken into the MPD and the Operators Maintenance Manual (OMP) of the 737NG. The following is a description of the contents of this phase a. Analysis of specifications on the maintenance program and maintenance tasks b. A comparison between the maintenance programs of the 737NG and the 737 Classics c. An evaluation of maintenance planning recommendations on the MPD document Relationship between the maintenance program and the maintenance planning: The maintenance planning is based on the maintenance program. The maintenance program identifies the tasks that have to be done, and when these have to be done. The questions that arise are: what do the tasks entail and what are the intervals linked to these tasks? It may also be important to establish what elements of the Next Generation MPD make the maintenance planning and execution on the aircraft better than that of previous models, as stated by the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing). Owing to the fact that the MPD also proposes a maintenance-planning schedule, it is worth analysing this schedule in order to establish whether it is also applicable for the Transavia fleet. Ideas on an eventual maintenance-planning schedule may also be borrowed from this proposal.
Introduction
1.5.4
Maintenance planning definition and development
Information gathered from the previous phases will be put together in this phase, and this should result in new maintenance clusters. The intervals in which different clusters fall will be pre-determined before clustering is done. These clusters will then be evaluated with the help of a maintenance allocation model (see Chapter 4), and optimised where necessary. This will be done as follows: a. Listing all maintenance tasks with all relevant features established in section 1.5.3a above b. Developing a clustering strategy and forming clusters based on facts gathered from the previous stages of the research c. Evaluating the effectiveness of maintenance clusters created in (b.) above, and if necessary, optimising these. This should then result in the identification of the most effective way to cluster task packages and perform maintenance. The above strategy is preferred, owing to the fact that it has a logical sequence as pertains to achieving the desired results of the research. Phase 3 will be concluded with a Maintenance planning definition and development report.
1.5.5
Report phase
All facts and results gathered from the three phases above will be documented and presented as a report. This phase will also include recommendations, deduced from the most important results of the whole research.
1.6 1.6.1
-
Requirements, constraints and assumptions Requirements

The research should be completed within the stipulated period of nine months The results of the research should be realistic and should fit within the framework of Transavia airlines. A look should also be taken on how the results fit into the KLM 737 Business Unit
1.6.2
Constraints
a. Transavia flight operations are seasonal in nature Implications: Large variations in the number of flight hours and cycles between summer and winter Maximum availability is required for the summer season, thus maintenance activities with long downtime periods should not fall in this season b. The airline frequently leases aircraft in and out Implications: Variations in fleet capacity, as requested by the flight operations department, and consequently the (non-) availability of aircraft. Introduction of different maintenance programs for aircraft leased in under foreign registration. c. Aviation authorities regulate maintenance programs Implications:
All proposals and modifications on the maintenance program and maintenance execution are subject to approval by relevant authorities d. The companys financial year runs from the first of April of a given year to the thirty-first of March of the year thereafter. Implication: In order to keep the total cost of heavy maintenance low, not more than two aircraft should be planned into heavy maintenance per financial year. e. The airline has no back shops, except for seat repair Implications: All repair activities (with the exception of seat repair) cannot be performed within the premises of the company. Such activities have to be contracted out. Discussions on line and base maintenance pivot on this limitation.
1.6.3

Assumptions
The term B737 NG is used to define both the B737-800 and the B737-700. Presently, the 800 version totals 12 aircraft and the 700 totals 1 aircraft. Unless otherwise stated, maintenance programs, maintenance strategies and maintenance tasks referred to in the report are 737 NG specific
10
Chapter 2
Maintenance Planning and Scheduling
This chapter will look into the background of maintenance planning and scheduling within Transavia. The process of establishing a maintenance planning and scheduling at Transavia follows the sequence illustrated below:
Engineering department
Maintenance Program (MP) Development (1) Maintenance Planning (2)
MP&S department
Maintenance Scheduling (3)
Figure 2.1 Establishing maintenance planning and scheduling within Transavia
This chapter will therefore begin with (1); with section 2.1 describing how the maintenance program is currently developed (by the engineering department). The implementation of the maintenance program is done by MP&S (2) and (3). This implementation process will be described in sections 2.2 to 2.5, and a conclusion will follow in section 2.7.
2.1
Maintenance Program (MP) Development
The initial source for the development of the OMP is the manufacturers Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) document. The MPD covers all manufacturer recommended tasks, the MSIs (developed following the MSG-3 philosophy). Within Transavia, the MP is documented in the Operators Maintenance Program (OMP). This document is an approved maintenance program (see Figure 2.2) meant to guide maintenance in a JAR-145 maintenance organisation (See also Appendix G.2). The Maintenance Programs section within the Engineering Department takes the responsibility for the development and amendment of the Transavia Maintenance Program (as illustrated in Figure 2.2 below). Each Maintenance Significant Item (MSI) or Structural Significant Item (SSI) from the MPD is translated into a Maintenance Requirement Item (MRI). The MRIs are limited by calendar days and/or flight hours and/or flight cycles. Principally, there is no difference between an MSI and a MRI. However, MRIs also encompass SSIs, and they do not include items listed in the MPD, not applicable to the Transavia fleet. Section 2.1.3 will go deeper into MSI/MRI features. All MRIs are evaluated and classified as base maintenance MRIs or line maintenance MRIs. The evaluation process has already been mentioned in section 1.2, and is fully described in Appendix E.3.
11
2.1.1 MRIs based MPD items:

The MPD is a summary of the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) report, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) and manufacturers recommendations. a. MRIs based on the MRB report. The MRB report outlines the initial minimum maintenance requirements for an approved maintenance program. The MRB requirements have been developed using Maintenance Steering Group logic. The B737 NG maintenance program has been developed using the MSG-3 revision-2 logic (Appendix C). The MPD contains both mandatory and non-mandatory tasks. b. MRIs based on Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) A CMR is a Mandatory periodic task, established during the design certification of the aircraft as an operating limitation of the type certificate. CMR tasks are identified whenever system probabilities and failures are not expected to fall within the acceptable range without a periodic maintenance requirement. The following comments apply to CMR items - They are part of the aircraft certification basis - The short-term escalation of CMRs is not allowed c. MRIs based on Airworthiness limitations (AWLs) An ALI is a supplemental structural inspection for those Structural Significant Items (SSIs) that do not receive adequate fatigue damage detection opportunity from the initial baseline maintenance program (hidden failures). The AWLs are accomplished in conjunction with and not as a substitute for the existing structural maintenance program. AWLs are also mandatory. d. MRIs based on manufacturers recommendations MRB reports generated with MSG-3 rev.2 contain economic non safety maintenance requirements. These MRIs are added in the MPD as recommended requirements.
2.1.2 MRIs based on non-MPD items

A non-MPD MRI is based on Transavias in service experience or approved data (e.g. Airworthiness Directives (ADs), Service Bulletins (SBs), Service Letters (SLs), Aircraft Modifications (AMs), JAA/NLA requirements). Such non-MPD maintenance tasks are formulated into Engineering Orders (EOs) or into Transavia Maintenance Instructions (MIs). Such orders or instructions can either be incidental (performed only once) or recurring (repeated inspections). The following diagram illustrates the process described above.
12
Chapter 2
MSG-3 rev.2 Airline/Manufacturer Development Document (ATA)
Manufacturer Airlines
B737 NG Maintenance Requirement Review Documents
B737 NG Maintenance Manual (Boeing) Service Letters (SLs) Service Bulletins (SBs) Airworthiness Directives (ADs) Transavias Maintenance Instructions (MIs)
B737 NG Aircraft Task Cards
B737 NG MPD Document (Boeing)
Boeing
B737 NG MRB Report (FAA)
EOs/MIs
Boeing MRIs Tasks,TaskEOs/MIs
Intervals
Transavias B737 NG Maintenance Program 1.1 (OMP) Transavia Job Cards
HV MRIs
EOs/MIs Tasks,TaskIntervals
Transavia Task Cards
National Aviation Authority (IVW/DL) Approval
Source: Boeing 737-NG MPD (derived)
Figure 2.2 MPD and OMP development
2.1.3 Maintenance Checks

The 737 NG MPD identifies over 1500 maintenance significant items. In addition to these, the engineering department also develops maintenance instructions, the socalled MIs. These MSIs and MIs are coded as described in section 2.1.4. MSIs are subdivided into three main groups, namely: 1. Zonal MSIs 2. Systems MSIs 3. Structural MSIs, (referred to as SSIs) Each of the MSI requirements is translated into a Maintenance Requirement Item (MRI). As mentioned previously, there is no difference between an MSI and an MRI. An MRI is a Transavia formulation of a MSI. However, MRIs also encompass SSIs, and they do not include items listed in the MPD, not applicable to the Transavia fleet. Transavia MRIs bear the following properties:
Property MRI number Zone Access: Interval
Description A MPD Item Number: see also Figure 2.3) Section of the plane where task is performed Access panel or door required to be opened when performing the task Expressed in terms of frequency and usage parameters, such as flight hours, flight cycles and calendar time (in days)
13

HV interval
A conversion of the MSI interval into an acceptable Transavia interval, e.g., a MSI interval of 2000CYC (cycles) becomes 38C2000L or 38C2000B, depending on whether the task is a line or a base maintenance task. Other codes are 38D_ (Day), 38D_* (Day/Cycle or Day/Hour), 38H_ (Hour) and 38C_* (Cycle/Day) Estimated man-hours required to perform a task Applicability of the task to aircraft model and engine model specified This is a general description of the task to be performed. It also provides additional explanation on access and interval for the specified task (See also Figure 2.3) Categories 5 (Safety), 6 (Non-safety economic), 7 (non-safety operational), 8 (hidden safety) and 9 (hidden non-safety); Lubrication (LU), Service Check (SV), Visual Check (VC), General Visual (GV), Inspection (IN), Detailed Inspection (DT), Operational (OP), Functional (FC), Restoration (RS) and Discard (DS) Transavias classification into either Line (L) or Base (B) Maintenance
Boeing Man-hours Applicability Zonal title/ task description Job card/ task card number MSG-3 Category MSG-3 Classification
HV Task Classification
Table 2.1 MRI Properties
Considering that there are over 1500 maintenance tasks, it would not be reasonable to deal with each task separately. The B737 NG OMP deals with this problem by grouping maintenance tasks into checks, solely on their HV intervals and Transavia classification properties. This strategy follows from the OMPs of other aircraft types in the Transavia fleet, namely the B737-300 and the B757-200. A complete overview of these checks is included in Appendix I. It should be observed at this point that the Transavia maintenance checks do not portray any properties of MSG-3 philosophy. Features such as the MSG-3 category and the MSG-3 classification play little to no role in the checks.
2.1.4 Maintenance Task Cards and task card control

For all MPD tasks, the aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) prepares task cards (see Figure 2.2 above). Tasks cards contain a thorough description of the task, a zonal diagram illustrating the position or component to be maintained, and an approximation of the amount of Man-hours and the elapsed time (time needed to complete the task for a given amount of man-hours) needed to complete the task. These task cards are revised at a constant basis, either by Transavia, or by Boeing, in order to incorporate improvements and corrections. Transavia also prepares task cards for all its operational-specific maintenance tasks. Task card numbering The task cards are numbered sequentially within each ATA chapter. The following is an example of task card numbering from ATA 27 (flight controls)
14
Chapter 2
MRI Number
27 - 010 01 - 01
Task Card Sequence Number Indicates position where applicable: 00 N/A 01 - LEFT 02 - RIGHT MRB Sequence Number ATA Chapter 03 - CENTRE
Figure 2.3 Task card numbering
Maintenance Job cards For each task card, a corresponding job card is prepared by the engineering department, and filed in the METALS system. Job Cards are actually identical to task cards, only that job cards are used once, on the work floor, while task cards are used for reference purposes. Job cards do also have a provision for a signature and a stamp for the technician performing the maintenance task. The following job cards are in use: 1. Routine job cards Pertaining to MPD and non-MPD based recurring MRIs 2. Corrosion Prevention Control Program (CPCP) job cards These are, in fact, routine job cards, which are based on the manufacturers CPCP, as referred to in the MPD 3. Maintenance Instructions (MI) task cards - Pertaining to recurring MRIs which do not fit in a regular maintenance inspection interval - Pertaining to non-recurring (one-time) inspections, which are mostly initiated as a result of a SB or a SL evaluation. Such maintenance instructions do not form a part of the maintenance program, as they are non-recurring. 4. Modification job cards Pertaining to non-recurring (one-time) modification instructions, which are initiated as a result of an engineering evaluation, which leads to an Aircraft Modification (AM). Such modifications are not part of the maintenance program, as they are non-recurring.
2.1.5 The B737-300 MP vs. the B737 NG MP

Before the introduction of the 737NG aircraft (the subject of this research), Transavia was, and still is, operating the B 737-300 (classics). The B733 (classic) maintenance program differs from that of the next generation on a number of aspects. These aspects are tabulated below:
15

Maintenance Philosophy Maintenance Tasks B 737 Classics MSG-2: Process Oriented Packaged into OMP Checks as: Transit Check 24-hr Check (Boeing) A-Check at 250 Flight hours (Boeing) C-Check or Annual Visits AV 4000 Flight Hours 1AV 8400 Flight Hours 2AV 15600 Flight Hours 4AV 30000 Flight Hours 8AV CFM56-3 -Quick Engine Change Configuration: 20Hrs B737 Next Generation MSG-3 rev.2: Task Oriented Packaged into OMP Checks as: Pre-flight Check Ground Handling Check Tire & Oil Check Service Check Service Check (Transavia) Line Maintenance Checks (Transavia) Base Maintenance Checks CFM56-7 -Quick Engine Change configuration: 8hrs
Power plant
Table 2.2 Maintenance program comparison 733 vs. 738
Notes: 1. Transit checks are performed before departure and on arrival 2. 24-hr check are performed once a day 3. Annual visits (AV) are performed once a year. The Contents of the checks refer to Boeing C-check tasks. The checks have cumulative abbreviations, based on flight hours. Each AV check is unique, and AVs are executed as follows: 1AV Once a year 2AV Once every two years 4AV Once every four years 8AV Once every eight years Combinations are then formed sequentially, for example: In year 1: 1AV In year 2: 1AV, 2AV In year 3: 1 AV In year 4: 1AV, 2AV, and 4AV 4. The Maintenance task list indicated under the NG column implies that only the task execution frequency is stated, but not a package in which the task should be performed (as witnessed in the previous column) It should also be observed that Transavia has been operating the B737 classics for over 15 years. The current B737-classics fleet average age is 10.14 years. From the maintenance point of view, a lot of experience is gathered over the years by maintaining the same type of aircraft. Routine and non-routine maintenance of such a fleet is easily quantified and can be predicted to a certain extent. However, the case above is not applicable for the next generation fleet. These aircraft have been designed for easier and more flexible maintenance. The average fleet age of the B737 NG is 1.5 years (see also Table B.1), and not enough experience has been gathered to help establish the exact maintenance characteristics of this type of aircraft. This implies that continuous adjustments on the maintenance program and the maintenance planning are necessary, as compared to the minimal adjustments (based on AD notes and SBs) on the maintenance of the classic fleet. The maintenance program of the B737 NG is, therefore, under constant revision, partly because it has to be revised every three months (following quarterly MPD
16
Chapter 2 reviews), and partly because new procedures have to be added to it. The maintenance program section of the engineering is responsible for this. The effectiveness of the maintenance program and the aircraft maintenance characteristics are monitored through a Reliability Monitoring Program (see also Appendix F), maintained by the engineering department. Performance indicators used to monitor the maintenance program and fleet performance include: the Technical Dispatch Reliability (TDR), Pilot Reports (PIREPS), Hold item Lists (HIL), Unscheduled Removals, No Fault Found (NFF)Reports, and Confirmed Failures. For each of these parameters, an alert level (an upper control limit) is set, at which action is necessary.
2.2
Maintenance Planning and scheduling
Maintenance engineers establish tasks and interval limits for various maintenance tasks; either based on the MPD (routine maintenance), Aircraft Modifications (AM), Repair Instructions (RI), Airworthiness Directives (AD) and Maintenance Instructions. Such maintenance tasks may be based on two maintenance activities: 1. Routine maintenance: This is performed in accordance with the instructions stated in the OMP. Such instructions and consequently utilisation limits serve as a basis for the planning of aircraft maintenance. 2. Non-routine maintenance In cases of component failure, rectification may be performed immediately or may be deferred, depending on the severity. Operational critical items and safety related items (listed in Minimum Equipment List MEL) would require immediate corrective action, while non-safety and non-critical items will be put on a deferred defect sheet (DDS) for rectification when opportunity arises. Maintenance planning is done in three phases, namely Long-term, Medium term and Short-term.
Maintenance Planning
Routine Maintenance
Non -routine Maintenance
Long Term Planning
Medium Term Planning
Short Term Planning
-Capacity Planning -Spare parts processing -Determining manpower Requirements
-Allocation of resources: -Maintenance slots
- Capacity planning - Allocation of resources: - Maintenance slots - Maintenance windows
Figure 2.4 Maintenance planning phases (Source: MP&S)
17
2.2.1 Long term planning

Long term planning entails a planning with a time horizon of longer than one year. It mainly comprises of maintenance activities packaged in intervals greater than one year, and planning for regular maintenance slots (line and base maintenance). In this planning, a clear distinction is made between the summer and winter season planning as per Transavia high and low season operation (section 1.2). Further, the maintenance capacity for both seasons is determined. The High season is sometimes characterised by the leasing in of aircraft, while the low season is normally characterised by the leasing out of aircraft.
2.2.2 Medium term planning

Medium term planning (>3months, <1 year) involves scheduling maintenance slots per aircraft, in accordance with the preferences of the Commercial Planning and Sales Department (CPV). See also section 2.5 and Appendix B. Factors such as maintenance resource availability and cost factors are introduced into the planning at this phase. The exact fleet size for each season (high/low) is also established at this phase.
2.2.3 Short term planning

Fine-tuning of planned maintenance is done between three months and 24 hours before the planned maintenance session. Maintenance resources such as manpower (and consequently work rosters), hangar space and materials are established at least a month before the actual date of maintenance execution. Under ideal circumstances, it would be possible to perfectly plan aircraft maintenance well in advance. However, Transavias aircraft utilisation does not always match the planned utilisation. Factors that may lead to this include: - Performance of ad hoc flights - Over-utilisation of aircraft, leading to the exhaustion of maintenance intervals before their pre-calculated due dates - Flight cancellations due to technical reasons (No-Go situations) - Aircraft unavailability due to under-estimated downtime - Aircraft unavailability due to non-technical reasons, such as extended stay in outside stations - Aircraft incidents that may result in unscheduled checks or aircraft grounding - Component unavailability - Manpower unavailability In cases where maintenance schedules cannot be realised as planned, adjustments need to be made on the planning in order to ensure that maintenance work due is performed in time, and work not due postponed to the next available opportunity. Short term planning is also necessitated by pending corrective actions, as may be listed on the Hold item List (HIL) or on a DDS. The planning in of such tasks is done if scheduled maintenance provides an opportunity for this. Task packages The Transavia OMP groups maintenance tasks into inspections/checks, based on their maintenance intervals. A complete list of all packages is listed in Appendix I.1 and I.2. Maintenance planning then packages these tasks in preparation for a hangar
18
Chapter 2 or base maintenance visit. The packages are segmented due to the inequality of maintenance windows.
2.3
Line Maintenance
The Transavia maintenance department is certified to perform all maintenance activities that fall under line maintenance (See also Appendix I). The organisations OMP distinguishes between the following line maintenance activities tabulated below:
Type of check Pre-flight Check: Tyre and Oil Check: Description Visual and functional inspection performed before each flight to ascertain that the aircraft is airworthy Analytical check performed at the end of each day to visual certify operational condition and for trend monitoring purposes (on-condition maintenance) Visual and functional check performed every two days to ensure that all operational and safety standards are met Checks to ensure that aircraft is configured for gate arrival and gate departure Withdrawal of aircraft from operation for the performance of a set of routine and non-routine maintenance in the hangar
Service Check: Ground Handling Checks: Hangar Visits:
Table 2.3 Line maintenance activities
(Source: Boeing 737NG OMP)
2.3.1 Scheduling of hangar visits

Owing to the fact that scheduled hangar visits requires aircraft withdrawal from service, downtime scheduling is done at the Long-term, and the Medium-term planning ensures that flight operations are not interrupted. Hangar visit intervals are determined by the maintenance package with the lowest interval (either in days, hours or cycles). This interval is currently 5 weeks for the aircraft in question. Routine maintenance performed during such a visit includes all checks due at the moment of the visit, and all checks due between that moment and the next visit. Hangar planning5: i. Hangar maintenance is carried out on weekdays, between Monday evening and Thursday night;
D = DAY 07:00 till 15:00 A = EVENING 15:00 till 23:00 Hangar Shifts D A MONDAY N D A TUESDAY N D A N D A N D A FRIDAY N N = NIGHT 23:00 till 07:00
A SUNDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
SATURDAY
Figure 2.5 Hangar Maintenance Slots
Based on a fixed agreement between MP&S, Aircraft Maintenance (V.O.), and Hangar space managers. See also Appendix H.
19
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG ii. iii. iv. v. Each day (24 hours) is sub-divided into three eight (8)-hour segments, also referred to as shifts: a day shift, evening shift and night shift; Each week has a total of eleven (11) shifts available for hangar maintenance; Each eight-hour shift has six effective maintenance hours. The extra two hours are allocated for rest for the maintenance crew. Each shift comprises of an average of 12 technicians (Team), headed by 2 Team Coordinators (TC). Each team comprises of mechanical as well as avionics technicians. However, their proportion may vary from team to team. The proportions may also be altered in order to provide enough skills for a given work package; Each shift can therefore produce an average of 72 man-hours; Hangar planning rules are such that only two aircraft may be maintained simultaneously. The distribution of manpower in the hangar, the sequence with which maintenance tasks are carried out, and eventual swaps of technicians (platform/hangar) is done on the work floor, and is controlled by Maintenance Controllers (MC); Planning for hangar maintenance is based on, respectively, manpower availability, hangar space availability and aircraft availability;
vi. vii.
viii.
The available hangar shifts can be used distributed over any of the three types of aircraft operated by Transavia, depending on the demand for maintenance. This report will, however, concentrate on the maintenance demand of the B737 NG aircraft. Hangar slots do not necessarily have to run concurrently with hangar shifts, even though this would be more preferable. The following is an example of why this is the case:
Aircraft arrival: Aircraft in Hangar: Aircraft out of Hangar: Aircraft Departure: Hangar Slot (1 Slot): Hangar Shifts: Night: Effective (Net) Maintenance time: 22:00 05:30 22:00 05:30 23:00 07:00* 00:00 03:45 7 hr 30 min 3 hr 45 min
Table 2.4 Aircraft Flight Schedule: Singe Mx slot (Example: HZE, Week 27, 2000)
(*: Points vi, vii and viii above answer questions that may arise from hangar capacity and manpower utilisation) As mentioned earlier in this section, this aircraft is slotted in for a hangar visit once every five weeks. The exact demand for maintenance (following from maintenance due items at time of maintenance) determines the total amount of man hours required and the total amount of downtime for a maintenance visit. Table 2.5 below tabulates the line maintenance man-hours, and the frequency with which hangar slots are allocated to each B737 NG aircraft annually. The man-hours allocated are based on the assumption that all routine (75%) and non-routine (25%) (Normal wear and tear) maintenance is fully provided for (see also Table 2.6 on the realisation).
Week 1 5 10 15 20 Days 7 35 70 105 140 Slots 1 1 2 1 Max. Available Man-hours < 55 < 55 < 100 < 55
20
Chapter 2
25 30 35 40 45 50 52 Totals 175 210 245 480 315 350 364 (364) 1 4 1 1 2 1 14 < 55 < 300 < 55 < 55 < 100 < 55 < 885
Table 2.5 Planning hangar maintenance (per year) (Source: MP&S)
The maintenance planning sequence above is generally applicable for aircraft not older than five years. As time progresses, the aircraft is expected to generate more complaints from routine maintenance, hence requiring more scheduled downtime. The determination of required downtime is generally based on experience. Owing to the fact that the B737 NG fleet is relatively new (1.5 years see also Appendix B.2), it is not possible to determine the maintenance downtime demand for over five years. The realisation of the planning above, however, portrays a totally different picture, as tabulated in Table 2.6 below. This table shows the actual number of slots allocated to three 737NG aircraft (registrations PH-HZA, PH-HZB and PH-HZF) over the year 2000. These aircraft have been selected because they operated for Transavia throughout the whole year (not leased out or introduced into the fleet in 2000).
Calendar week HZA HZB HZF Calendar Week HZA HZB HZF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Grey region
BMx
2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
1
1(BMx)
= =
High Base
Season Mainte nance
Total Slots
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Slots Routine* Slots non-routine**
1 1(BMx) 1 2
1 1 1
1 1 1
2 1 4 1
1 2
2 BMx
1 24 16 24 4 19 15
40
28
34
* = Including non-routine from normal wear and tear ** = See also Table 2.7
Table 2.6 Realisation Hangar maintenance planning (Source: Maintenance Schedule, 2000 MP&S)
The main reason for the differences between the planning and the realisation result from:
21
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG 1. Aircraft unavailability for maintenance: This is a situation that may follow from aircraft over-utilisation (high production), leading to the accumulation of maintenance tasks due, and eventually a demand for more ground time. 2. Aircraft late arrivals: Delays in aircraft arrival sometimes lead to the cancellation of scheduled maintenance tasks, which also leads to the accumulation of due maintenance tasks. 3. Inspection findings that require re-inspection in a given period of time. 4. Differences in team compositions between high and low seasons: During the high season (weeks 14-43), maintenance teams comprise of 15 technicians, while during the low season (weeks 1-13 and 44-52), 10 technicians make up a team. 5. Unpredictable events (such as incidents and accidents) 6. Aircraft modifications and AD notes arising in the course of the year. Table 2.7 below quantifies how the non-routine maintenance activities above are distributed per aircraft tail number:
Non-routine event DDS Aircraft Modification MIs (non-routine) Incidents (Aircraft damage) Total Additional slots HZA 8 6 1 1 16 HZB 3 1 4 HZF 7 4 2 2 15 Total per event 15 10 6 4 35
Table 2.7 Clarification of non-routine maintenance slots
Observations from the above patron are: 1. The actual planning pattern of (routine) hangar maintenance does not match the projected planning (see possible reasons stated above). The five-week interval between two hangar visits is hardly maintained. Possible causes for this could be over-maintenance (repetition of the same tasks in shorter intervals than need be), large work packages that do not fit into the slots assigned, labour deficiencies, or a combination of any of the factors above. 2. The total non-routine hangar time is un-evenly distributed, and it is not possible to establish a relationship between this and the routine hangar maintenance. 3. Maintenance is not really minimised during the high season.
2.4
Base Maintenance
Maintenance checks classified as Base Maintenance tasks are always contracted out (see section 2.1 and Appendix E). In order to provide a good base for Base Maintenance (technical and financial) planning, Transavia airlines enters into long-term contracts with base maintenance organisations. Currently, KLM Maintenance and Engineering performs all base maintenance for the Transavia 737 NG fleet.
2.4.1 Scheduling of Base Maintenance

Base maintenance visits are normally scheduled in during the winter season, with the frequency of eighteen months per aircraft. Activities performed during such visits are categorised as follows:
22
Chapter 2 a. Routine heavy maintenance packages: These are the routine maintenance packages due for execution at a base maintenance station. The packages comprise of all checks with maintenance intervals falling on and between two base maintenance intervals. b. Aircraft modifications: These are modifications that follow from SBs, AD notes. Modifications can also follow from customised demands from aircraft operations or from technical proposals by the engineering department. c. Aircraft Repairs: These follow mainly from incidental damage, structural wear and tear, or structural failure. d. Deviated work e. Aircraft repainting Unlike the 737-Classics, the Next Generation aircraft do not have a well-defined base maintenance. Base maintenance checks are therefore packaged based on the number of due base maintenance checks. Further, the base maintenance interval of 18 months is not based on a recommended interval, but on a maintenance tradition adapted from B757-200 maintenance pattern. This aircraft also forms a part of the Transavia fleet. At the start of this research, 6 aircraft had had their first base maintenance visit. The following figure illustrates the composition of the various visits.
First Base Maintenance , HV Fleet- 18 Months Interval
1800 1600 1400 1200 KLM Manhours 1000 800 600 400 200 0 HZA (Nov-99) HZB (Jan-00) HZC (Feb-00) HZD (Nov-00) HZE (Nov-00) HZF (Nov-00) Base maintenance visit per tail number
Additional work Non-routine Routine
Figure 2.6: First Base Maintenance visit: Overview
At the beginning of this research, the three oldest aircraft in the fleet had had their second base maintenance visit. The following is an overview of the total man-hours spent on these aircraft:
23
Second Base Maintenance visit, HV Fleet - 18 months interval

3000
2500
2000 KLM Manhours
1500
1000
Additional work Non-routine Routine
500
0 HZA (Mar-01) HZB (Mar-01) Base maintenance visit per tail number HZC (Mar-01)
Figure 2.7: Second Base Maintenance Visit: Overview (Source: HV Project Management)
In order to give an illustration of what the routine, Non-routine and additional work entails, the base maintenance packages for the HZA (first and second) are summarised in table x below.
First Base Mx: HZA [Nov 1999] KLM Second Base Mx [Mar 2001] KLM
Routine Maintenance: Checks (Boeing MHrs: 134.21) Non Routines: Normal wear and tear Shop work Non-Routine Maintenance: Additional Work: (MIs, AMs, RIs) Docking Open and Close
268.7 516 69 511.5 3.6 275.7 1644.5
Routine Maintenance: Checks (Boeing MHrs: 153.31) Non Routines: Normal wear and tear Shop work Non-Routine Maintenance: Additional Work: (MIs, AMs, RIs) Docking + KLM tasks Open and Close
312.8 206.2 5.6 1629 101.8 233.8 2489.2
Total Man-hours
Total Man-hours
Table 2.8 Overview of Base maintenance visit components (Source: HV Project Management)
Note: Docking, additional KLM tasks and Open and Close fall under routine maintenance. From Figure 2.6, Figure 2.7, and from Table 2.2 above, the following is observed: 1. The base maintenance station (KLM) uses a factor 2 to calculate man-hours needed for routine maintenance, without considering eventual non-routines. Including eventual non-routines, a factor 3.6 is applied on the original Boeing man-hours. 2. The routine maintenance work from both the first and the second base maintenance visit is approximately equal. 3. Additional work constitutes the largest part of base maintenance. The proportions of additional work vary from aircraft to aircraft. This results from
24
Chapter 2 un-proportional amounts of deviated work (Deferred Defects and repair work preferably performed during base maintenance), status of the aircraft when delivered (which determines the amount of modifications necessary), AD notes, aircraft damage, and repair work. 4. It is also evident that all base maintenance work is performed between November and March, during the low season. From Table 2.8, it can also be noted that the second base maintenance visit is performed only after 16 months, two months before the visit is due (18 Months frequency).
2.5
The Planning department vs. the Sales department
In order to synchronise aircraft utilisation and aircraft maintenance, a close relationship is maintained between the commercial planning department (Commercile Planning en Verkoop -CPV) at Schiphol Centre and the Maintenance Planning and Support department (MP&S) at Schiphol East (See also Appendix B.4) for an overview of departments within the organisation). The following diagram (Figure 2.8) illustrates how these two departments interrelate
Sales department (CPV)
Aircraft for maintenance
Maintenance department (TD) Maintenance resources
Sales
Commercial Aircraft capacity Planning demand/availability - Long term - Short term
Aircraft utilisation and demand pattern Maintenance schedule per aircraft
Maintenance Planning - Long term -Medium term - Short term
Cost factors
Aircraft factors Objective: Optimum utilisation of aircraft Availability
Aircraft for production
Safety factors
Objective: Provide optimum maintenance for aircraft fleet at a minimum cost
Figure 2.8 Sales Department - Maintenance department interrelationship
2.5.1 Commercial Planning

The CPV department (which falls under the Sales and Marketing) is charged with the sale of aircraft seats, hence directly determining the demand for aircraft capacity. In order to ease the task of maintenance forecasting, CPV prepares an aircraft demand forecast based on information received from contractual sales and fleet capacity planning departments.
25
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG The CPV long-term planning is seasonal and follows the utilisation pattern illustrated in section 1.2, while short term planning ranges from between a month to a day before the actual execution of a planned flight. Short term planning from the CPV is basically sales driven, either in advance or ad hoc, but it can also be influenced by aircraft availability, i.e. aircraft serviceability. Aircraft maintenance only has an impact on availability and the technical dispatch reliability.
Principally, MP&S prepares a long term planning for both line and base maintenance. Owing to the fact that the Transavia fleet is fully interchangeable, with variations only capacity-wise, CPV is able to plan in serviceable aircraft for a whole season in advance, and allocate maintenance slots to each aircraft, by combining aircraft demand for operation and maintenance demand (from Table 2.5).
2.6
Maintenance planning and the cost of ownership
The frequency with which maintenance is performed determines, to a great extent, the amount of man-hours and materials needed for each maintenance visit. The maintenance frequency also dictates the amount of down time needed for maintenance. From these (man hours, materials and downtime), the total cost of maintenance can be calculated. The relationship between the maintenance planning and scheduling, and the cost of ownership (Figure 2.9 below) may, therefore, be visualised as follows:
Direct Operating Costs
Indirect Operating Costs
Acquisition Costs
Direct Maintenance Costs
Indirect Maintenance Costs (Burden)
Flight Crew Fuel/Oil Depreciation/Rental
Scheduled
Unscheduled
Insurance
Airframe
Engine
Airframe
Engine
labour Material
Labour Material
Labour Material
Labour Material
Figure 2.9 Aircraft Cost of Ownership
(Source: Smit, 1993)
The amount of labour (man-hours) and materials spend on (routine and non-routine) maintenance directly determines the direct maintenance costs.
26
Chapter 2 As pertains to costs arising from aircraft downtime, Figure 2.10 below can be used to elaborate this.
Waiting for repair 4 Breakdown: un-serviceable aircraft
Unavailability (lost production)
5
In Non-routine maintenance
Serviceable aircraft
Unplanned resources (mainly to Solve AOGs, No-Go situations )
Down-time
In routine maintenance
Maintenance resources (Manpower, spares, Tools)
Maintenance plan
Feedback for control
Planned resources (mainly routine)
In operation
1 2
Out of operation
Ground-time
Source (derived): Kelly, 1984
Up-time
Figure 2.10 Maintenance downtime in relation to the cost of maintenance
In block 3 above, the aircraft is withdrawn from operation in order to provide for maintenance downtime. This un-availability may be considered as a loss in terms of possible seats that could have been available for sale if the aircraft was in operation. In blocks 4 and 5, the aircraft is un-available due to technical reasons, and this leads to inevitable losses in terms of production (seats, flight hours). Further, additional maintenance resources have to be provided for in order to make the aircraft serviceable again. On the other hand, if maintenance was to be performed in block 2, there will be no losses experienced in terms of aircraft un-availability, owing to the fact that the aircraft is not needed in that block. No maintenance is performed in block 1. Indirect maintenance costs can vary greatly because these mainly depend on the maintenance organisation. On the other hand, direct maintenance costs of an aircraft can be viewed as more systematic and controllable costs. From a maintenance-planning point of view, a reduction in the total cost of ownership can be achieved by: - A minimisation in the total maintenance work done on an aircraft by avoiding unnecessary repetition of maintenance tasks. - A minimisation in the total maintenance down time.
2.7
Conclusions:
The introduction of the B737 NG in the Transavia fleet has created the need to review the way in which the organisation plans its maintenance. The exclusion of the letter checks from the MPD document was done in order to give airlines more certainty in the planning and execution of maintenance. However, Transavia still tends to utilise the letter check system to plan maintenance.
27
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG There is, therefore, a need to radically change the mentality and the traditions of maintenance program development and maintenance planning and scheduling in order to utilise fully the advantages of Next Generation aircraft, which should lead to a reduction in the amount of maintenance performed on the fleet The engineering department of Transavia has developed a new approach toward maintenance program development by evaluating all MRIs and classifying them to either line or base maintenance MRIs. This classification is based on the contents and requirements of each MRI, instead of just looking at the MRI interval. The task is now upon the maintenance planning (and consequently this assignment), to optimally plan maintenance tasks, in order to optimise maintenance execution and to minimise maintenance costs. In short: 1. There is a need to determine the composition and the contents of maintenance packages for both line and base maintenance (Main question 1.3.B) 2. There is a need to determine optimum intervals for both line and base maintenance scheduling (Main question 1.3.B) 3. There is a need to quantify the gains made from (1) and (2) above, in terms of cost reduction and improved maintenance effectiveness (Main question 1.3.C)
28
Chapter 3
Maintenance Clusters Definition and Development
This chapter will establish a strategy through which maintenance tasks should be grouped together and scheduled for performance. The grouping up of maintenance activities for execution at a specified date will be referred to as clustering, while the resulting groups of maintenance tasks will be referred to as clusters. The first section 3.1 will discuss clustering strategies, followed by an application of each strategy to the Transavia situation in sections 3.2 and 3.3. This will then be followed by conclusions in section 3.4.
3.1
Approach
In order to cluster tasks together and schedule then for execution, there is a need to identify which tasks (1) can be grouped together and how (2) the tasks have to be grouped. Thereafter, it is necessary to establish when (3) these clusters will be performed. These three questions can be answered using two approaches, as suggested by File (2000). These approaches are: 1. A Top-Down approach: This approach answers (respectively) the questions when (3) what (1) maintenance tasks can/should be done. It entails working with the aircraft utilisation requirement, and identifying the most favourable periods to perform maintenance. The maintenance tasks are then fitted into these periods. Such periods are also referred to as opportunities, and the topdown approach leads to opportunity maintenance.
Aircraft Utilization Requirement
Maintenance Scheduling
Maintenance Task packaging
2. A Bottom-Up approach: This approach answers (respectively) the questions what (1)- when (3) maintenance tasks can/should be done. It begins by identifying maintenance tasks that are due for performance, and when they are due for performance. In other words, this approach creates a maintenance demand for a specified aircraft.
Maintenance Tasks
Maintenance Schedule
Aircraft Maintenance Requirement
29
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG In order to achieve the desired optimisation, a combination of the two approaches is necessary. The following sections will begin with a bottom-up approach (what (1) is to be done?), after which a top-down approach (when (3) is the most appropriate time to do it?) will follow. A combination of these two approaches will then answer the last question, which was -how (2)-the maintenance is to be done.
3.2
Bottom-Up approach
As explained here above, this approach begins by determining when maintenance tasks are due, and from these, the maintenance demand for the aircraft is determined. Section 2.1.3 described how all maintenance tasks applicable to the Transavia fleet are grouped into the so-called Transavia Checks. This section, however, considers all maintenance tasks, rather than the Transavia Checks (see section 3.2.1). It then creates an aircraft utilisation to be used in determining when the checks are due (section 3.2.3). It then explains how a combination of the tasks, and the utilisation, leads to maintenance schedule and maintenance demand.
3.2.1 Maintenance Checks

For the bottom-up approach, the relevant properties from a check (derived from Table 2.1) are: - The maintenance interval - The check man hours From these two properties, the maintenance demand at a specified interval can be established. As was mentioned earlier, the grouping together of maintenance tasks into checks only looks at the HV (Transavia) Interval, and the line/base maintenance classification. This is also the case for the rest of the aircraft in the Transavia fleet. Given that the 737NG MPD is a MSG-3 based document, it can be said that there is very little application of the MSG-3 Task-Based Maintenance philosophy (Appendix C.1.3) in the MPD. The result of this is that there are very few differences in the way maintenance is planned and executed for the entire fleet. These differences are the AChecks for the B737-300 (see also Table 2.2), and the Line Maintenance phases for the B757. Consequently, very few gains can be made in terms of hangar maintenance for the Next Generation fleet.
3.2.2 Maintenance Task Packages

Apart from grouping tasks together by only using the task interval property, other properties can be considered (see also Table 2.1). Dijkhuizen [1998] suggests the use of Set-Up properties for the packaging of maintenance tasks, especially those performed frequently (Line Maintenance). He defines Set-Up as: where one or more tasks require a fixed condition/procedure/cost, irrespective of how many components are being maintained. By considering tasks that share the same set-up activities (e.g. the same access area or access panels, aircraft preparation), tasks can be clustered together. But by
30
Chapter 3 considering that such tasks may bear different maintenance intervals, the maintenance interval should also be considered. The following is diagram illustrates how this packaging can be done:
Line? Base?
Figure 3.1 Creation of maintenance task packages and maintenance checks
The L/B classification (also explained in Chapter 2 and in Appendix E) classifies each maintenance task into either line or base. Line maintenance tasks are then prepackaged, based on their set-up properties and thereafter on their maintenance intervals. Base maintenance tasks are pre-packaged on the basis of their maintenance interval, just as in the OMP (and are hence left unaltered). The following is an example of the results of the process illustrated on Figure 3.1 above.
TAV Check:
C4000*L
Maintenance Interval
4000 Cycles/540 Days
Boeing Man-hours
25.88
MRIs
122
Table 3.1 Sample Transavia Check (Source: Transavias OMP)
By combining shared set-up activities and the task interval (common: 4000 cycles), 8 different Maintenance Task Packages are created. Packages sharing the same set-up activities and maintenance interval are labelled according to their Task Interval (C4000*) and their package group (labelled alphabetically: A-H). Combinations of these two attributes give each package a clear identity.
Task Package C4000A* C4000B* C4000C* C4000D* C4000E* C4000F* C4000G* C4000H* MPD Interval* 4000CYC 4000CYC 4000CYC 4000CYC 4000CYC 4000CYC 4000CYC 4000CYC or or or or or or or or 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 540 DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS HV Check Notation 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* Boeing Man-hours 1.85 1.08 2.49 4.16 0.59 0.54 3.96 11.21 MSG-3 Category 5DT, 2GV GV GV GV GV GV GV GV MSG-3 Class. 5, 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Skill M M M M M M M M ATA 100 Chapter 20. 32 52 53 53 53 53, 54 55 57 (MRIs) 7 10 12 9 3 4 23 54
8 packages
25.88
122
Table 3.2 Sample Maintenance Task Packages resulting from the Figure 3.1 process
Notes:
31

*: DT: GV: M: MSG-3 Class. /Cat: Which Ever Comes First Detailed inspection General Visual Mechanical Skills (See Table 2.1)
A complete list of the Maintenance Task Packages that follow from the classification tree above is included in Appendix I.3. This list consists of a total of 121 Maintenance Task Packages, as compared to the previous 51 Line Maintenance checks. It is evident from the example above that from a large Transavia Check (122 maintenance tasks, 26 Boeing man hours - Table 3.1), 8 manageable Task Packages can be created (Table 3.2). A deeper analysis into the exact nature of the task packages reveals that the C4000G* and C4000H* contain tasks requiring significant ground time, as compared to the other 6. Previously, the C4000* check was considered as a time consuming check, requiring a lot of man-hours (i.e. 93 manhours base maintenance or 51.76 man-hours line maintenance). From the example above, it is also clear that other Maintenance Task Package properties are revealed, than was previously the case. These included: 1. The ATA chapters of the tasks being performed 2. The skills required per task package (M) 3. The Type of check (General Visual, Detailed) The three properties listed above are of importance for the MP&S department, but their relevance will not be dealt with in this report. In the following sections, Maintenance Task Packages and Maintenance Checks will be referred to as maintenance items. This will be in cases where both line and base maintenance are dealt with together.
3.2.3 Aircraft utilisation: Determining due dates and due items

Maintenance items based on flight hours and flight cycles (to be referred to as hour and cycle items) are dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft, while those based on calendar days are independent from the aircraft utilisation. Aircraft utilisation is recorded on a monthly basis. From this, the annual utilisation is determined. Daily utilisation is normally an average of the annual or monthly utilisation. As is to be established in section 3.3.1, the weekly utilisation per aircraft is not defined, neither is it used by Transavia. Aircraft utilisation can be determined using data gathered from two sources, namely: 1. METALS Utilisation: Data used to predict maintenance due dates and to monitor component ages in the METALS system. The Data is stored in the METALS system 2. Actual B737 NG utilisation Records: Data gathered by the records department for Reliability analysis, and for updating of the data in METALS. Such Data is issued through Transavias Boeing 737-700/800 Monthly and Quarterly Fleet Reports
32
Chapter 3 METALS: METALS utilises average fleet utilisation data from previous years in order to generate forecasts for future aircraft utilisation. Instead of dividing up a year into logical segments, e.g. months or quarters, METALS works with unique segments (see Table 3.3). These segments are derived from trends monitored (by METALS) over the years of fleet data collection. The utilisation that follows is, therefore, not specific for a given type of aircraft, for it applies to the whole fleet.
Year Segment Jan 1- Mar 31 Apr 1 Jun 3 Jun 4 Sep 23 Sep 23 Dec 2 Dec 3 Dec 31 FH/Day 7.14 12.14 13.57 7.14 10 FC/day 4 6 7 4 5 FH/FC Ratio 1.79 2.02 1.94 1.79 2.0 (FH/year) (2606) (4431) (4953) (2606) (3650) (FC/year) (1460) (2190) (2555) (1460) (1825)
Table 3.3 Annual Aircraft utilisation METALS (as per 1 April 2001)
These values have been plotted on Figure 3.2 below. The shortcomings of the utilisation pattern above are: - A poor definition of the high and the low season. While section 1.2 clearly defines the high season as the period between April 1 and October 31, the METALS utilisation misses out on the end of the high and the beginning of the low season. - The utilisation above works with the total Transavia fleet average. In practice, the utilisation of different types of aircraft does differ. - The assumption that aircraft utilisation for all months in a segment is the same
Average Aircraft Utilisation - METALS

16
14
12 Flight Hours Per Day
10
8 Hours Cycles 6
0 01/01-31/03 01/04-03/06 04/06-23/09 Period 24/09-02-12 03-12-31/12
Figure 3.2: Aircraft utilisation pattern METALS (as per 1 April 2001)
Actual B737 NG utilisation records: In order to determine utilisation parameters to be used in this research, it is necessary to look at how the METALS flight hours and cycles compare to the actual flight hours and cycles of the B 737 NG fleet.
33
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Using data collected by the technical records department over a period of three years (June 1998 till June 2001) for the B737 NG fleet, the following aircraft utilisation patron can be generated:
Average Aircraft Utilisation - Actual Utilisation
14
12 Flight Hours/Cycles per Day
10
8 Flight Hours/Day Flight Cycles/Day
0 February March April March April May Jun-00 January February March May Jun-99 July August Jun-98 July July August September November December January September October November December January February August September October October November December April May
Calendar Months
Figure 3.3: Actual aircraft utilisation pattern B737 NG [June 1998-June 2001]
The continuous lines illustrate the average fleet utilisation for the indicated months, while the dotted lines indicate the average utilisation over the three years. Average annual utilisation per aircraft: 3747 flight hours, 1364 flight cycles Average FH/FC Ratio: 2.74 FH Figure 3.3 shows a better-defined utilisation pattern, compared to Figure 3.2. It is evident from Figure 3.3 that aircraft utilisation sinks sharply after October (to as low as 7.56 flight hours and 2.5 flights a day). Maximum utilisation is achieved in July (13.0 flight hours and 4.8 flights a day). Further, it is evident that the utilisation in June is comparatively lower than in the months of May, July, and August. From the low season, the months November and February show the lowest utilisation The following table summarises the analysis made above:
Details Annual Pattern (High/low utilisation) Annual Utilisation (Variation In Months) Representation for the B737 NG utilisation Score METALS 1 0 0 1 Actual Utilisation 1 1 1 3
0 = poorly defined, 1 = Well defined

Table 3.4 Comparison between METALS and Actual Records data
At this point, it can be concluded that the METALS utilisation is not representative for the actual utilisation of the B737 NG.
34
Chapter 3 It is, therefore, preferred to use pattern that is based on Figure 3.3, rather than that from METALS.
3.2.4 Maintenance Scheduling

By combining the aircraft utilisation with the maintenance items, maintenance due dates per item can be generated After determining maintenance due dates and Items, the next step in the bottom-up approach is to determine when these items can be performed (hence scheduling). This section will mainly focus on factors influencing and limiting the scheduling of aircraft maintenance. Line Maintenance: As described earlier in section 2.3.1, the scheduling of line maintenance follows guidelines laid down in a Maintenance-Planning guide. This guide allocates eleven slots a week to the technical department for hangar maintenance. The maintenance planning then sub-divides these slots over the three types of aircraft in the Transavia fleet. For the purpose of definition only, the following values of slot allocation will be used:
Aircraft Type 737-300 757-200 737 - NG Slots required Fleet Size 7 4 13 Per week Minimum slots per hangar visit per aircraft 2 3 1.5 (Routine Mx) Hangar Visit frequency (Routine Mx) 4 weeks 5 weeks 5 weeks Aircraft Visiting hangar per week 1.75 0.8 2.6 Total slots per aircraft type per week (approx) 3.5 (4) 2.4 (3) 3.9 (4) 9.8 (11)
Table 3.5 Minimum maintenance slot allocations for the Transavia fleet (Sources: MP&S)
This research is on the 737NG, and will therefore concentrate on the maintenance demand for this aircraft. Table 3.5 reveals that a maximum of 4 slots are available per week for routine maintenance of the 737NG fleet. This also translates to 15 slots a year. In order to determine how frequent the aircraft has to visit the hangar for maintenance, it is necessary to look at intervals of maintenance tasks performed during such visits. For this purpose, only the common variations in the Maintenance Task Package intervals will be analysed:
Package Intervals 60 DAYS 60 DAYS/ 400 CYCLES 100 DAYS 100 DAYS/ 1000CYCLES 240 DAYS/ 1250CYCLES 360 DAYS 360 DAYS/ 2000CYCLES 480 DAYS/ 2500CYCLES 540 DAYS 720 DAYS 720 DAYS/ 4000CYCLES Boeing Man-hours 0.2 1.6 11.2 1.22 2.95 4.05 0.2 0.6 2.5 7.85 35.5 Package Intervals 450 HOURS 1000 HOURS 1600 HOURS 2000 HOURS 4000 HOURS 5000 HOURS 6500 HOURS 8000 HOURS 10000 HOURS 12000 HOURS 12500 HOURS Boeing Man-hours 13 6.05 3.85 3.21 10.75 49.21 0.6 3 6.05 2 1.9
35

1080 1080 1400 1800 1800 2880 2880 DAYS DAYS/ 8000HOURS DAYS DAYS DAYS/ 18000CYCLES DAYS DAYS/ 18000CYCLES 3.5 4.1 3.5 2.5 19.4 4.6 17.9 0.2 1.7 0.64 5.5 0.2 0.9 25.88 1.2 1.18 15000 20000 25000 30000 HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS 4.4 1.5 6.85 0.5
300 CYCLES 1000 CYCLES 2000 CYCLES 3000 CYCLES 3500 CYCLES 4000 CYCLES 4000 CYCLES/ 540DAYS 5000 CYCLES 9000 CYCLES/ 900DAYS
10000 12000 12500 15000 25000
CYCLES CYCLES CYCLES CYCLES CYCLES
0.1 0.8 0.25 0.3 3.9
Table 3.6 Line Maintenance Task Package Limits (Sources: OMP/ 737NG MPD; Table I. 3)
From Table 3.6 above, it can be seen that an aircraft will have to visit the hangar, at least once every 60 days, or after it makes 450 flight hours or 300 flight cycles. These are actually the maintenance intervals that determine how often the aircraft should have a hangar visit. The limits above are, in actual fact, independent of each other, and do not reflect the relationship between flight hours per day or flight hour per cycle ratios. The process from which the interval limits are determined falls outside the scope of this research. Another observation from Table 3.6 above is illustrated in Figure 3.4 below:
Man-hour Proportions by Package Interval Limits- Line Maintenance
Limited By Calendar Days 18% Limited By Flight Hours 38%
Limited By Flight Cycles 7%
Limited By Calendar Days/Flight Hours 2%
Limited By Calendar Days/Flight Cycles 35%
Figure 3.4 Maintenance Demand by Package Limits
Task packages based on Days and Days/Cycles constitute the largest part of maintenance demand (53%), while the hour tasks constitute of 38%. Task packages with a cycle limit constitute the smallest proportion (7%) of the chart. In order to draw a conclusion on whether the maintenance is Calendar Day-driven or Hour-drive, one has to look at the utilisation of the aircraft, in terms of hours flown per day. For example, with the given hangar visit frequency of 5 weeks; the aircraft
36
Chapter 3 should make less than 90 hours a week in order to remain within this bracket. If the aircraft makes 100 hours a week, 450 hours will be achieved in 4.5 weeks, at which the first hour limit (450 hours -see Table 3.6) will have to be performed. Below this, the maintenance will always be Calendar Day-driven. This fact will be illustrated in section 4.4.3. By combining the limits (in Table 3.6) above with the aircraft utilisation (see Figure 3.3 above), the actual due dates for each Maintenance Task Package can be determined. From here, the exact aircraft maintenance demand can be established. If it is decided to perform each Maintenance Task Package once it is due, the aircraft will be visiting the hangar, as frequently as all checks are due. This is not practical, owing to the to the following facts: - The Task Packages have different weights (number of due items, total manhours demand and total ground time demand), and such visits would lead to large variations in manpower demand and hangar space demand. - Such a strategy would have a heavy impact on aircraft utilisation, an undesired situation. - The frequency with which the aircraft visit the hangar will exceed the number of hangar slots allotted for each aircraft type (see Table 3.5) The bottom-up approach can, therefore, not be utilised on its own in the creation of optimum maintenance clusters for line maintenance. This creates the need to utilise a second approach (the Top-down approach, section 3.3) in conjunction with the Bottom-up approach. Base Maintenance: It has been stated earlier that base-maintenance is contracted out to an authorised base-maintenance station. Base Maintenance Checks are also referred to as Heavy Maintenance Checks owing to the nature of work they encompass, and the amount of downtime required to perform the work. The following is a list of maintenance intervals for Base Maintenance Checks:
Maintenance Check Intervals 540 DAYS 720 DAYS/ 4000CYCLES 1620 DAYS/ 12000CYCLES 1800 DAYS 1800 DAYS/18000CYCLES 2160 DAYS/ 18000 CYCLES 2880 DAYS 3600 DAYS 3600 DAYS/ 36000CYCLES 4320 DAYS 4320 DAYS/ 36000CYCLES 5400 DAYS 7200 DAYS 9000 CYCLES/ 900DAYS 24000 CYCLES/ 2880DAYS 25000 CYCLES 36000 CYCLES/ 2880DAYS Boeing Man-hours 36 0.4 3.84 0.8 17.6 0.5 5.1 14.2 49.38 4.3 62.65 8 0.4 4 13.63 4 5.5 Maintenance Check Intervals 8000 HOURS 10000 HOURS 12000 HOURS 15000 HOURS 20000 HOURS 22400 HOURS 25000 HOURS 30000 HOURS Boeing Man-hours 4.35 0.5 5 2 2.15 1.2 1.6 1.3
Table 3.7 Transavia Base Maintenance Checks (Sources: 737 NG OMP/ 737NG MPD; Table I. 2)
37
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG As was the case in Line maintenance, the maximum Base-Maintenance intervals will be determined by the 540-day check, or by the 8000-hour check or the 9000-cycle check. Once again, these three checks are not interrelated. In the following chapters, the 540-Day check will be considered as a Line Maintenance Check (as agreed upon by the Engineering and the MP&S department. One observation from the table above is that Base maintenance is essentially Calendar day-driven (See also Figure 3.5 below).
Man-hour Proportions by Check Interval Limits- Base Maintenance
Limited By Flight Hours 7%
Limited By Calendar Days 13%
Limited By Flight Cycles 2%
Limited By Calendar Time/ Flight Cycles 78%
Figure 3.5 Maintenance Demand by Transavia Check Limits
Base Maintenance Checks posses large maintenance intervals, and also a high demand for ground time. The planning hereof is basically done in the low season. This fact will be elaborated in section 3.3. The bottom-up approach can also not be utilised on its own in the formation of maintenance clusters for base maintenance, as indicated by the fact stated above. The planning hereof is done on a Top-down principle, as explained in the next section.
3.3
Top-down approach
3.3.1 Aircraft utilisation requirement

The top-down approach begins by analysing the aircraft utilisation requirement. This can be done at three levels, namely: 1. On an annual utilisation level 2. On a weekly utilisation level 3. On a daily utilisation level Ad.1
38
Chapter 3 The annual utilisation rhythm (Figure 3.3) gives an indication on aircraft demand spread out over a year. From this, a seasonal pattern can be established, as illustrated in Figure 3.6 below.
Aircraft Utilisation: 2000

450
> 12 hours per day

400 350
< 9 hrs per day

300 Hours/ Cycles 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
< 9 hrs per day
High Season Low Season > 4 cycles per day Low Season
Flight Hours Flight Cycles
<3.2 cycles per day
<3.2 cycles per day
Nov
Dec
Period [Months]
Figure 3.6 Seasonal Aircraft utilisation
It is evident from the figure above that the aircraft utilisation demand in the low season differs largely from that of the high season. Without further elaboration, it can also be concluded that no heavy maintenance can be performed during the high season without a significant interruption on the flight operations. As to be explained later in section 3.3.2, the high utilisation also forms a problem for regular maintenance. While a high utilisation leads to a higher demand for maintenance (see Bottom-Up approach), it also leaves little room for the execution of maintenance. The analysis of the utilisation at an annual level provides for the creation of maintenance slots at an early stage (long-term planning, section 2.2.1). Further, it may also be said that the fleet size also varies with the seasons. The High season is normally characterised with the increase in the number of aircraft through leasing, while the low season is characterised by a decrease in the fleet size, coupled with the leasing out of aircraft. However, the average utilisation (Figure 3.6) remains stable, owing to the fact that is dependent on the capacity demand. Ad.2 The weekly utilisation rhythm gives an indication on trends around aircraft utilisation on a weekly basis, over a whole year. From this, it may be possible to establish what days of the week are more convenient for performing maintenance, and days in which maintenance should be kept at a minimum. Below are two figures drawn from the utilisation of a sample aircraft from the 737NG fleet. Figure 3.7 is drawn from the low season, while Figure 3.8 is from the high season.
39

Weekly Utilisation - Low Season
21:36 19:12 16:48 14:24 Up-Time 12:00 9:36 7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 Nov Dec Jan Period [Months] Feb Mar
Up-Time: Includes Flight Time, Turn-around Time and Time Between two flights (<3hrs)
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Figure 3.7 Weekly Utilisation - Low Season (Source: FLASH)
From the figure above, it is not possible to determine whether the aircraft sampled flies more frequently on specific days as compared to other weekdays. The only observation that may follow from the graph is that Saturdays and Sundays are relatively busier than weekdays. A reason for the irregular variation lays in the fact that aircraft utilisation (in the low season) is solely based on capacity demand. The type of aircraft utilised for a particular destination will depend on the amount of seats required. A weekly pattern can, therefore, be derived form the total fleet flight hours flown on a specified day of the week. This would not be representative for the B737 NG.
Weekly Utilisation - High Season

0:00 21:36 19:12 16:48 14:24 Up-Time 12:00 9:36 7:12 4:48 2:24 0:00 Apr May Jun Jul Period [Months] Aug Sep Oct Mon Tue W ed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Figure 3.8 Weekly Utilisation - High Season (Source: FLASH)
40
Chapter 3 As was the case with the low season, it is not possible to draw a conclusion from the weekly pattern in the high season. However, by observing the months June to August, it may be mentioned that Mondays seem to have a lower utilisation as compared to other days of the week. The utilisation then seems to increase gradually with the week. A limiting factor in making use of the weekly utilisation pattern is the distribution of hangar labour over the week (refer to section 2.3.1). Following the observation made above on utilisation on Mondays, it may also be said that there is no labour available for the hangar day shift on this day. The same case applies for Fridays and the whole weekend. Ad.3 Daily utilisation patterns give an indication of day periods when the aircraft is least/not utilised, and the duration of this periods. The daily utilisation is principally aircraft specific (Scheduled flights) and seasonal dependent. The seasonal dependence is more evident from the departure times in the two seasons (Figure 3.9). Aircraft-specific utilisation is entirely dependent on how the Capacity-Planning Department plans in the aircraft.
UPTIME APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 18:00 19:00 18:15 19:15 17:30 18:30 18:00 13:45 13:00 13:30 13:00 15:00
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
Figure 3.9 Average earliest departure and latest return times 737 NG (FLASH, 1999-2000)
Figure 3.9 above reveals that aircraft depart earlier and return late during the high season, while the opposite is the case during the low season. Since the table contains averages, the actual distribution of departure and return times may vary greatly, especially during the low season.
3.3.2 Maintenance scheduling

By utilising the top-down strategy, it is possible to establish the availability of maintenance windows, in addition to the maintenance slots allotted for maintenance. This can be at the three levels listed in section 3.3.1 above, and illustrated here below.
41

Aircraft Utilisation Requirement/ Flight schedule
Maintenance Slots
Annual pattern
Weekly pattern/ Weekly Flight Schedule
Daily pattern/ Daily Flight Schedule
Fixed Slots Ad-hoc slots
Figure 3.10 Top-Down Approach
It has already been mentioned that a specified number of slots (fixed See also Table 2.5) are made available for Line maintenance per year per (Long-term planning). Specification of which aircraft should undergo maintenance is done on a short-term basis (>48 Hours, < 3 Months before maintenance), based on the maintenance demand of each aircraft. This possibility is also supplemented by the fact that the 737NG fleet is interchangeable. These slots are spread throughout the year, with no variations between the high and low season. Base maintenance slots are allocated on an annual basis (fixed slots). These slots are allocated to specific aircraft tail numbers, depending on when the maintenance is due to be performed. Ad-hoc slots can be derived from periods that the aircraft remains unutilised at the base station. Such slots can be utilised for the execution of opportunity maintenance pending. These unutilised periods can be illustrated as follows:
HZA, Week 18 2000 (High Season)
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNSDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
SPL- 5hrs SPL-4 hrs SPL-4 hrs SPL-4.5 hrs SPL-5.5 hrs SPL-4.25 hrs SPL-4.25 hrs
Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight SPL-5 hrs Flight
Flight
Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
Figure 3.11 Sample times between outbound and inbound flights SPL (Source: FLASH)
42
Chapter 3 Assuming that the above pattern is sustained throughout the high season, it can be concluded that no opportunities arise from the flight schedule (Opportunity = Time between 2 flights 3hr 45 min. See also Table 2.5).
HZA, Week 45 2000 (Low Season)
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNSDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY
SPL- 12 hrs SPL-8.45 hrs SPL-8.75 hrs SPL-23 hrs SPL-6.75 hrs SPL-15.5 hrs SPL-7.25 hrs Flight Flight
Flight Flight Flight Flight Flight
Flight
Flight Flight
0000. 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 0100
Figure 3.12 Sample times between outbound and inbound flights SPL (Source: FLASH)
Notes: 1. The time between two flights is the difference between the return time of a flight and the departure time of the next flight. 2. The number of flights indicated does not represent the total flight cycles made by the aircraft on specified day. From Figure 3.12, it can be seen that there are enough opportunities available for planning in maintenance. Such maintenance can either be based on fixed slots or ad hoc slots.
3.4
Conclusions
The maintenance clustering process may follow from two approach strategies, namely the Top-down (When can maintenance be performed, and what maintenance should be performed then?) and the Bottom-Up Approach (What maintenance should be performed, and when should it be performed?). However, the utilisation of both approaches is more practical for an airline, in terms of optimising maintenance planning and execution. For the optimisation of maintenance task intervals, it would be preferable to utilise maintenance task packages for line maintenance, instead of the current Maintenance Checks. Maintenance Task Packages are formed by considering the maintenance task interval, task set-up activities and the Transavia (L/B) classification. The result of this is a set of so-called maintenance task packages, which reflect a Task-Based maintenance (MSG-3), and packages small enough to accommodate Fixed Maintenance and Opportunity Maintenance. It has also been illustrated that the high season offers little to no opportunities for maintenance between flights, meaning that during the season, all maintenance has to be on a fixed basis. On the other hand, the low season offers enough time between flights for maintenance, either on a fixed or on an ad-hoc basis. Ad hoc slots may present themselves on a weekly basis (low season), but they are limited during the weekends.
43
44
Chapter 4
Cluster formation and evaluation
Through the implementation of the Bottom-Up/ Top-Down approach, maintenance Task Packages and Maintenance Checks can be grouped into maintenance clusters. Such clusters can either be static or dynamic, depending on their application. This chapter will deal with the application of the approach described in chapter three. It begins by selecting a method to be utilised for the clustering process (section 4.1). The method selected is then worked out in section 4.2. Thereafter, an application of the clustering method follows in section 4.3, from which results are generated and evaluated in section 4.4. A summary of the chapter will then follow in section 4.5.
4.1
Approach
The process leading to the formation and evaluation of maintenance clusters is illustrated in Figure 4.1 below, and is as follows:
Maintenance Items (a) Aircraft Utilisation Scenarios (b) Maintenance Scenarios (c)
Boundary Conditions (d)
Maintenance Item Allocation Model (Clustering Process: Top-Down /Bottom-Up)
Maintenance Clusters (e)
Cluster Evaluation (Evaluation Process) (f)
Optimum Maintenance Clusters
Figure 4.1 Cluster formation and evaluation process
a) By combining aircraft utilisation with the Maintenance Item interval, it is possible to determine when a specific item will be due (see section 3.2.4), and the corresponding man-hour demand. As stated in chapter 3, the term Maintenance Item refers to both Line Maintenance Task Packages and Base Maintenance Checks (see also section 3.2) b) As illustrated in Figure J. 1, the B737 NG shows variations in the utilisation of specific aircraft. These variations are not specified to tail numbers, but are rather random over the whole fleet. Further, the airline is in the process of specialising in BASIQ AIR operations, a factor that may drastically change the aircraft utilisation. These factors need to be incorporated in the clustering process. This creates the need to develop utilisation scenarios. Such scenarios will be tackled in section 4.3.1. c) The effect of different maintenance frequencies is incorporated in the process through maintenance scenarios. Maintenance scenarios have the following properties:
45
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG For line maintenance: - Hangar visit frequency in weeks/days For Base maintenance: - Base maintenance frequency (Heavy Maintenance Visit # HMV) in years/days d) Conditions governing maintenance planning and execution, such as those described in section 1.6, are incorporated in the process through boundary conditions e) The maintenance item clustering process will be done using a Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM), described in section 4.3.2. Maintenance clusters possess the following properties: - Maintenance items (Maintenance Task Package clusters or Maintenance Check clusters) - Maintenance item properties - Total (cluster) man-hours - Total maintenance-item interval de-escalation (see also section 4.3.5) f) Task clusters resulting from (e.) above will then be evaluated (see also sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.4), and from these, clusters deemed as optimum will be identified
4.2
Maintenance Item Clustering
4.2.1 Clustering method selection

A choice for a cluster formation and evaluation method can be made between: 1. An analytical method: The analytical method involves the design of a formal model of the process in question. This model incorporates all relevant process parameters, and the relationship between them is presented mathematically. Manipulating or solving these equations achieves a solution to the problem [Bratley, 1987; Hillston, 2001] 2. Computer simulation method Involves the utilisation of a computer program to solve the problem in question. The simulation experiment begins by designing a formal model (in the form of a flow chart) of the process in question, which is then translated into programming language of simulation software. Computer simulations borrow some properties of the analytical method. The resulting programme is normally a comprehensive description of the process, in which only the relevant process properties and parameters are incorporated. This is also referred to as a Hybrid Simulation [Bratley, 1987; Hillston, 2001] For this research, it is preferable to utilise the Hybrid Simulation for the creation and evaluation of maintenance clusters. The model will be utilised to generate events (maintenance items turning due) and gather data (man-hours required and task interval de-escalations).
46
Chapter 4
4.2.2 Calculation and simulation software

The choice for a simulation method is done as follows: 1. Compatibility with various forms of input: The parameters and variables used in the model may originate from Data within the organisation, such as from the maintenance program (OMP Maintenance Tasks), METALS (Aircraft Utilisation in MS Excel Format) and from Boeing Digital Data (Maintenance Task descriptions MS Access Format) 2. Preferred form of output: These should be in a form that is easy to understand and interpret without much explanation or further processing. - Graphical outputs - Tabulated results 3. Simulation/ iteration capability: Where specific optimums are to be calculated, the program may fill in values automatically (iterate) 4. Familiar environment for the researcher and other possible users: The program should serve as a tool for achieving the desired results. It is, therefore, not the centre of the research. The programming language should be simple, but should also be comprehensive enough in describing the model. 5. Availability: The program used should be available on the workstations provided by the Transavia. A selection of a programming language may be made from: a) C++ b) MS Excel/Visual Basic c) MATLAB d) SimJava The following is a three-point6 evaluation of the programming languages listed above: C++ MATLAB MS Excel/ SimJava Visual Basic
Compatibility with available forms of input Preferred form of output Simulation/Iteration Capability Familiar environment for the researcher Familiar Environment for other possible users Availability 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 0
Score
11
12
0 = N/A; 1 = Poorly Defined; 2 = Well Defined
Table 4.1 Evaluation of programming languages
From the evaluation above, the combination of MS Excel comes out stronger than other programming languages. C++ demands the writing of a comprehensive program. The results of this would be, however, user-friendlier than with the other options. Unfortunately, C++ does not support all forms of input that might be used, such as MS Excel worksheets. This is only possible after the incorporation of additional modules.
6
[Smit, 1994]
47
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG MATLAB can only be used for its analytical power, but it has poor user-friendly features. SimJava, on the other hand, is a perfect tool for carrying out simulations, but the language is unknown to the researcher. Hence, the software to be utilised in this research will be MS Excel 2000 and Visual Basic 4 (VB4), in conjunction with the Visual Basic Editor (VBE) present in excel. VB4 will be utilised for programming purposed while MS Excel sheet properties will be used for processing the inputs and presenting the outputs.
4.3
Simulation process description
4.3.1 Simulation Components:

The following components will be incorporated in the simulation model (see also Appendix J.2) Simulation components 1. System state Variables 2. Simulation clock 3. Event List 4. Statistical counters 5. Initialisation routine 6. Timing routine 7. Event Routine 8. Library routine Description Aircraft status at the beginning of the simulation (age in Calendar Days, Flight Hours and Cycles) Maintenance scenarios: An indication of how frequently maintenance will be performed The process of tasks turning due. The list contains task limits given in Days, Hours or Cycles Different results generated from the calculations are summed up under (9) below This routine sets starting values to the preferred format (see also section 4.4) This routine sets the duration of the simulation This routine resets values to zero once the tasks are performed In order to make the evaluation process comprehensive enough, different utilisation scenarios are simulated (see sections 3.2.3, 3.3.1 and Ad.8. below) Data gathered from the simulations includes the Maintenance demand, and the total de-escalation
9. Report Generator
Table 4.2 Simulation Components description
Ad.1. System state variables: The variables above may be derived from specific aircraft in the Transavia fleet, or by assuming that the aircraft being simulated is new in the fleet. Ad.2. Simulation clock (See also section 3.2.4): Two different clocks are applied, for line and base maintenance; a weekly and an annual clock respectively. Line maintenance is performed at short intervals that do not exceed 7-weeks. Currently, line maintenance is performed every 5 weeks (see section 2.3.1). The simulations will be aimed at evaluating the effects of performing maintenance at various frequencies, as listed in Table 4.3.
48
Chapter 4 Base maintenance is performed at large intervals, currently 1.5 years (see section 2.4.1). The simulations will therefore be aimed at evaluating the effect of increasing this interval (the desired situation). Base maintenance frequencies will be set at:
Line Maintenance
4 Weeks 5 Weeks 6 Weeks 7 Weeks Ad hoc maintenance
Base Maintenance
18 Months 24 Months -
Table 4.3 Simulation Clock: Line/Base Maintenance Intervals
Ad.8. Library Routine: Simulation7 of Aircraft Utilisation Component 8 (library routines) is meant to simulate aircraft utilisation for the period to be considered, based the following basic assumptions: - The aircraft will follow the standard utilisation: Actual Utilisation - The aircraft utilisation may vary, by decreasing, increasing, or remaining constant: Variable Utilisation Owing to the fact that the seasonal pattern has to be incorporated in the calculations, it is preferred not to describe the utilisation with a normal (statistical) distribution. Instead, The Monte-Carlo simulation method is utilised. A uniformly distributed range is specified, and from this, a random number is drawn (see also Appendix J.3). The VB4/Excel function utilised to generate values is the RANDBETWEEN [min, max] function. Simulation based on the actual utilisation: For the period in which the 737NG aircraft have been operating for Transavia, the following minimum and maximum aircraft utilisation values were witnessed. See also Appendix J.3.1
Jan
Hours Cycles FH/FC Min Max Min Max Min Max 236 305 76 114 2.1 4.0
Feb
197 288 71 109 1.8 4.1
Mar
251 337 72 126 1.9 4.7
Apr
284 405 101 133 2.1 4.0
May
355 398 132 141 2.5 3.0
Jun
328 385 122 142 2.3 3.2
Jul
373 429 140 153 2.4 3.1
Aug
377 407 135 149 2.5 3.0
Sep
346 388 122 149 2.3 3.2
Oct
324 396 105 143 2.3 3.8
Nov
114 280 69 131 0.9 4.1
Dec
183 307 63 101 1.8 4.9
Table 4.4 Simulation ranges - Actual Utilisation
The simulation program samples the min/max FH or FC values for the each month from the table above. The FH/FC ratio tabulated serves to indicate the extremes of all possible combinations Simulation based on variable Utilisation While it is evident that Table 4.4 covers the lowest (114 FH/63 FC) and the highest possible (429 FH/153 FC) monthly utilisation, it does not directly provide for a permanently low or a permanently high utilisation. It also does not provide for a low
7
Only the aircraft utilisation is simulated
49
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG FH/FC ratio in the high season. The latter is of importance to Transavia, considering the developments around their BASIQ AIR services. For these reasons, various utilisation scenarios are developed to describe possible utilisation patterns that may arise in the periods being considered. Such utilisation scenarios may, therefore, be based on three assumptions, as described by Bratley (1987). [Bratley, 1987]: 1. Conservative utilisation (Cons.): Based on the minimum conceivable daily utilisation. The minimum daily utilisation from Table 3.3 is 7.14 flight hours. It may be assumed that if the utilisation will remain low throughout the year, a minimum of 7 hours and a maximum of 9 hours may be chosen (uniformly distributed, for the given simulation period). 2. Most-Likely utilisation (ML): This utilisation is based around the current average daily utilisation of 10 flight hours per day. The ML utilisation may, therefore, be chosen to lie between 9 and 11 hours (uniformly distributed, for the given simulation period) 3. Optimistic utilisation (Opt.): This may be based around the maximum conceivable daily utilisation, which is (from Table 3.3) 12.73 flight hours. This utilisation may be chosen to lie between 11 and 13 hours (uniformly distributed, for the given simulation period). For each of the scenarios listed above, different Flight hour/cycle ratios are considered in order to calculate flight cycles to correspond to the flight hours from the three scenarios above. The ratios mentioned above can be derived from the anticipated concentration of Transavia activities to BASIQ AIR destinations. The current destinations of BASIQ AIR are: - Nice (2 hours flight time) - Barcelona (2.2 hours flight time) - Malaga (2.9 hours flight time) The following ratio ranges are therefore chosen to represent various modes of operation that may be witnessed within the airline: a. Conservative: 1.9 - 2.1 FH/FC b. Most Likely: 2.2 - 2.7 FH/FC (including the average utilisation) c. Optimistic: 2.8 - 3.1 FH/FC By combining utilisations 1 3 above with ratios a-c, the following 9-utilisation scenarios follow:
Utilisation: Conservative Most Likely Optimistic Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Flight Hours 7 9 hrs/day 7 9 hrs/day 7 9 hrs/day 9 11 hrs/day 9 11 hrs/day 9 11 hrs/day 11 13 hrs/day 11 13 hrs/day 11 13 hrs/day Flight Hours/Cycles 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.8 3.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.8 3.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.8 3.1
Scenario 10:
(Actual Utilisation)
(Actual Utilisation)
Table 4.5 Variable utilisation scenarios
50
Chapter 4 From the flight hours and flight hour/cycle ratios above, it is possible to calculate minimum and maximum utilisation ranges for each month. See also Appendix J.3 The simulation process described for the actual utilisation is also applicable for the variable utilisation. For the purpose of uniformity, the actual utilisation will be referred to as Scenario 10. There are, therefore, 10 Scenarios to be considered in the calculations.
4.3.2 Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM): Model design

Figure 4.1 illustrates that maintenance clusters result from a clustering process, which adds maintenance scenarios, utilisation scenarios, and boundary conditions to the maintenance items. This section will model the Hybrid Simulation method (selected in the previous section) into a clustering model, referred to as the Maintenance Item Allocation Model. Process description: The first section of Figure 4.1 describes the clustering process (while the second section describes the optimisation process). This first section is elaborated as follows:
INPUTS - Maintenance Items: (Properties) Maintenance Item interval - Maintenance Item Man-hours - Aircraft Utilisation Scenarios (Table 4.5) - Maintenance Scenarios (Table 4.3) - Boundary Conditions PROCESS Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM) OUTPUTS Maintenance Clusters (Properties) Cluster Performance Date Total Man-hour Demand Maintenance Interval Deescalation
Figure 4.2 Clustering process description
a). INPUTS/OUTPUTS Considering that the inputs listed above comprise of System State Variables, the Simulation Clock and the Library Routine (from Table 4.2), and considering that the clustering process describes the Bottom-Up/ Top-Down approach, the following can be said on about the inputs and outputs: - The Maintenance Item interval induces a Time Since Last Performed variable (in Days, Hours or Cycles, depending on the interval) - The Maintenance Scenarios govern the frequency with which maintenance is to be performed - The aircraft utilisation not only follows a seasonal pattern, but it also accumulates over the periods to be considered - The Maintenance Clusters consist of a group of Maintenance Items (Line Maintenance Task Packages or Base Maintenance Checks), which exhibit a maintenance demand (in either Transavia Man-hours or KLM Man-hours), and the total de-escalation resulting from the clustering (see section 4.3.5).
51
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG b). Clustering Process: The MIAM As described earlier in this chapter (see Table 4.2), the MIAM is modelled to serve the following purposes: 1. To Simulate the aircraft utilisation 2. To calculate when a maintenance item turns due 3. To fit each maintenance items into a maintenance cluster 4. To generate maintenance clusters (see outputs, Figure 4.2) The initial process within the MIAM (calculating when an item is due) can be
Reset TSLP to 0 Library Routine Simulation Clock
INPUT
Maintenance Item
Maintenance Item: Time Since Last Performed (TSLP)
Add monthly Utilization (CT/FH/FC/ CT-FH/CT-FC) To TSLP
Mx Item Due? NO
YES
Mark as Maintenance Due
Maintenance Due item

Maintenance Item variable:
1. Time Since Last Performed
OUTPUT
Maintenance Due Item
1. 2. Date when THIS item is due Item Man-hours required to perform THIS item
Maintenance Item Constants:
a. Maintenance Interval (Mx item) b. Maintenance Item Man-hours (Mx item)
illustrated as follows:
Figure 4.3 Maintenance Item Allocation Model: Top Model
A Maintenance Item is introduced into the MIAM. Further, the library routine is selected (utilisation, based on Scenarios 1-10, Table 4.5). A Maintenance Scenario (Simulation Clock) is also selected from Table 4.3. The simulation increment is in months. The library routine draws a seed (monthly utilisation in flight hours and cycles) from the scenario in question. The seed is added to the TSLP, where after an evaluation is done on whether the items maintenance interval has been achieved. If this is the case, the item is due for performance, it is marked as a maintenance due item. TSLP is reset to 0, and the process is repeated. If the above is not the case, the process is repeated until the maintenance interval is reached. If the item is a calendar-day limited item, then the days of the month in question are utilised (i.e. 31 days for January, 28 days for February etc), instead of the library routine. The process it terminated at the end of the simulation period. It is important to mention that for each month, the same seed is used to evaluate all Maintenance Items. A new seed is drawn every time the calculation is repeated The model described in Figure 4.3 does not result in a maintenance cluster, but it does lay the basis on which the clustering process should be done. The outputs of the model are:
52
Chapter 4 The Maintenance Item due dates The maintenance demand (in either Transavia or KLM man-hours)
The process described above also makes the following assumptions: 1. All tasks in each Maintenance Item are performed simultaneously (See also Table I. 4). 2. The marking of an item as due implies that it is performed at that moment. 3. The maintenance item limits are never exceeded (escalated) The next two sections will develop the model in Figure 4.3 into clustering models for Line Maintenance (performed by Transavia) and Base maintenance (performed by an MRO, in this case KLM).
4.3.3 Clustering: Line Maintenance Transavia Hangar

This clustering is aimed at determining which Maintenance Task Packages should be performed per hangar visit (on a fixed or ad hoc basis Figure 3.10). The simulation clock (in weeks - Table 4.3) is hence incorporated into the model. The resulting model is illustrated as follows:
Simulation Clock Maintenance Window Reset TSLP to 0
Library Routine (Tables 4.2, 4.4)
(Tables 4.2, 4.3)
(Section 3.3.1)
INPUT
Maintenance Task Package (Table I.3) Time Since Last Performed (TSLP)
Package Due*? NO
YES
Fits into Available Window?
YES Add package
To window cluster
NO Add package To slot cluster
OUTPUTS
Package in Slot cluster
Package in Window Cluster
*= Due now or before the next maintenance interval
Figure 4.4 Maintenance Item Allocation Model: Line Maintenance
The allocation process is similar to that of the top model. However, the evaluation on whether a Maintenance Task Package is due is based on the availability of a maintenance slot or a maintenance window (See section 3.3). If a Maintenance Task Package turns due and there is a maintenance window readily available for maintenance, it will be fitted into the window. If it does not fit into a given window, either because it is too large, or because the window is full, it will be fitted into the next available maintenance slot. In every case, the Maintenance Task Package limit should not be escalated.
4.3.4 Clustering: Base Maintenance MRO Station

The clustering of base maintenance tasks is aimed at: - Determining how often base (heavy) maintenance should be performed.
53
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Determining which Maintenance Checks (see also Table I. 2) should be performed at which base maintenance check Just as was the case with line maintenance, this section will only tackle the determination of maintenance checks for different maintenance visits, at intervals resulting from Table 4.3. Library Routine (Tables 4.2, 4.4) Simulation Clock Reset TSLP To 0
(Tables 4.2, 4.3)
Maintenance Check
INPUT
Time Since Last Performed (TSLP)
(Table I.2)
Mx Check Due*? NO
YES
Mark as Maintenance Due
Add Mx Check To Cluster
OUTPUT
* Due now or before the next maintenance interval
Maintenance Cluster
Figure 4.5 Clustering process Level 3: Base Maintenance
The process illustrated in Figure 4.5 above is similar to that used in line maintenance clustering. However, the determination of Maintenance Checks to execute per base maintenance visit is much easier, mainly due to the large limits that Maintenance Checks have. Each of the above models results in a program that calculate the desired clusters. The resulting programs (written in Visual Basic Code) are included in Appendix J.4.
4.3.5 Maintenance item Interval de-escalation

Maintenance item clustering normally results in the de-escalation of maintenance item intervals. These are the maintenance intervals allocated to individual tasks by the engineering department (see also section 3.2.4). It is calculated as a fraction of the interval that is not utilised, i.e.
de escalation =
Where:
TAVi lastp ; lastp TAVi TAVi
TAVi = Transavia interval (CT, FH, FC) lastp = Time since last performed (accumulated utilisation)
De-escalation can be interpreted as a loss, in that maintenance items end up being performed more frequently than they ought to be performed. The loss will therefore be expressed in terms of labour, increased downtime and repeated set-up activities. The last two losses cannot be calculated directly. However, this report will work further with the assumption that labour losses are representative enough for deescalation losses.
54
Chapter 4 Hence, de-escalation will be calculated as follow: For Line maintenance:
de escalation =
Where:
TAVi lastp HVMhrs TAVi
HVMhrs = Transavia Man-hours (Boeing Man-hours x 1.7)
For Base Maintenance:
de escalation =
Where:
TAVi lastp BaseMhrs TAVi
BaseMhrs = Base Maintenance man-hours (Boeing Man-hours x 3.6: See Table 2.8)
In terms of the exact cost of labour, the following values are applicable:
Line Maintenance: Transavia Base Maintenance: MRO (KLM) 31.76* 52.07*
* - As per 01-05-2001
Table 4.6 Maintenance Man-hour rates (Source: Project Management, TAV)
4.3.6 Model Validation and verification

(See also Appendix J.5) Validation: Actual Process vs. The MIAM Model Validation is done in order to ascertain that the model is a reasonable representation of the real life process: that it reproduces system behaviour with enough fidelity to satisfy analysis objectives [Hillston, 2001]. a). Assumptions made: - The aircraft considered makes flights on a daily basis, throughout the entire period considered - The aircraft performs flights solely for Transavia, hence sticking to Transavias seasonal utilisation pattern - Maintenance clusters are performed as scheduled. No escalations and extensions are considered b). Inputs and Distributions: - Maintenance dates (Due dates, Time Since Last Performed) have a MM/YY format. Maintenance is always performed at intervals larger than 28 days(4 weeks) - All utilisation scenarios represent Transavias seasonal pattern c). Outputs: Maintenance man-hour demand is also regarded as downtime. The process concentrates more on man-hour demand variations, and downtime is expected to decrease if the maintenance frequency decreases.
55
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Verification: MIAM Design and MIAM Realisation Verification is intended to ensure that the model does what is intended to do (often referred to as debugging) a). The model calculates all possible inputs; with the exclusion of line maintenance frequencies lower than 4 weeks. If certain boundary conditions are violated (e.g. escalation of maintenance interval limits), the model returns erroneous outputs (N/A, #VALUE etc.). This ensures that no invalid results are evaluated further. b). The modelled scenarios produce the desired utilisation patterns. c). Base Maintenance does not vary greatly with changes in the maintenance utilisation. Minimal changes are observed within each utilisation scenario groups (conservative, most likely or optimistic). Sampling one scenario from each group may be considered to be representative enough for the other two. d). Line maintenance shows significant variations within the various utilisation scenarios. Considering that the maintenance demand is calculated at short intervals, such variations cannot be ignored. Hence, all the 10 scenarios should be considered.
4.4
MIAM Results
The results resulting from the MIAM can be grouped into two categories, each resulting from the two models, namely the Line Maintenance and the Base Maintenance MIAM. For both categories, the Current Situation (as described in chapter 2) is analysed, after which the Proposed (New) Situation (as proposed in chapter 3) is analysed. The results in section 4.4 are also included in Appendix K. Unless otherwise stated, the following initial conditions will apply:
Initialisation Routine System State Variables: Event Routine Library Routine 01- 04 - 2001 0 CT, 0 FH, 0 FC A single aircraft is considered 0 (As stated)
Table 4.7 Initial Conditions*
4.4.1 Base Maintenance

A. Current Situation: The first results generated by the MIAM are based on the conditions that prevailed at the start if this research, namely: - Base Maintenance Items Include all Maintenance Checks with an interval equivalent to, or larger than 540 Days, 3000 Cycles or 6000 Hours (See also and Table I. 2 in Appendix I.1) Items on Calendar Time: 1276 Base Man-hours Items on Flight Cycles: 41 Base Man-hours Items on Flight Hours: 100 Base Man-hours - Base maintenance is performed every 18 months
Refer also to Table 4.2: System State Variables
56
Chapter 4 The purpose of this is to form a basis of evaluation and comparison with results generated under different conditions. The results will also be based on Scenario 10 (See Table 4.5). This is because they will not be optimised further. By utilising the MIAM, the following results are generated, under the conditions stated above:
Base Visit #1 HMV 1 HMV 2 HMV 3 HMV 4 HMV 5 HMV 6 Totals Due Date Sep 02 Mar 04 Sep 05 Mar 07 Sep 08 Mar 10 (6 Visits) Base MHrs2 261 315 432 323 437 715 2484 De-escalation3 78 94 89 98 78 130 567 % De-escalation 30 30 21 30 18 18 23
Table 4.8 Maintenance Demand - Current situation
Notes: 1 HMV #: 2 Base MHrs: 3 De-escalation:
Heavy Maintenance Visit # Routine Maintenance man-hours. Not including Open & Close work, estimated at 265 Man-hours per visit Calculated over Cluster Man-hours
The table above is plotted out in Figure 4.6 below:

Base Maintenance Demand: 18 Month Interval (Previous Situation)
800
700
600 Base Mx Manhours
500
Cluster MHrs Cluster De-Escalation
400
300
200
100
0 HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10]
Base Visit [Number, Date]
Figure 4.6 Base Maintenance Demand, in comparison with de-escalation losses
Table 4.8 and Figure 4.6 reveal that for every base maintenance visit, and average of 23% in terms of labour costs is wasted (see also Table 4.9 below).
57
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG It can also be observed that the first five visits (HMV1 HMV5) do not vary much in terms of man-hour demand, as compared to the sixth visit. The sixth visit (HMV-6) exhibits a large maintenance demand, mainly as a result of an increase in the number of maintenance tasks that comes along with the ageing of the aircraft. It was established in section 2.4.1 that the proportions of Routine work and nonroutine work resulting from routines are: Routine Man-hours: 2.0 * Boeing Man-hours Non-routines (from routines): 1.6 * Boeing Man hours Total Routine Man-hours: 3.6 * Boeing Man-hours By incorporating this information in Table 4.8, and by adding open and close manhours to the routine maintenance, the following may be seen as an illustration of the proportions between routine and non-routine maintenance (resulting from routine work):
1200
1000
Base Mx Man-hours
800
600
Open & Close Non-Routines Routine MHrs
400
200
0 HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10] Base Visit [Number, Date]
Figure 4.7 Routine and Non-Routine work, Current Situation
The maintenance demand illustrated above can be translated into maintenance costs by incorporating the base maintenance rate stated in Table 4.6. The result of this is given in Table 4.9 below. Observations from the table will be discussed in section 4.4.2 on optimisation.
Base Visit HMV HMV HMV HMV HMV HMV 1 2 3 4 5 6 [Sep 02] [Mar 04] [Sep 05] [Mar 07] [Sep 08] [Mar 10] Base Man-hours (including O&C) 526 580 697 588 702 980 4074 Total Cost, Routine Mx () 27371.95 30221.22 36274.04 30633.61 36572.09 51041.51 212112.4 Total Losses () 4047.40 4907.79 4632.79 5110.82 4070.47 6752.47 29521.31
Totals (10 years)
Table 4.9 Base Maintenance Costs per aircraft, Current Situation
58
Chapter 4 B. Proposed (New) Situation: The proposed situation refers to the clustering that is done under the following conditions: - Base Maintenance items are not determined by their intervals (>3000 Cycles, > 6000 Hours, > 540 Days), but by their Line/Base Classification. See also section 3.2.1 and Figure 3.1. Items on Calendar Time: 813 Base Man-hours Items on Flight Cycles: 14 Base Man-hours Items on Flight Hours: 65 Base Man-hours - All maintenance scenarios on Table 4.5 may be considered, owing to the fact that the model will be looking at the current situation and projecting into the near future (0 10 years) This situation utilises the simulation clock values, as listed in Table 4.3. Each interval will be analysed separately. 18-Month Interval for Base Maintenance visits An 18-month interval for base maintenance results in the following maintenance demand for the various scenarios:
Cons ML Opt Scenario 10 Type Visit Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc HMV1 [Sep 02] 209 9 211 8 229 10 211 8 HMV2 [Mar 04] 229 11 236 9 236 11 236 9 HMV3 [Sep 05] 297 9 299 8 327 9 303 8 HMV4 [Mar 07] 239 11 248 9 243 11 244 9 HMV5 [Sep 08] 307 7 303 6 316 8 303 6 HMV6 [Mar 10] 550 10 553 9 563 10 557 9 Totals 1830
1851
1915
10
1855
Table 4.10 Base Maintenance Cluster man-hours By Scenario
Owing to the fact that different scenarios result in different cluster compositions (illustrated on Figure 4.14), it can be said that an 18-Month Base Maintenance Interval would demand a careful monitoring of the aircraft utilisation. Large variations in the utilisation would require a constant revision of the maintenance clusters that might have been pre-calculated and pre-planned. This is especially so when the aircraft utilisation should not be limited by the anticipated maintenance. When plotted out on Figure 4.8 below, it becomes clearer that the Optimistic Scenarios slightly results in a higher maintenance demand than other scenarios. This is as a result of the maintenance demand leaning slightly on utilisation, rather than on calendar time, as is the case with other utilisation scenarios.
59

750
650
550
Base Mx Manhours
450
350
250
Cons ML
150
Opt Scen.10 Current
50 HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10]
-50
Figure 4.8 Cluster Maintenance demand by Scenario, as compared to the Current situation
It is also evident from Figure 4.8 that there is a large difference in the maintenance demand between the current and the proposed situation. This is a logical consequence of the Line/Base Maintenance redefinition (Appendix E), which resulted in many tasks being classified as line maintenance tasks than was previously the case. As pertains to the maintenance costs associated with the clusters from the 18-Months maintenance interval, the following is a tabulation of how these relate:
Mx Costs () Type Visit HMV1 [Sep 02] HMV2 [Mar 04] HMV3 [Sep 05] HMV4 [Mar 07] HMV5 [Sep 08] HMV6 [Mar 10] Totals ()/ aircraft Cons. Labour Cost 10900 11931 15444 12428 15967 28637 95308 De-esc Cost ML Labour Cost 10994 12306 15566 12925 15780 28796 96367 De-esc Cost Opt. Labour Cost 11931 12306 17028 12644 16473 29321 99704 De-esc Cost Scenario 10 Labour Cost 10994 12306 15791 12700 15780 29021 96592 De-esc Cost
997 1315 1356 1369 1112 2765 8915
929 1159 1275 1211 1002 2558 8133
1198 1356 1595 1381 1271 2836 9637
896 1050 1294 1109 938 2540 7828
Table 4.11 Base Maintenance Cluster Costs by Scenario - 18 Months
24 Month Interval for Base Maintenance Visits As was with the other interval, the scenarios analysed will be limited to Scenario 1 (Scen-1), 5 (Scen-5), 9 (Scen-9), and the actual scenario.
Cons Type Visit HMV1 [Mar HMV2 [Mar HMV3 [Mar HMV4 [Mar HMV5 [Mar Totals 03] 05] 07] 09] 11] ML Opt Scenario 10 Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc 82 9 100 12 107 10 107 13 187 12 195 14 205 13 199 15 95 8 111 9 113 8 119 10 509 8 515 9 521 9 515 10 327 2 341 3 348 2 348 3 1200
1261
1293
1287
Table 4.12 Base Maintenance Cluster man-hours by Scenario
60
Chapter 4 Table 4.12 shows that with a larger base maintenance interval, the maintenance demand still varies between various scenarios. Further, the actual scenario tends to move closer to the Optimistic utilisation. Further, there is a significant reduction in the total maintenance demand as compared to the original situation (see Figure 4.1 below), and also as compared to the maintenance demand at an interval of 18 Months. The latter is the case; as a result of a reduction in work that recurs per maintenance visit. An additional advantage of the 24-Months interval is that there are only five base maintenance visits in ten years, as compared to the previous six in the same period
750
650
550
Base Mx Manhours
450
350
250
Cons ML
150
Opt Scen.10 Current
50 HMV1 [Mar 03] HMV2 [Mar 05] HMV3 [Mar 07] HMV4 [Mar 09] HMV5 [Mar 11]
-50
Figure 4.9 Cluster Maintenance demand, as compared to the Current situation
The Cluster maintenance demand illustrated in Figure 4.9 shows relatively large variations between various visits, and especially so during the fourth and the fifth visit. By comparing the total man-hour demand from an 18-month and a 24-month Base maintenance interval (Scenario 10), it can be seen that the 24 month interval results in a lower man-hour demand.
Base Mx at 18 Months Base Visit Base Mhrs HMV1 [Sep 02] 211 HMV2 [Mar 04] 236 HMV3 [Sep 05] 303 HMV4 [Mar 07] 244 HMV5 [Sep 08] 303 HMV6 [Mar 10] 557 Total Base Mhrs 1855 Base Mx at 24 Months Base Visit Base Mhrs HMV1 [Feb 03] 107 HMV2 [Feb 05] 199 HMV3 [Feb 07] 119 HMV4 [Feb 09] 286 HMV5 [Feb 11] 336 Total Base Mhrs 1046
Table 4.13 Base Man-hour demand Comparison: 18 Month and 24 Month Intervals
61
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Following an analysis of the exact contents of the clusters illustrated the following observations are made:
hzy hzl
Days Hours Cycles
2001 Frequency 35 0 Apr 30 335 118 Bo-Mhrs CHECKS Cycles Hours Days
2003 Mar 730 7742 2946
2005 Mar 1460 15647 5878
2007 Mar 2190 23298 8819
2009 Mar 2920 31203 11751
2011 Mar 3648 38756 14666 Apr 3678 39043 14784
720 D720* D1620* D1800 D1800* D2160* D2880 D3600 D3600* D4320 D4320* 720 1620 1800 1800 2160 2880 3600 3600 4320 4320
7742
2946 4000 12000 18000 18000 50 14 3 63 2 18 51 36000 36000 178 15 226
HMV1 x
HMV2 x x x x
HMV3 x
HMV4 x x x x
HMV5 x
x x x x x x
Figure 4.10 MIAM extract: Base Mx at 24 Months (Scenario 10)
Figure 4.10 is a visualisation of how the MIAM identifies due items (x) and groups them into clusters (HMV#). The rows at the top stand for the aircraft age (in calendar days, hours and cycles), while the first column of the left lists the maintenance checks. The second, third and fourth columns are help columns, while the fifth column lists the base maintenance man-hours. From the extract, it can be seen that the D1800*, the D3600, D3600* and the D4320* checks carry a significant amount of man-hours with them. These checks have, however, been clustered for performance much earlier (~ 680 days) than they are due. This is a large de-escalation of the check interval. Further, it is also evident that in HMV4, there are many other checks that turn due for performance. The result of this is a large maintenance cluster, hence the peak in Figure 4.9.
4.4.2 Base Maintenance Optimisation

It is possible to move the checks closer to their maintenance limits by fixing the maintenance date in advance, namely at the very first base maintenance visit, or at a consecutive maintenance visit with minimum cluster man-hours. A minimum is desired because the fixing is a de-escalation in itself. Figure 4.9 indicates two minimums, namely the HMV1 and the HMV3. If it is chosen to fix HMV1, then this can be referred to as initial de-escalation. Figure 4.10 below illustrates the effect of the initial de-escalation on the total Maintenance demand and on the total de-escalation (see also Table 4.14):
62
Chapter 4
400
1250
350
1050
300
850 Base Mx Mnhours
650
Scen. 10 Mhrs Cons Mhrs ML Mhrs Opt Mhrs De-esc. Scen 10 De-esc. Cons De-esc. ML De-esc. Opt
De-escalation Manhours
250
200
150
450
100
250
50
50 0 30 60 Initial De-escalation [Days] 90 120
Figure 4.11 Effect of Initial De-escalation on the Maintenance Demand/Total De-escalation
It is evident that the total maintenance demand decreases by the application of an initial de-escalation. However, this decrease is only limited to about 30 days after which the initial de-escalation shows almost no effect to the total maintenance demand. This is the case with all scenarios.
Initial De-esc Scenario 10 [Days] 0 30* 60 90 120 Cons. ML Opt
Base MHrs % De-esc. Base MHrs % De-esc. Base MHrs % De-esc. Base MHrs % De-esc. 1287 26 1200 21 1261 25 1293 25 1020 9 959 7 1020 8 1052 8 1032 9 964 7 1025 9 1057 8 1039 9 970 8 1031 9 1064 9 1039 10 977 9 1039 10 1069 9
Table 4.14 Initial de-escalation on maintenance scenarios
On the other hand, the total de-escalation shows a sharper decline for an initial deescalation of 30 days (*). By values above this, the total de-escalation increases gradually. The principle reduction (from 0-days), amounts to 26.9% Scenario 1 shows the lowest maintenance demand and also the lowest de-escalation. This follows from the fact that this scenario represents the lowest utilisation considered in the MIAM. Figure 4.12 below illustrates the effects of the initial de-escalation on the situation illustrated in Figure 4.10. The maintenance checks that had previously been deescalated heavily are now clustered for performance at their exact due dates.
63

2001 Apr 30 345 125 Base Mhrs CHECKS Cycles Hours Days 2003 Feb 699 7324 2815 2005 Feb 1429 14878 5765 2007 Feb 2159 22252 8661 2009 Feb 2889 29806 11611 2011 Feb 3609 37319 14532 2013 Jan 4319
Days Hours Cycles
Mar 3648 37586 14656
D720* D1620* D1800 D1800* D2160* D2880 D3600 D3600* D4320 D4320*
720 7604 2937 720 4000 1620 12000 1800 1800 18000 2160 18000 2880 3600 3600 32000 4320 4320 32000
50 14 3 63 2 18 51 178 15 226
HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
HMV6
Figure 4.12 Initial De-escalation effects on the MIAM: 30 days
At this point, it can be concluded that there are variations needed within the 24Month interval, i.e. the implementation of an initial de-escalation of between 1 - 4 Months. This means that the interval will not be a pure 2-year Base Maintenance interval. The maintenance demand resulting from the initial de-escalation on Figure 4.12 is also illustrated on Figure 4.13 below.
Base Maintenance Demand: Before/After a 30-day Initial De-escalation (Scenario 10)
600
500
Base Mx Man-hours
400
300 MHrs (Before Initial De-esc.) 200 MHrs (After Initial De-esc.) De-esc.(Before Initial De-esc.) 100 De-esc. (After Initial De-esc.)
0 HMV1 [Feb 03] HMV2 [Feb 05] HMV3 [Feb 07] HMV4 [Feb 09] HMV5 [Feb 11]
Base Visit [Visit#, Date]
Figure 4.13 Base Maintenance Demand: Before/ After 30 days Initial de-escalation (i.d)
Note: i.d.: Initial de-escalation
64
Chapter 4 It can be concluded at this point that an optimum clustering for base maintenance is realised by a Base Maintenance frequency of 24 Months, and an initial de-escalation of 30 days It can also be said that it is possible to standardise Base maintenance clusters, owing to the static nature of the cluster composition (mainly calendar-time driven). The exact clusters belonging to the various utilisation scenarios can be derived from the following cross-matrix scheme:
2003 Feb
Days Hours Cycles 699 7111 2838
2005 Feb
1429 14828 5771
2007 Feb
2159 22125 8707
2009 Feb
2889 29842 11640
2011 Feb
3619 37301 14544
2003 Feb
699 5553 2742
2005 Feb
1429 11315 5704
2007 Feb
2159 17240 8577
2009 Feb
2889 23002 11539
2011 Feb
3619 28965 14441
2003 Feb
699 6839 2864
2005 Feb
1429 14139 6023
2007 Feb
2159 21375 9022
2009 Feb
2889 28675 12181
2011 Feb
3619 35968 15232
2003 Feb
699 8443 2862
2005 Feb
1429 17377 5817
2007 Feb
2159 26109 8777
2009 Feb
2889 35043 11732
2011 Feb
3619 43804 14701
BaseMhrs
CHECKS
Scen-1
Scen-5
HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 D720* D1620* D1800 D1800* D2160* D2880 D3600 D3600* C3500 C9000* C24000* C36000* H8000 H10000 H12000 H15000 H20000 H22400 H25000 H30000 49.68 13.824 2.88 63.36 1.8 18.36 51.12 177.768 0 14.4 49.068 19.8 15.66 1.8 18 7.2 7.74 4.32 5.76 4.68 0 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
HMV1 x
Scen-9 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Figure 4.14 Base Maintenance Cross-matrix scheme by Scenarios
Base maintenance clusters can also be classified as Phases, with each phase being a composition of maintenance checks that are due for performance at the same time. From Figure 4.14, the phasing of clusters should be done for three different situations, namely Low, Normal, and High aircraft utilisation. 1. Low aircraft utilisation: Follows from the conservative utilisation (2255-3285 FH/year, 1345-21564 FC/year, and 1.9-3.0 FH/FC)
Cluster Frequency Checks Phase 1 2 years D720* C9000* H8000 H10000 81.54 Phase 2 4 Years D1620* D1800 D1800* H12000 H15000 Base MHrs 105 13.8 24.1 234 284 34 Phase 3 6 years D2160* H20000 H22400 Phase 4 8 years D2880 H25000 Phase 5 10 years D3600 D3600* H30000 Phase 6 12 years D4320 D4320* Phase 15 15 years D5400
Table 4.15 Low utilisation Clusters
2. Normal aircraft utilisation: Covers the utilisation range of between 3286-4015 FH/year, and 1346-1564 FC/year (2.1-3.0 FH/FC)
Actual
65

Cluster Frequency Checks Phase 1 2 years D720* C9000* H8000 H10000 H12000 100 Phase 2 4 Years D1620* D1800 D1800* H15000 H20000 95 Phase 3 6 years D2160* H22400 H25000 Phase 4 8 years D2880 C24000* C36000* H30000 92 Phase 5 10 years D3600 D3600* C3500 Phase 6 12 years D4320 D4320* Phase 15 15 years D5400
Base MHrs
11.8
229
284
34
Table 4.16 Normal utilisation clusters
3. High utilisation: Follows the optimistic utilisation (4015-4745 FH/year, and 13461564 FC/year i.e. 2.1-3.0 FH/FC)
Cluster Frequency Checks Phase 1 2 years D720* C9000* H8000 H10000 H12000 H15000 Base MHrs 107 Phase 2 4 Years D1620* D1800 D1800* H20000 H22400 H25000 98 Phase 3 6 years D2160* H30000 Phase 4 8 years D2880 Phase 5 10 years D3600 D3600* Phase 6 12 years D4320 D4320* Phase 15 15 years D5400
6.48
18.4
229
284
34
Table 4.17 High Utilisation clusters
The optimum 2-year combinations (also denoted as HMV #) for all scenarios can be made as follows (see Table 4.15, Table 4.16, and Table 4.17):
HMV 1 Phase 1 HMV 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 HMV 3 Phase 1 Phase 3 HMV 4 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 4 HMV 5 Phase 1 HMV 6 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 6
Phase 5
Table 4.18 Optimum Cluster combinations for base maintenance
As pertains to the maintenance costs resulting from clustering at 24 months, the following is an analysis on how the base maintenance costs vary with the initial deescalation, over a period of 10 years (for a single aircraft)
Mx Costs [] Initial De-esc 0 Days 30 DAYS 60 DAYS 90 DAYS 120 DAYS Cons Mx Cost 62484 -12549 -12289 -11976 -11612 ML Opt Scenario 10
De-esc. 13226 -9841 -9633 -9268 -8904
Mx Cost 65660 -12548.9 -12289 -11976 -11560
De-esc. 16402 -12028 -11768 -11455 -11039
Mx Cost 67327 -12549 -12289 -11924 -11664
De-esc. 16923 -12705 -12445 -12080 -11820
Mx Cost 67014 -13902.7 -13278 -12913 -12913
De-esc. 17756 -12913 -13018 -12913 -12184
Table 4.19 Base maintenance cost minimisation by a variable initial de-escalation: (24months interval)
66
Chapter 4 As expected, Table 4.19 shows that a 30-day initial de-escalation leads to the highest reduction in the total maintenance costs and de-escalation losses. By considering the Actual utilisation scenario, the savings on maintenance cost translates to an average of 2781 per Base Maintenance visit; with the whole fleet (13 aircraft) taken into consideration, 36147 is saved per maintenance visit.
4.4.3 Line Maintenance

The results of the line maintenance analysis in the MIAM will be limited to a period of five to six years. As stated in section 2.3, this is the period in which the aircraft is considered as new.
A. Current Situation As was the case with Base Maintenance, the current situation for line maintenance encompasses all the maintenance checks bound by the following conditions - All maintenance items with maintenance intervals lower than 540 Days, 3000 Cycles, and 6000 Flight Hours. Items on calendar Time: 37 Transavia Man-hours Items on Cycles: 14 Transavia Man-hours Items on Flight Cycles: 124 Transavia Man-hours - Hangar maintenance is performed every 5 weeks, in the high and in the low season, and it follows the sequence on Table 2.5 The conditions above results in the following maintenance demand per year (based on Days, Hours and Cycles) in terms of Transavia man-hours (1.7 x Boeing Manhours):
Cons. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total HV_MHrs 218 410 333 397 342 412 218 422 326 405 333 421 218 410 317 426 330 424 218 467 372 460 468 458 ML 218 455 385 452 468 452 218 448 378 460 481 426 218 475 502 463 481 385 Opt. 218 475 471 494 481 373 231 462 481 463 481 407
Scen-10
218 467 476 356 481 458
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9
2111.8 2125.6 2124.8 2443.3 2429.6 2410.9 2524.0 2512.2 2524.4 2455.5
Table 4.20 Maintenance Demand, Current situation
The variation in the Scenario maintenance man-hours required per year is not large, and this is also the case with the total maintenance demand for the period considered. However, there is a significant difference between maintenance resulting from the conservative utilisation and from the other scenarios. For illustration purpose only, scenarios 1, 4, 7, and 10 are plotted out on Figure 4.15 below to illustrate these facts.
67

Maintenance Demand Per Aircraft - Current Situation
550
500
450
Transavia Ma- hours
400
350
300
Cons. Utilisation ML Utilisation Opt. Utilisation Scenario 10
250
200 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Period [Years]
Figure 4.15 Maintenance Demand, Current Situation
The maintenance demand from year 2001 is lower than that from others years, but this is a direct result of the fact that the airplane calculated is introduced in the fleet in the course of that year. However, this year has to be taken into consideration because maintenance performed in that year has an effect on maintenance performance in the future (time since last performed). As was stated in section 2.3.1, hangar maintenance is performed every 5 weeks. By including this fact in the MIAM (Simulation clock Routine), the following maintenance demand is generated:
5-Week Mx 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 HV MHrs Cons. ML Opt. Scen-10
Scen-1
327 590 478 524 498 556 2972.1
Scen-2
327 601 467 535 487 571 2986.9
Scen-3
327 577 491 524 498 556 2972.5
Scen-4
347 596 584 572 510 575 3184.5
Scen-5
347 600 580 494 588 586 3195.5
Scen-6
347 596 584 480 602 575 3184.5
Scen-7
388 612 584 578 611 583 3355.5
Scen-8
381 614 588 588 602 594 3366.5
Scen-9
381 610 592 573 610 590 3356.3 347 600 580 572 510 575 3184.5
Table 4.21 Maintenance Demand - Current Situation: Hangar Maintenance at 5 weeks
From Table 4.21 above, it can be concluded that the maintenance-planning pattern on Table 2.5 in chapter 2 is sufficient for the execution of routine line (hangar) maintenance. This planning provided a maximum of 885 Transavia man-hours per year for routine hangar maintenance (for each aircraft). This routine maintenance includes non-routines generated from the routine maintenance. However, the demand for maintenance slots portrays a different sequence than that on Table 2.5. Table 4.22 below gives an example of this slot demand.
68
Chapter 4
Slots On Planning Date Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Totals Slots 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 14 (Max) HV MHrs 55 55 100 55 55 300 55 55 100 < 830 Slots On Demand Slots 1 1 2.5 1 3 1 1.5 1 1 13 HV MHrs 45.04 56.5 0 112.2 48.8 0 157.74 48.8 0 72.48 56.5 0 45.04 643.1
Table 4.22 Slot planning vs. slots required for routine maintenance
The Shaded area in Table 4.22 represents the high season. The maintenance during this season is more utilisation-dependent than calendar-time-dependent, hence the increase in the man-hour demand. This is in contrast with the planning, which assumes a specific rhythm all year round. It can also bee seen that the slots in the high season leave little room for non-routine maintenance arising from reasons other than routine maintenance (e.g. from postponed non-routine maintenance on Dispatch Deviation Sheets - DDS). If the extra slots required in Mar-02, Jun-02, Sep-02 are not granted, it will be necessary to have the aircraft back in the hangar between two consecutive hangar visits. This will be for the purpose of completing the unfinished work from the slot previous slot. Table 4.22 and Table 2.5 may explain the differences exhibited by the realisation of the planning on Table 2.6, i.e. the large differences between the maintenance planning and realisation. By comparing Table 4.20 and Table 4.21, it can be seen that the maintenance demand resulting from performing line maintenance at a 5-week frequency is higher than the theoretical maintenance demand performing individual maintenance tasks as they turn due without clustering or de-escalating their intervals (See Figure 4.16 below). The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that a lot of maintenance is performed more frequently that it ought to; this is an inevitable consequence of task clustering.
69

Theoretical vs. Hangar Visit Maintenance Demand
4000.0
3500.0
Total Mx Man-hour demand (5 yrs)
3000.0
2500.0 Theoretical Maintenance Demand 5-week Hangar Visit Maintenance Demand
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0
0.0 Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Actual
Utilisation Scenarios
Figure 4.16 Theoretical vs. Hangar Maintenance Demand: 5-week frequency
The de-escalation that follows the clustering above is as follows:

Utilisation
Cons. Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9
Transavia MHrs De-escalation Mhrs % De-escalation

2972.1 2986.9 2972.5 3184.5 3195.5 3184.5 3355.5 3366.5 3356.3 3184.5 860.3 861.3 847.7 741.2 765.9 773.6 831.5 854.3 831.9 729.0 29 29 29 23 24 24 25 25 25 23
ML
Opt. Scen-10
Table 4.23 Total De-escalation by a 5-week clustering
It may be said that the total de-escalation is large, as compared to the de-escalation witnessed from Base Maintenance. It is worth noting that the de-escalation decreases with utilisation, indicating that items mainly de-escalated are those based on the utilisation, and especially the Flight-hour items.
B. Proposed (New) Situation The proposed situation makes use of the Maintenance Task Packages developed in section 3.2.2, and listed in Table I. 3 in Appendix I.3. Maintenance Task Packages on Calendar Time: 196 Transavia Man-hours Maintenance Task Packages on Flight Cycles: 26 Transavia Man-hours Maintenance Task Packages on Flight Hours: 140 Transavia Man-hours
70
Chapter 4 Further, the (theoretical) maintenance demand is calculated according to the simulation clock on Table 4.3, from which clusters may be formed.
Maintenance Demand: New Situation
Cons.
ML
Opt.
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10 2001 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218 218 2002 467 467 467 512 513 513 533 520 533 533 2003 389 401 376 439 446 531 545 550 534 527 2004 483 470 508 540 519 435 568 542 579 438 2005 451 443 438 555 582 594 601 623 601 594 2006 474 494 494 521 534 521 427 427 427 520 Total Transavia MHrs 2480.9 2494.3 2501.6 2785.2 2811.6 2811.6 2891.6 2892.4 2892.0 2829.7
Table 4.24 Line Maintenance Demand per aircraft: Proposed Situation
As was the case in base maintenance, and in the current situation, the variations within the utilisation patterns (conservative, most likely, optimistic) are minimal. However, the conservative utilisation is considerably less (11%) than the other utilisation patterns. By considering samples from the utilisation on Table 4.24, the following comparison can be made between the demand from the current and the new situation:
Maintenance Demand: Current vs Proposed Situation
3500.0
3000.0
2811.6 2480.9 2524.4
2892.0
2829.7
Transavia Mx Man-hours
2500.0
2111.8
2429.6
2455.5
2000.0 Maintenance Demand: Current Situation 1500.0 Maintenance Demand: Proposed Situation 1000.0
500.0
0.0 Cons ML Opt Scen-10
Utilisation Scenario
Figure 4.17 Line Maintenance Demand per aircraft, first 6-yrs: Current vs. proposed Situation
It follows from the comparison above that the new situation leads to a maintenance demand increase of 372 Transavia man-hours per aircraft, over six years (on average). Table 4.25 below show how the above translates on an annual basis for scenario 10:
Maintenance Demand HVMHrs Current Situation HV MHs Proposed Situation 2001 218 218
Increase
0
71

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 467 476 356 481 458 2455.5 533 527 438 594 520 2829.7 66 51 82 113 62 374
Table 4.25 Line (routine) maintenance demand change: Current vs. proposed Situation
It follows that the increase on Table 4.25 is time-dependent. This results from the fact that maintenance items previously included in base maintenance are gradually introduced in line maintenance. This happens gradually because current base maintenance checks (before Line/Base Redefinition Appendix E) normally posses large maintenance intervals, and are mainly Calendar-Time-dependent (see also Table 3.6). Clustering at 4, 5, and 6-week frequency, and by comparing this to the maintenance demand on Table 4.24 leads the following plot:
4413.8
5000.0 4500.0 Maintenance Demand [Transavia Man-hours] 4000.0 3500.0 3000.0 2500.0 2000.0 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 0.0 Cons ML Scenarios
3927.7
4181.2
4235.2 3601.7
3558.3
3788.6
3826.4
3845.9
3164.4
3407.4
2892.0
2811.6
2829.7
3428.5
2480.9
Pre-calculated Maintenance Demand 4 Weeks Mx. Frequency
5 Weeks Mx. Frequency
6 Weeks Mx. Frequency
Opt
Scen-10
Figure 4.18 5-yr Line Maintenance Demand per aircraft, by a varying line maintenance interval
The pre-calculated maintenance demand represents the maintenance demand illustrated on Figure 4.17. A high maintenance frequency leads to a higher maintenance demand, a fact that can be drawn from Figure 4.18 above. It can also be seen that by increasing the maintenance interval, the de-escalation of maintenance intervals is reduced considerably. In the case above, the total de-escalation may be viewed as the difference between the Pre-calculated maintenance-demand (1st column) and the maintenance resulting from the maintenance frequency. However, the increase in the maintenance interval is not unlimited. Scenarios leading to utilisation higher than 11 FH/day limit the maintenance frequency to 6-weeks, for above this, the lowest maintenance interval will be exceeded, and this will be in violation of one boundary condition. A 7-week frequency is, therefore, only applicable for the conservative utilisation 72
Chapter 4 By considering the maintenance demand following from utilisation scenario 10, Figure 4.18 varies as follows:
Line maintenance demand variation by frequency - Scenario 10
900
800
Transavia Man-hours
700
600
4 weeks 5 weeks 6 weeks
500
400
300 2001 2002 2003 Period [Years] 2004 2005 2006
Figure 4.19 Maintenance demand variation on a yearly basis (Scenario 10)
The 5-weeks maintenance frequency shows a relatively constant maintenance demand for the period considered. This is not the case with the 4-weeks and the 6weeks maintenance intervals. The situation above also applies to other scenarios. Even though the 5-weeks frequency might be preferred due to its constant maintenance demand (uniform planning over the years considered), priority should be given to the 6-weeks frequency, for it leads to a lower maintenance demand. Since Transavia is currently performing its line maintenance at 5 weeks, this report will limit itself to 5-6 weeks or thereabout. On a monthly basis, the maintenance demand is a projection of Figure 4.19 and it varies as follows:
M an-hour D e mand: 5-we e ks Hangar fre que ncy
4
166
Slot D e mand: 5-we e k H angar Fre que ncy
180 160 Tra nsa via M a n-hours
128
120 100
2002
80 82
2003
72 60
No. of Ha nga r S lots
140
133
114
2002 2003
80 60
40 43
51
57
59
39 35
20
0
0 Jan
31
40
38
39 43
42 41
Feb M ar
A pr M ay Jun
Jul
A ug S ep Oc t
Nov Dec
0 Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul A ug S ep Oc t Nov Dec P e riod [M onths]
P e riod [M onths]
Figure 4.20: Maintenance/Slot demand on a 5-week maintenance basis
73
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG By considering two years, namely 2002 and 2003, the following man-hour/slot demand is established:
HV MHrs 2002 39 38 80 42 40 166 0 114 59 31 39 60 709 Per a/c 2003 35 0 133 41 43 51 57 128 82 0 43 72 685 Slots 2002 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 16 Per a/c 2003 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 16 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec HV MHrs Per a/c 2002 2003 35 0 0 77 104 106 26 30 149 0 0 67 73 40 98 145 54 0 0 75 52 47 47 0 639 586 Slots 2002 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 15 Per a/c 2003 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals
Table 4.26 Man-hour/slot demand: 5-weeks
Table 4.27 Man-hour/slot demand: 6-weeks
The 5-weeks maintenance frequency translates to an annual demand of 709 manhours, 16 maintenance slots, and 685 Man-hours and 17 slots, for 2002 and 2003 respectively. These values are also given on Table 4.26 below (See Table 2.4):
M an-hour de mand: 6-we e ks Hangar fre que ncy
149
Slot De mand: 6-we e k Hangar fre que ncy

3.5 3
160 140 120 100

77
Tra nsa via M a n-hours
104 106
145
Tra nsa via M a n-hours
98
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5
67
73
80 60 40 20
35
75
2002 2003
2002 2003
54
52 47 0
26 30
40
47
0 Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun Jul A ug S ep Oct Nov Dec
Jan
Feb M ar
A pr M ay Jun
Jul
A ug S ep Oc t
Nov Dec
P e riod [M onths]
P e riod [M onths]
Figure 4.21: Maintenance/Slot demand on a 6-week maintenance basis
The 6-weeks maintenance frequency translates to an annual demand of 639 manhours, 15 maintenance slots, and 586 Man-hours and 15 slots, for 2002 and 2003 respectively. These values are also given on Table 4.26 above. It can be seen from Figure 4.21 that even though the slot distribution is not similar for the two years considered, both years demand 15 slots in total. The total man-hours demanded in both situations (5 weeks and 6 weeks) still remain under the maximum available man-hours for routine maintenance (885 HV Man-hours Table 2.5). It should be said that the calculation of the slot demand on Table 4.26 and Table 4.29 is done in such a way that the upper limit of the man/hour slot demand is considered. For example, 39 man-hours = 1 slot. It has already been given that 1 slot
74
Chapter 4 < 55 man-hours (Table 2.5). The surplus man-hours my be made available for nonroutine maintenance, such as that from DDS, MIs and AMs.
4.4.4 Line Maintenance Optimisation

It was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter that the optimisation process mainly involves the reduction of maintenance man-hours, and a maximum utilisation of the maintenance item interval. From reduced man-hours follows a reduction in maintenance downtime, and from increased item interval utilisation follows a decrease in the interval de-escalation. Line maintenance optimisation will also be aimed at reducing the amount of maintenance performed in the high season. It was illustrated in the previous section that an increase in the maintenance interval also leads to a decrease in the man-hour demand. The 6-weeks maintenance frequency leads to the following maintenance demand:
Manhour Demand perhangar visit: 6-Week Freq.
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Transavia Manhou
Figure 4.22 Man-hour demand: Line maintenance clustering at a 6-weeks frequency (Utilisation scenario 10)
In the situation illustrated above, the man-hour demand is not minimised in the high season (peaks between April and October). Section 3.2.4 mentioned the fact that line maintenance could either be utilisation or calendar-time driven. The high season is characterised by an increase in aircraft utilisation, hence an increase in maintenance demand (based on utilisation). Constraints in minimising maintenance in the high season are Maintenance Task Packages with a short recurrence cycle (see Table 4.28), and interval de-escalations leading to more losses in than would be gained if performed in the low season. These are mainly Task Packages with large man-hours demand.
Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06
Period [mm/yy]
75
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG High Season: April-October (7 Months/214 days, approx 2620 FH/960 FC Scen. 10)
Period
214 Days
Task Package Maintenance interval

60 Days (0.06 HV MHrs) 60 Days/400C (5.44 HV MHrs) 100 Days (22.4 HV MHrs) 100Days/1000C (2.44 HV MHrs) 450 Hours (26 HV MHrs) 1000 Hours (13.1 HV MHrs) 1600 Hours (7.7 HV MHrs) 2000 Hours (6.42 HV MHrs) 300 Cycles (0.68 HV MHrs) Man-hours required
Occurrence
3x 3x 2x 2x 5x 2x 1x 1x 3x
HV man-hours
0.18 16.32 44.8 4.88 130 26.2 7.7 6.42 1.02 238.54
2626 FH
960 FC Minimum
Table 4.28 Task Packages with a short recurrence cycle
By using the values on Table 2.5, it can be said that 239 Transavia man-hours leads to a demand of at least 4 maintenance slots for the high season. How these slots are spread will entirely depend on the utilisation. Further, it is important to identify Maintenance Task Packages with a high demand for man-hours. From Table 3.6 follows:
Task Package Intervals 100 Days 720 Days 720 Days 1800 Days 2880 Days 3000 Cycles 4000 Cycles Dual Interval Transavia MHrs 22.4 15.7 71 38.8 35.8 11 51.76 246.46 Task Package Intervals 450 Hours 1000 Hours 4000 Hours 5000 Hours 10000 Hours 25000 Hours Transavia Mhrs 26 13.1 21.5 98.42 12.1 13.7 369.64
4000 Cycles 18000 Cycles 18000 Cycles 540 Days
Table 4.29 Task Packages with large man-hour requirements
The occurrence of the task packages listed on Table 4.29 above creates a large demand for man-hours, and especially so in the high season. Task packages based on calendar days can be de-escalated (strategy utilised for base maintenance) once, such that they will always recur in the low season or at specific times of the later year. As for the FH and FC task packages, their recurrence is based on the utilisation. By referring to Scenarios 1, 5, 9, and, the following recurrence cycles can be calculated:
MHrs Cons. ML
FH/yr FC/yr 450 H 1000 H 4000 H 5000 H 10000 H 25000 H 300 C 26 13.1 21.5 98.42 12.1 13.7 11 2910 1444 0.2 0.3 1.4 1.7 3.4 8.6 2.1 3626 1512 0.1 1.1 1.4 2.8 6.9 2.0
Opt.
4368 1485 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.1 2.3 5.7 2.0
Scen-10
3866 1455
Observation:
0.3
1.0 1.3 2.6 6.5 2.1
0.3
0.1
No initial de-escalation (See Table 4.28) Will occur twice in the high season Recurs approx. once a year Recurs every 15 months Recurs every 27 months Large interval assign to low season Recurs every 24 months assign to low season
Table 4.30 Task Package recurrence interval in years
With the exception of all Maintenance Task Packages with an interval of 300 cycles, all other packages are strongly utilisation dependent (see the trends on Table 4.30). An initial de-escalation would be of little use if the package has to be performed
76
Chapter 4 outside the high season. Reason: the next due date is bound to fall in the high season, and the de-escalation process is bound to be repeated annually. Maintenance Task Packages (with significantly less man-hours) would be preferable to work with. An initial de-escalation would be meant to spread them apart, in such a way that packages originating from the same Transavia check never have to be performed together. It is worth mentioning that this strategy is already being applied to the H5000 packages (H5000A, B, C, D, E). See also Table I. 1. Table 2.4 is also a good example of how only the H5000E Task Package is scheduled in for performance. By referring back to the Maintenance Task Package example on Table 3.2, the following example is given:
Task packages: (4000C/540D Mx Interval) C4000A* C4000B* C4000C* C4000D* C4000E* C4000F* C4000G* C4000H* C4000* (Check) HV Manhours Deescalation priority1: 3 2 4 6 1 1 5 7 HV Man-hours lost per De-escalation 422 Days 0.17 0.39 0.65 0.09 0.09 0.62 1.74 4.02 84 Days 0.34 0.77 1.29 0.18 0.18 1.23 3.48 8.03 126 days 0.50 1.16 1.94 0.28 0.28 1.85 5.23 12.04 168 days 0.67 1.55 2.59 0.37 0.37 2.46 6.97 16.05 210 days 0.84 1.94 3.24 0.46 0.46 3.08 8.71 20.07
3.64 2.16 4.98 8.32 1.18 1.18 7.92 22.4 51.6
0.28
0.57
0.85
1.13
1.42
Table 4.31 Maintenance Task package de-escalation: example
1- Highest priority is 1 while lowest is 7 2- 42 days = 7 days x 6 weeks In the example above, it can be seen that it is preferable to de-escalate task packages separately, for this results in less man-hour losses that when a Transavia check has to be de-escalated. It follows also that the loss in man-hours will increase with the deescalation. Further, it would be of little significance to de-escalate packages B*, E* and F* on Table 4.31. Such packages could always fit into any maintenance windows. By optimising the scheduling of Maintenance Task Packages with intervals listed on Table 4.29 (see also the affiliated Maintenance Task Packages on Table I. 3), an optimised hangar visit packaging would be as follows:
2001 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec HV Mhrs/year 2002 134.1 0 103.86 56.4 52.44 0 66.54 50.9 52.74 0 53.6 47.34 618 2003 0 112.22 100.78 30 0 75.14 39.12 44.96 0 40.28 190.5 0 633 2004 87.84 73.4 40.14 0 65 39.86 0 85.84 54.74 30 0 82.36 559 2005 43.3 162.42 0 116.06 26.4 0 99.64 26.4 48.44 0 74.9 41.44 639 2006 69.12 0 133.94 35.3 0 182.06 35.9 50.3 0 79.58 39 0 625
0 111.98 58.84 0 49.12 51.44 49.44 0 67.44 388
Table 4.32 Line Maintenance Man-hour Demand per aircraft: Optimised situation
77
200 180 160 140 Transavia Man-hours 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06
P eriod [Months]
Figure 4.23 Maintenance Demand: Optimised situation
The maintenance demand above leads to a maintenance slot demand that increases gradually over the years, to reflect the increase in the amount of maintenance arising from maintenance task packages with large maintenance intervals. With the exception of the first two years (2001, 2002), all high seasons show a demand of 8 slots per year. This trend is tabulated here below, and plotted out on Figure 4.24 below.
2001 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total slots
3 1 1 2 1 2 11
2002 2003 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 13 14
2004 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 14
2005 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 15
2006 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 13
Table 4.33 Maintenance Slots demand - optimised situation
78
Chapter 4
3.5
2.5 Maintenance Slots
1.5
0.5
0
Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Period [M onths]
Figure 4.24 Maintenance Slots demand: Optimised situation
In terms of de-escalated man-hours, it can be seen from Table 4.34 that depending on the scenario, the de-escalation lies between 10-19%.
Cons. HV MHrs De-esc 337 119 588 63 501 0 593 160 586 20 560 32 3164.4 393.5 ML HV MHrs De-esc 362 144 606 94 606 159 600 81 646 64 587 53 3407.4 595.8 Opt. HV MHrs De-esc 370 152 681 148 603 69 653 74 678 76 618 191 3601.7 709.7 Scen-10 HV MHrs De-esc 362 144 626 93 606 79 584 146 677 83 573 53 3428.5 598.8
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Table 4.34 Line Maintenance Clustering and resulting De-escalation:
As pertains to the maintenance costs, the following comparison can be made between the current clustering at 5-weeks using Line Maintenance Checks, and the optimised Clustering at 6-weeks using Maintenance Task Packages:
Utilisation Labour Costs- De-esc. Costs % De-esc Current () - Current ()
Cons. ML Opt. Scen-10 94394 101489 106596 101140 27323 24325 26421 23153 29 24 25 23
Labour Cost - De-esc. Costs % De-esc Proposed () Proposed ()

100501 108218 114391 108890 12498 18916 22540 19018 12 17 20 17
Total Cost
403619
101222
25
432000
72972
17
Table 4.35 Total Maintenance cost per aircraft, over a 6-year period: Current vs. Proposed situation
The proposed situation shows a higher man-hour demand than the current situation. This is a direct result of the increase in the amount of maintenance work
79
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG for line maintenance (Line/Base maintenance redefinition), as compared to the current situation. Despite the fact above, the total de-escalation is lower in the proposed situation, as compared to the current situation, and leads to an average annual reduction in line maintenance costs of about 12,691 per aircraft.
4.5
Summary
Through the implementation of the Top-Down and the Bottom-Up approaches, it is determined that the amount of maintenance demand is dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft. This is especially the case for line maintenance, which strongly varies through the increase and decrease of flight hours. A variation in the number of flight cycles does not lead to any significant variations in the maintenance demand. The application of the two approaches also leads to the conclusion that Base maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months. However, this optimum is achieved through the application of an initial de-escalation, which schedules the performance of the first base visit at a date, not later than 23 Months after the introduction of the aircraft into the fleet. This leads to the clustering of maintenance checks to clusters closest tot their maintenance intervals. A 30-day initial de-escalation leads to the least total de-escalation of check-intervals, and consequently to the most optimum clusters for Base maintenance. The clustering of base maintenance checks leads to static maintenance clusters, which may also be viewed as phases in maintenance. Such phases are of importance, especially in the planning of long-term maintenance.
It can also be concluded that Line maintenance is strongly utilisation dependent during the high season, and calendar-time dependent during the low season. Consequently, the maintenance demand increases with the utilisation. Herewith, the maintenance demand rises during the high season. By reducing the total maintenance demand in the high season to a minimum, an increase in the deescalated man-hours results. This also follows from the fact that the high season lasts 7 months, and the low season 5. Line maintenance demand also increases with the maintenance frequency. This increase follows from repetitive maintenance. A frequency of 4 weeks results in a higher maintenance demand than that resulting from a 5-week or a 6-week frequency. A 6-week frequency results in the lowest maintenance demand. A 7-week frequency would result in an even lower maintenance demand, but it is only applicable where the aircraft utilisation low. In other instances, the utilisationdependent maintenance intervals would be violated. Line maintenance clustering is, therefore, a dynamic clustering process, that is strongly dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft and on the frequency with which maintenance is performed. Maintenance task packages are of importance in that they provide for the creation of smaller maintenance clusters with minimum deescalation.
80
Conclusions and Recommendations
5
5.1

Conclusions
The optimisation of the maintenance of the B737 NG can be sub-divided into Line Maintenance Optimisation and Base Maintenance Optimisation. This follows from the fact that Transavia performs Line Maintenance in house, and contracts out Base Maintenance.
Line Maintenance The B737 NG MPD is a document developed from the MSG-3 maintenance philosophy, which leads to task based maintenance. This is unlike the other aircraft operated by Transavia, which have an MSG-2 (Process Oriented) MPD. This, therefore, calls for a different approach in the way the maintenance program (OMP) is developed, as pertains to task packaging, and the execution thereof. This entails looking at task properties, such as the MSG-3 classification (such as lubrication, Discard, Restoration) and the set-up demand (common procedure/conditions/cost). The result of this is smaller task packages demanding less man-hours, as compared to the conventional Maintenance checks currently used by Transavia. The shift from the current situation, (where line maintenance is limited by 3000 Flight Cycles, 6000 Flight Hours and 540 Days), to a Line-Base classification results in an increase in maintenance demand of between 66-113 man-hours per year. Line maintenance demand is strongly dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft, and on the seasonal pattern followed By the Transavia fleet. The clustering hereof is, therefore, dynamic. Aircraft utilisation below 3000 flight hours a year leads to a maintenance demand that is 11% less than that from above 3000 flight hours. While the low season offers enough ground time for maintenance, the high season leaves little room for this, yet creates a higher demand for maintenance. The demand for maintenance slots does not follow a specific pattern, but is also dependent on the utilisation. The departure situation was a rhythmic distribution of maintenance slots (1-1-2-1-1-4-1-1-2-...), irrespective of the season or utilisation. In reality, the actual demand and distribution of maintenance slots varies from year to year. This leads to distributions such as 3-2-1-2-1-1-1-3- or 2-2-1-2-1-2-1-1-2-. However, the total demand for maintenance slots remains at 15 in all cases. Maintenance clustering always will result in the de-escalation of maintenance task intervals. This de-escalation, of Calendar-Time, Flight Hours, or Flight Cycles, is in actual fact a loss that can be quantified in man-hours. De-escalation leads to an increased frequency of maintenance item execution, hence an excessive labour spending on the item. The minimisation of maintenance during the high season inevitably results in interval de-escalation. Owing to the fact that most items that have to be de-escalated (for this purpose) are mainly utilisation dependent (flight hour/Cycle items), de-
81
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG escalation will have to be done every new season, and the cost of this will be dependent on the utilisation of the aircraft. Optimising the clustering of line maintenance is achieved by minimising the number of times the aircraft visits the hangar. This mainly reduces repetitive maintenance. By performing line maintenance at a 6-week interval, the total de-escalation of manhours is brought down from as high as 29%, to as low as 10% of the exact maintenance demand. This translates to an average annual reduction in line maintenance costs of about 12,691 per aircraft. A 7-week frequency can be achieved if the aircraft is utilised for less than 3000 flight hours per year, resulting in deescalation less than 10%. Base Maintenance Base maintenance items are characterised by large maintenance intervals and a high demand for man-hours and ground time. The scheduling of this is, therefore, done only in the low season. The optimisation of base maintenance follows from the reduction in the frequency (of the maintenance), a reduction in the number of man-hours contracted out, and a minimisation in the interval (man-hour) de-escalation. Base maintenance can be performed optimally at a frequency of 24 Months. However, this optimum is achieved through the application of an initial deescalation, which schedules the performance of the first base visit at a date, not later than 23 Months after the introduction of the aircraft into the fleet. This leads to the clustering of maintenance checks to clusters closest to their maintenance intervals. A 30-day initial de-escalation leads to the least total de-escalation on the maintenance man-hours (7%), and consequently to the most optimum clusters for Base maintenance. The 7% translates to 93 man-hours, as compared to 341 man-hours (23%) before the initial de-escalation a reduction of losses by 248 man-hours. This, in turn, translates to an average saving of 12,181 per aircraft, over a period of ten years. Base maintenance shows a dependence on aircraft utilisation, depending on whether this is low (below 3210 Flight hours per year), normal (between 3210 and 4015 flight hours per year), or high (above 4015, but below 48 flight hours per year). A variation of flight hours/cycles ratio of between 1.9 and 3.1 has no impact on the base maintenance demand. The clustering of base maintenance checks leads to static maintenance clusters, which may also be viewed as phases in maintenance. Base Maintenance checks can be clustered together into six unique phases, starting from a phase that recurs every 2 years, to a sixth phase that recurs every 12 years. However, the composition of the phases varies according to the aircraft utilisation. Maintenance labour forms a component of the direct maintenance costs. It also has a direct proportionality with the downtime, and the material costs, which are also elements of direct maintenance costs. In turn, direct maintenance costs are a part of the cost of ownership. Hence, the reduction of maintenance labour (man-hours) directly leads to the reduction of the cost of ownership
82
5.2
Recommendations
In order to maximise the maintenance advantages that came along with the B737 NG, the following is recommended: 1. The application of Maintenance Task Packages for line maintenance, in place of the current line maintenance checks. 2. An annual review of the maintenance planning versus realisation. This should serve as a gauge for the planning accuracy, and establish trends that follow from the application of (1) above. 3. The standardisation of Base Maintenance through the utilisation of base maintenance phases. 4. The use of initial de-escalation at the first base maintenance visit. This should serve as a tool to reduce the total maintenance man-hours contracted out, and the total de-escalation resulting from maintenance clustering.
83
References
References
[1] Kececioglu, D., Maintainability, Availability & Operational Readiness Engineering, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Arizona, Prentice Hall PTR, New Jersey (USA), 1995 Patton, J.D., Preventive Maintenance, 2nd edition, ISA, North Carolina (USA), 1995 Kelly, A., Maintenance Planning and Control, Butterworths, Manchester (UK), 1984 Ben-Daya et al., Maintenance, Modelling and Optimisation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (USA), 2000 Lalli et al., Reliability and Maintainability (RAM) Training, NASA/TP2000-207428, NASA Publications, Washington/Ohio (USA), 2000 Kent, R.M., Health Monitoring System Technology Assessments: Cost Benefit Analysis, NASA/CR-2000-299848, pg.(?-?), Washington/Maryland (USA), 2000 File, W.T., Cost Effective Maintenance: Design and Implementation, , Butterworths-Heinemann, 1991 Niebel, B.W., Engineering Maintenance Management, 2nd edition, , Marcel Dekker Inc., New York (USA), 1994 Smit, K., Maintenance Engineering, Lecture Notes D-96, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Education, Delft, 1993 Smit, K, Onderhoudsmanagement (Maintenance Management), Lecture Notes wb5415, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Marine Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 1988 Boeing, Airline Maintenance Program Development, Fleet Maintenance Seminar Notes, Commercial Aviation Services, Seattle (USA), 2000 Boeing, 737 600/ -700/ -800 / -900 Maintenance Planning Data Document, D626A001, Revision June 2001, Commercial Aviation Services, Seattle (USA), 2001 Boeing, Production Planning Requirements To Maintain Continued Airworthiness, Fleet Maintenance Seminar Notes, Commercial Aviation Services, Seattle (USA), 2001 Bratley et al., A Guide To Simulation, 2nd edition, pg. 1-11, SpringerVerlag New York Inc, New York, 1987 Stam, T., Lems, W., Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition, Maintenance program concept redefinition, Schiphol East, 2001 Dijkhuizen, G. van, Maintenance Meets Production: On the Ups and Downs of a Repairable System, Dissertation TU Twente, pg. 23-29, Print
[2] [3] [4] [5]
[6]
[7] [8] [9] [10]
[11] [12]
[13]
[14]
[15] [16]
85
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG [17] Partners Ipskamp, Enschede, 1998 Smit, K., Besturing Onderhoud met behulp van Computers (ComputerAssisted Maintenance Management), J2020, pg. 8, Department of Industrial Engineering Management, Delft University of Technology, 1994 Hillston, J., Modelling and Simulation, Lecture Notes, Department of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 2001
[18]
86
Appendix A
A. Assignment
Subject Background Optimisation of the maintenance of the Boeing 737 Next Generation (NG) With the introduction of the 737 NG, the Boeing Company has ceased prescribing the C-check interval. This has been replaced by a large number of ungrouped tasks that have got to be planned into the maintenance program by the aircraft operator. Research on how the maintenance program and maintenance tasks execution can be optimised. Pay special attention on the cost of ownership of the aircraft with regard to maintenance execution. The unavailability of the aircraft for airline operations should also be considered Realistic and executable Applicable within the Transavia organisation and processes Applicable for both Transavia airlines and KLM business Unit 737, with the exception of work contracted out
Assignment
Recommendations
87
Appendix B
B.
B.1.
Transavia Airlines
History
Transavia Limburg N.V. was founded in 1965. It received an airline licence in 1966, with which it could operate charter flights from Beek (Maastricht) and Zestienhoven (Rotterdam) airports. Shortly thereafter, an American company, the American Boreas Corporation, bought all company shares. The companys name was later changed to Transavia Holland so that it could also operate from Schiphol airport. Despite various problems with the acquisition of licences, the airline transported 21.000 passengers in its first year of operation. In 1968, the airline began operating charter flight to the United States, and it also stated leasing out its aircraft and cabin/cockpit crew. By 1971, the Transavia passenger count had reached 447.000, and it had 420 employees. In 1972, the Royal Dutch Steamship Company (KNSM) took over 40% of the companys shares. In the same year, the Caravell fleet was replaced with the Boeing 737-200, at the cost of fl. 20 million per aircraft. KNSM acquired all the company shares in 1977. Transavia Holland changed its name to Transavia airlines in 1986, and in the same year, it acquired its first B737-300. During the same year, the company transported its millionth passenger. An introduction of a line service to London Gatwick led to the introduction of Business Class seats for the fleet. A merger of the KNSM and Ned Lloyd in 1988 resulted in the sale of 40% of the shares to KLM. Transavia airlines also introduced a line service to holiday destinations along the Mediterranean Coast. 1991 saw the acquisition of 80% of the shares by KLM. A year later, the airline received a delivery of its first Boeing 757-200. Transavia airlines still operates as an independent organisation, with the following major activities: - Holiday charter flights - Scheduled business and holiday flights - Aircraft leasing - Ad-hoc flights The airline has its head office at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Its main operation base is also Schiphol Airport. Its other base is at Rotterdam Airport. Staff Currently, Transavia has an average of 1500 employees, serving on board, as ground staff and as administrative staff.
B.2.
The fleet
The Transavia fleet is currently under modernisation in order to cater optimally for the needs of the airline and its passengers. The following list gives an overview of the fleet, as per 28-06-2001
89

Aircraft type
Boeing Boeing Boeing Boeing 737-300 737-700 (NG) 737-800 (NG) 757-200
Abbreviation
B733 B737 NG B737 NG B752 -
Number
7 1 12 4 24
Capacity
149 149 184 219 -
Average age
10.14 yr. 0 1.5 7 -
Total
Table B. 1 Transavia Fleet as per 26 June 2001
All the aircraft have the same one-class configuration, thus making them fully interchangeable. They all have the range for most of Transavia destinations. The major utilisation difference is their capacity. The abbreviation used above is limited to the technical department only, and it is used to distinguish the various maintenance programmes for each type of aircraft.
B.3.
Maintenance Facilities
For the maintenance of these aircraft, the airline has a hangar in which two aircraft can be maintained simultaneously, and a third aircraft one parked for fault correction. This facility has a JAR-145 certificate, and is authorised by the NLA to perform all maintenance activities it is capable of performing (See relevant appendix). Maintenance performed in own facility is referred to as line maintenance. Heavy maintenance is normally contracted out to KLM E&M (B737 aircraft) and Shannon Aviation (B 752 aircraft) in Ireland. These two heavy maintenance stations have a long-term contract with Transavia to perform base maintenance for the fleet. Engine maintenance is contracted out to SNECMA (B737 CFMI-engines) in France and Derby (B752 Rolls-Royce engines) in the United Kingdom. APU maintenance is done by Allied Signals in Raunheim, Germany.
B.4.
Organisation
The following diagram illustrates the organisation of Transavia airlines as a whole.
90
Appendix B
President
Corporate Communications (PR) Legal Affairs
Personnel & Organisation External Relations
Director Operational affairs
Director Finance and Planning Controllers Department
Director Sales and Planning
Marketing
Quality & Safety Assurance
Fleet Management
Financial Administration Technical Department (A) Information Services Treasury Management
Charter Sales Scheduled Service Sales Capacity Planning Commercial Realisation
Ground Service & Operations Control
Flight Department (Cockpit)
Cabin Crew Department
Insurance Facility Management
Lease
Figure B.1 Transavia: Organisational Structure
A - The Technical Department The technical department is subdivided into three departments, namely Purchases and Logistics, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering. Figure B.1 illustrates the organisational structure of the E&M B - Aircraft Maintenance The Aircraft Maintenance department has the following objectives: 1. To ensure that all operating aircraft are in serviceable condition as regards to airworthiness, punctuality, sitting configuration and passenger/crew comfort 2. Support the Lease department (Lease in/out, sale) and the Fleet Management (aircraft purchases) technically. The aircraft maintenance section performs the following activities: a. Line maintenance - Arrival services (aircraft reception from cockpit crew) - Aircraft inspection as per instructions - Defect analysis - Defect correction or deferring - Aircraft transfer to cockpit crew - Departure services
91

Head of Maintenance and Engineering (A)
Maintenance Control
Secretariat
Purchases and Logistics (D)
Aircraft Maintenance (B)
Engineering (C)
Purchases
Supply shop
Maintenance Planning and Support
Training co-ordination
Engineering team
Technical library
Project purchaser
Technical Support
Technical purchaser Maintenance team Analysts Seat workshop
Figure B.2: Organisational Structure E&M
b. Hangar maintenance - Towing aircraft from the Gate to the Hangar - Parking aircraft in the Hangar - Opening of inspection access panels - Performing line maintenance inspections and modifications - Defect analysis - Defect correction or deferring - Closing of inspection access panels - Moving aircraft from Hangar - Towing aircraft to the Gate c. Seat maintenance - Seat inspection - Seat defect correction d. Technical Flight co-ordination - Technical consultation with the cockpit crew during flight, at the request of the cockpit crew e. Aircraft health monitoring - Monitoring production per aircraft (flight hours, cycles) - Monitoring inspections performed - Registering defects and corrective action - Monitoring component change C Engineering
92
Appendix B Objectives: 1. Setting technical standards and specifications for new or modified aircraft and components so that aircraft maintenance may be performed in accordance with Transavia and NLA maintenance execution requirements, while keeping cost as low as possible 2. Supporting the aircraft maintenance department in faultfinding and rectification of complex faults. Also issue repair instructions for specific tasks, and help in investigating the course of the most common defects 3. Participate technically in the purchase of new aircraft, and in making specifications on aircraft modification in order to fulfil the wishes of the Flight and cabin services, marketing and lease department. This department is subdivided into five sections, broadly categorised according to ATA 100 classification. These sections are: a. b. c. d. e. Maintenance programs Power Plants Structures/Systems Interiors Avionics
D - Purchases and Logistics Objectives Realisation of all commercial activities (purchases, outsourcing and sales) of goods and services (including personnel) and all logistical services in order to support the E&M in maintaining its JAROPS1 and JAR145 standard and low cost of ownership strategies. Activities a. Project purchases: purchasing specified goods and services for maintenance activities and modifications from specialised vendors. This also involves preparing contracts for out-source work and pooling activities. b. Purchases: Purchasing goods and materials for (ad hoc) maintenance activities and toping up component stocks for normal activities. Purchases also deals with the disposal (sale) of unnecessary materials. c. Analysis: Determining optimum stock and spare-parts levels and re-order levels and monitoring contracts and co-operation agreements. d. Warranty management: Monitoring aircraft and component warranty as a tool of minimising spending on maintenance. e. Supplies shop: Mainly deals with the reception, storage and distribution of materials/articles and technical consignments.
B.5.
Operational area
Transavia mainly operates holiday charters and scheduled services (including the BASIQ AIR service) to destinations along the Mediterranean Sea. It also makes flights to destinations such as Tel Aviv (Israel) and Kathmandu (Nepal).
93
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Table B.2 below gives an overview of all Transavia destinations. The Transavia operational year is typically divided into two periods: the summer period (high season) and the winter period (low season). The high season begins in May and runs through October. During this season, the airline operates at its maximum capacity (utilises all aircraft) and, where necessary, leases in aircraft. Consequently, minimum ground time (turn around time and maintenance time) is desired in order to suit operational demands. The low season begins in November and runs through April, the following year. This season demands the availability of at least half of the fleet, hence offering more ground time for maintenance activities. It is during this season that heavy maintenance is carried out.
94
Appendix B
Destinations Bulgaria Varna Corsica Ajaccio Cyprus Lacarna Paphos Egypt Hurgada Luxor Sharm el Sjeikh France Nice Greece Athens Chania Chios Corfu Heraklion Kalamata Kavala Karpathos Keffalinia Kos Mikonos Mytilini Preveza Rhodos Samos Santorini Skiathos Skyros Thesaloniki Volos Zakynthos
b = BASIQ AIR c = Charter flights l = Scheduled service
Flights Destinations Ireland c Connaught Shannon Israel c Eilat c Tel Aviv c Ovda Italy c Alghero c Catania c Milan Napels l,b Pisa Rimini c Rome c Morocco c c Agadir c,l Casablanca Malta c c Malta Portugal c c Faro c Funchal c Lissabon c Oporto Nepal c c,l Kathmandu Tunisia c c Djerba c Monastir c c,l c c
Flights Destinations Turkey c Antalya c Bodrum Dalaman c Izmir Spain c c Alicante Almeria c Arrecife c,l Bacelona l Fuerteventura c,l Gerona c,l Ibiza c Jerez de La c Frontela La Palma Las Palmas c Mahon c,l Malaga Palma de Mallorca c Reus Sevilla c,l Tenerife Sud c,l Valencia c c,l l c c
Flights c c c c c,l c c c,l,b c c c c c c c,l c c,l c,l c c,l c,l l
Table B.2: Transavia flight destinations
95
Appendix C
C.
C.1.
The MSG-3 Philosophy

MSG Development:
The B747 Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) created a new analytic approach to maintenance using three control processes: 1. Hard Time limit: A maximum interval for performing maintenance tasks on a part or unit. Such intervals apply to overhaul, but also to the total life of the part or unit. 2. On-Condition: A repetitive inspections or tests to determine the condition of units or systems, comprising servicing, inspecting, testing, calibrating and replacement. 3. Conditioning Monitoring: Applies to items that have neither Hard Time limits nor On Condition maintenance as their primary maintenance policies
C.1.1. MSG-2 (Process oriented)

Analyses from the piece part level up (bottom-up). This results in control methods of Hard-Times, On Condition tasks and a large quantity of Condition Monitored items requiring intensive record keeping. The following diagram illustrates the MSG-2 logic analysis process, guided by five key questions:
Is there a failure Mode that has direct Adverse effects on Flight safety?
NO
YES
Is there an Indication to the flight crew When a function ceases To perform upon Demand?
NO
YES
Is there an adverse relationship between Age and reliability? Is there a maintenance or shop Check that will assure a high Probability of continued Function or function on demand?
Is there a reduction in failure resistance Detectable by Maintenance?
NO
NO
NO
HT
HT
OC
CM
OC
Figure C.1: MSG-2 Analysis
The end-result of the logical analysis is a list of tasks: - Tasks that can be done
97
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Tasks that have to be done Tasks that should be done
C.1.2. RCM (Reliability Centred Maintenance)

The Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) concept refined the logic process leading to MSG-3.
C.1.3. MSG-3 (Task oriented maintenance)

Task oriented process, analyses through system failure from the top down. Results in maintenance tasks that are performed for safety, operational or economic reasons. It involves preventive maintenance, performed before failure occurs (and is intended to prevent failure) as well as failure finding tasks. The tasks referred to consist of Lubrication/Servicing, Operational/Visual, Inspection/Functional, Restoration and discard. These are mostly derived from the MSG-3 logic analysis. MSG-3 Revision 1 This was a refining of the original MSG-3 in order to make it user-friendlier. It led to the elimination of the Operating Crew Monitoring strategy in the original MSG-3 MSG-3 Revision 2 This is a revision of the MSG-3 policy. It provides additional clarification and guidelines on development of Corrosion Prevention Control Programs (CPCP).
C.2.
-
Maintenance program objectives (MSG-3)
To ensure realisation of inherent safety and reliability levels of the equipment To restore safety and reliability to their inherent levels when deterioration has occurred To obtain the information necessary for the design improvement of those items whose inherent reliability proves inadequate To accomplish these goals at minimum total cost, including maintenance costs and the cost of residual failure
Contents Maintenance Program MSG-3 Tasks are sub-divided into two categories: 1. Scheduled tasks: these are tasks to be accomplished at scheduled intervals Lubrication/servicing (LU/SV) Operational Visual check (OP/VC) Inspection-General Visual/ Functional check (GV/FC) Detailed Inspection (IN) Restoration (RS) Discard (DS) 2. Non-scheduled tasks: these result from Scheduled tasks accomplished at specific intervals Reports of malfunction (usually originating from operating crew) Data analysis
98
Appendix C
C.3.
MSG-3 Logic flow analysis
This analysis leads to the identification of Maintenance Significant items (MSIs). The MGS-3 requires the Systems and Power plant design to be divided into convenient sized items for the purpose of analysis, better known as the Top-down analysis. The aeroplane is divided into major functional areas ATA systems and subsystems. Further sub-division is done until sub-components not replaced on aircraft are identified. This level of sub-division is also referred to as the Highest Manageable Level. This level is considered high enough to avoid unnecessary analysis, but low enough to allow proper analysis and ensure that all functions, failures and causes are covered. MSIs are identified from the following questions: Could the failure of this system affect safety? Could the failure of this system be undetectable or likely to be detected during operations? Could the failure of this item have significant operational impact? Could the failure of this item have significant economic impact? As mentioned earlier, the logical flow diagram classifies maintenance tasks into five categories, namely: - Category 5: Evident Safety Effect - Category 6: Evident Operational Effect - Category 7: Evident Economic Effect - Category 8: Hidden Safety Effect - Category 9: Hidden Non-Safety Effect The following is an illustration of the MSG-3 logical flow diagram.
Is the occurrence of the functional failure Evident to the operating crew during the Performance of normal duties?
YES
NO
Evident Functional Failure

Does the functional failure or secondary Damage resulting from the functional Failure have a direct adverse effect on the Operating safety?
Hidden Functional Failure

Doe s the combination of a hidden functional failure and one additional failure of a system related or back-up function have and adverse effect on Operational safety?
YES
NO
YES
NO
Does the functional failure have a Direct effect on operating capability? YES SAFETY EFFECTS OPERATIONAL EFFECTS NO ECONOMIC EFFECTS SAFETY EFFECTS NON-SAFETY EFFECTS
Figure C.2: MSG-3 Logic Flow diagram
99
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG The MSG-3 principle is also utilised in identifying Structural Significant Items (SSI). It begins with considering the whole aircraft structure. The aircraft is sub-divided into zones and/or areas using industry standards and definitions resulting in manageable sections for analysis. Thereafter, all structural items are identified and classified as Structural Significant Items, or as Other Structure. The following diagram illustrates this process.
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE
DEFINE AIRCRAFT ZONES OR AREAS
DEFINE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL ITEMS
IS ITEM SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL ITEM? YES CATEGORISE AND LIST AS SSI
NO
IS SSI DAMAGE TOLERANT? NO SAFE LIFE LIMIT ANALYSIS YES FATIGUE DAMAGE (FD) ANALYSIS ED/AD/CPCP ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF OTHER STRUCTURES
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS
CONSOLIDATED STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Figure C.3: SSI Analysis
For all SSI, Accidental Damage (AD) and Environmental Deterioration (ED) evaluations are performed, resulting in the MRB tasks. Fatigue evaluations usually form part of the damage tolerance evaluation for certification, and will result in supplementary inspections (Airworthiness Limitations), where the baseline MRB are not adequate. The Zonal maintenance program covers inspection requirements for Other Structure. [Source: Boeing CAS, October 200]
100
Appendix D
D. Maintenance Program Packaging Methods

D.1. Maintenance program packaging methods
Objectives Manufacturer To provide the operator with packaging options for fleet maintenance program Increase the production efficiency of an organisation Operator Increase aircraft availability Reduce production costs By reviewing an operators anticipated utilisation, environmental considerations, fleet size, seasonal constraints, and other factors, it is possible to package an aircrafts maintenance program taking full advantage of the allowable utilisation parameters (Hours, Cycles and Calendar Time) as specified in the MPD document. The band of possible task packaging for a given airplane can range from a program consisting of a large number of progressively performed small work packages equalised/progressive check) to a program which bundles most scheduled tasks in relatively few large checks performed at higher intervals (block check). The traditional A, B, C & D check programs are typically situated somewhere between the two extremes (also referred to as Segmented Checks). Most airlines scheduled programs fall in this category. The selection of the right task packaging method that satisfies an operators requirements will depend on three primary considerations: - Operational considerations (route structure, flight length, frequency of flight) - Commercial considerations (traffic patterns, seasonal constraints) Technical considerations (maintenance program, manpower skills, tooling etc)
D.2.
Block Packaging
This is focused on the principle of grouping all maintenance tasks that require frequent repetition under a letter check (i.e. A, B, C, D Checks). This method produces a small number of relatively large work packages having the disadvantage of a relatively long maintenance ground time Conditions favouring BLOCK packaging include Large airplane fleet Spare airplane available Flexible manpower Single centrally located maintenance base Contract maintenance High utilisation Long range operation Non-scheduled maintenance Utilisation varies with calendar season
Advantages: Reduces spare requirements at out stations
101
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Increased ground time Increased ground time simplifies scheduling or the logical sequencing of work to be performed. Sequencing considerations include specific configuration for the accomplishment of various tasks. For example, many operational tasks require electric or hydraulic power. Engine tasks may require cowls and thrust-reversers to be Open. This could conflict with wing tasks requiring flaps and leading edge devices to be deployed. Logistical considerations for spares are also simplified. Accomplishment of modifications Rectification of non-routines More efficient sequencing of long jobs
Disadvantages Manpower requirements can be adversely affected if airplane fleet planning cannot support back-to-back scheduling of airplanes. Component parts may be replaced several hundred hours before replacement is necessary. However, the benefit quite often outweighs the disadvantages. Operator scheduling constraints are typically the reason for early replacements. Block check programs increase the risk of the airplane becoming a parts department in support of in-service airplanes.
D.3.
Equalised/Phased or progressive packaging:
Packages requiring shorter ground time Equalised packaging is an alternative method of packaging maintenance tasks. In this method, tasks are arranged into many small packages all having approximately the same ground time. Each package may contain only a few tasks but with a ground time (elapsed time) of less than 8 hours. This may also be elapsed time that satisfies the availability requirements specified by airline operations and scheduling. In their description of the functions of a maintenance management tool, MX Technologies refer to equalised maintenance as a program derived through updated MSG-3 analysis. This implies that equalised maintenance is, in actual fact, TaskBased Maintenance. In an equalized program, the larger letter checks are segmented into smaller but more frequent work packages, with the result that the aircraft has greater overall availability for revenue-generating service. Also, segmentation helps to get the maximum life out of life-limited components Conditions favouring equalised packaging include Small aircraft fleet No spare airplane Manpower equalisation Multiple maintenance locations Maintenance performed in house Low utilisation Short range operations Scheduled operations Constant utilisation
Advantages Equalised packaging simplifies manpower-planning requirements. This is because, moving tasks from one check package to another minimises peaks and valleys in manpower requirements. However, when considering equalisation, it is important to weigh all operational considerations.
102
Appendix D Other advantages include: Reduced ground time Increased aircraft availability Reduced size of workload Flexibility of grouping tasks with common access Frequent visit supports full component life Balanced workload on small fleets More opportunities to correct deferred maintenance
Disadvantages As with the block check, if taken to an extreme, disadvantages can offset the efficiency gained in another area if all aspects of the program are not carefully considered. Equalised work packages increase open/close access requirements. This in turn increases the stress on fasteners, causing a consequent replacement due to induced damage. Additionally, over time, total man-hours as compared to a block check will be higher. Other disadvantages include: Increase in production planning and scheduling workload Careful planning is required due to the limited ground time There is limited time for the accomplishment of modifications Short jobs are inherently inefficient Limited time to identify and rectify non-routines
[Sources: Boeing CAS, 2000; Mxi Technologies (www.mxi.com), 2002]
103
Appendix E
E.
Line and Base Maintenance Redefinition

Transavia JAR-145 scope of work
E.1.
Cause
The MPD of the 737-800 does not make a distinction between A and C checks. Instead, it just lists all maintenance tasks that need to be performed on the aircraft. This allows the operator to set up his own maintenance program, depending on the aircraft utilisation. Transavia opted to define line maintenance task as all tasks with maintenance limits of less than 540 Days, 3000 Cycles or 6000 Hours. All tasks with limits above these were classified as base maintenance tasks. Such a definition was not reasonable, owing to the fact that there were many tasks with higher intervals, which Transavia was fully capable of performing. The JAA Leaflet No. 6 on the JAR-145 Definition of Line Maintenance also supported this view. Point 4 of this leaflet states: Taking into account the wide range of aircraft used in commercial aircraft transport, e.g. light single engine, helicopter and large transport airplanes, and furthermore considering their different maintenance programmes, it is not appropriate to use hours, letter checks, or calendar time as a divider between line and base maintenance. Transavia would therefore prefer to perform some base maintenance tasks at its own hangar, in order to reduce this de-escalation.
E.2.
Aim
To carry out an evaluation on which tasks, classified under the current definition (see E.1 above) as Base Maintenance tasks, can be performed by Transavia, a JAR-145 Line Maintenance organisation (JAR-145 Section 2, paragraphs 3.2.1-3.2.4). Transavia Airlines is currently certified as a Line Maintenance Organisation, and hence licensed to perform all Line Maintenance tasks. Line Maintenance referred to is as defined in this document, and as approved by the National Aviation Authority (Inspectie Verkeer and Waterstaat - Divisie Luchtvaart, IVW-DL, formally RLD), in accordance to JAR-OPS 1.910(b) and 3.910(b).
E.3.
Approach
All maintenance tasks Transavia is capable of performing will be evaluated by considering the following aspects: Staff Whether the Transavia Certified staff (JAR-66, Category B1) has the knowledge and expertise to perform such tasks, and to rectify defects where necessary. Means Whether Transavia has the necessary components, materials, tools, equipment and documentation needed to perform such tasks, and to rectify defects where necessary. Materials Whether Transavia has the necessary facilities required to perform such tasks, and to rectify defects where necessary.
105
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Methodology Whether Transavia, as an organisation, is structured in such a way that it can perform such tasks and rectify defects where necessary.
E.3.1. Engineering
The engineering department evaluates whether maintenance for various systems can be executed within the means of Transavia, or whether a JAR-145 base maintenance organisation should be contracted The following are restrictions on the evaluation on the execution of tasks, based on MSG-3 rev.2 task categories MSG-3 Task Category Lubrication and Servicing (LU) Operational check (OP) No restrictions Visual Check (VC) A visual failure finding task through observation to determine if an item is fulfilling its intended purpose. Does not require quantitative tolerances No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required General Visual Inspection (GV) A visual inspection that will detect obvious unsatisfactory conditions/discrepancies No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required Functional Check (FC) No restrictions Inspection-Detailed (DT) An intensive visual examination of a specified detail, assembly, or installation. A potential failure finding task No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required and also not for intensive structures/CPCP inspections Restoration (RS) Reworking, replacement of parts or cleaning necessary to return an item to a specific standard No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required Discard (DS)
Table E. 1 Evaluation Restrictions
Definition Consumable replenishment by lubricating A failure finding task to determine if an item is fulfilling its intended purpose. Does not require quantitative tolerances
No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required
A quantitative check to determine if one or more functions of an item perform within specified limits. This is a potential failure finding task
The removal from service of an item at a specified life limit
No restriction, as long as no extensive aircraft open-up or disassembly is required
Note: Extensive open-up refers to the gaining access to inspection areas, other than through the visible access doors/panels. Such open-up may involve the deriveting of aircraft panels or the removal of entire aircraft sections, work that demands significant ground time for the so-called open & close. System engineers are responsible for determining the necessary means and materials, and if necessary, can request intervention of the tooling commission.
106
Appendix E The engineering department will use the following flow diagram (Figure E. 1) to determine whether Transavia can perform a specific maintenance task. The results will then be recorded in a compliance checklist.
E.3.2. Purchases and Logistics

Shall order materials and equipment if necessary
E.3.3. Maintenance planning and support

Shall provide the means and materials for aircraft maintenance
E.3.4. Safety & Quality Assurance (S&QA)

Will evaluate whether Transavia JAR-145 fulfils all requirements (set by the authorities and Transavia), through audits and monitoring. Where necessary, S&QA will order corrective action.
MRI
1. Does Transavia have staff members certified under JAR 66, Cat. A/B1/B2, capable to perform this task/rectification?
YES
NO
2.
Does Transavia have the tools and the equipment required to perform this task? Are the Certified staff from (1) above capable to operate these tools/equipment?
YES/ NOT APPLICABLE
NO
3. Can the certified staff from (1) above work with components and materials required for this task?
YES
NO
4. Does the Transavia facility meet the requirements (where necessary) for executing this task?
NO
YES
Transavia Cannot Perform this task
Transavia can perform this task
Figure E. 1 Task Evaluation flow diagram
[Source: Stam, T., Lems, W., Transavia airlines]
107
Appendix F
F.
Transavia Airplane Reliability Program
Airplane Reliability program This is a set of rules and practices developed by the airline and approved by the regulatory authority. It is an event reporting system based on performance values experienced under actual operating conditions. It provides continuous audits of maintenance functions to enhance safety and cost effective maintenance. The program identifies problem areas within in the airplane maintenance process so that corrective action can be taken to fix these problems. The reliability program principals are applicable to all airplane models operated by the airline. Guidelines for establishing a reliability programs are provided in the FAA Advisory Circular 120-17A. The reliability program is a close loop cycle, accomplished by applying the following steps: 1. Identification of performance parameters that reflect airplane reliability. 2. Collection, analysing and reporting of data gathered from service experience and reflecting airplane reliability. 3. Problems are investigated and identified. 4. Corrective actions are proposed and applied. 5. Corrective actions are monitored to ensure that maintenance cycle problems are solved. Reliability program flowchart A Reliability Program Flow Chart (Figure F. 1 below) will include the following steps: 1. Identification of performance parameters. 2. Collection of. Service data 3. Reporting and analysing of service data 4. Decisions are made if performance standards are met 5. Engineering investigates alerts and determines corrective actions 6. Reliability Control Board (RCB) approves corrective action. 7. Engineering issue engineering order (EO) to correct problem. 8. Maintenance accomplishes EO on airplane. 9. Cycle repeat it self. Reliability program responsibilities are shared by Reliability Section (RS): this section conducts the day-to- day operations of the program and report directly to the Quality Assurance Manager. A Reliability Control Board (RCB): this is an audit and standard committee, composed of a permanent and advisory members responsible to manage the overall operation of the program and approves corrective action Various Engineering and Production units of the Maintenance and Engineering Division: these provide support to the various aspects of the program. The reliability program supports the long and short-term surveillance of fleet reliability through a progressive schedule of activities, which include a daily
109
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG maintenance and engineering briefing (daily meeting) and a monthly reliability meeting.
Performance Parameters Identified
Data Collected
Data Ploted and Analyzed
Maintain Production
Yes
Performance Standards Met
Monthly Reliability Report
Incorporate EO
No Alert
Engineering Investigation
RCB Approval
Maintenance Program Changes
Corrective Action
Source: Boeing CAS, 2000
Figure F. 1 Reliability Flow Chart
Performance Parameters A performance parameter is a quantitative measure of airplane reliability for which the following can be established: 1. A trend value 2. An upper control limit 3. A lower control limit These parameters are selected on the basis of: - Their ability to provide a realistic measure of reliability - The extent to which the data is readily available - The sensitivity in reflecting changes in the level of reliability Available data collection sources within the organisation are: Monthly fleet Reports Quarterly Fleet Reports Aircraft Technical Log and Board book sheets Weekly Technical delay reports Irregularity Reports Deferred Defect sheets Pilot and Maintenance Reports Daily Meeting reports Shop Reports
110
Appendix F Work Performance sheet Digital engine trend monitoring data System and component reliability reports (METALS) Flight Data Recorder
The following is a list of parameters used in measuring reliability performance: - Technical Dispatch Reliability - Pilot Reports - Hold Item Lists - Deferred defect Reports - Delays/cancellations - Review of structural inspection findings - In Flight shut downs (IFSD) - Unscheduled removals - Confirmed failures 1. Trend Value Monitoring Airplane reliability is monitored at various levels, which are: a. Aircraft level: performance parameter used for reflecting the airplane reliability will be whether the aircraft has made the next flight or not. The following parameters are utilised: Average Daily Utilisation =
Airtime per month Days in the month*No. of a/c in fleet
Average Stage length =
Airtime per month Cycles per Month
Fleet Technical Performance =
Pilot Reports*1000 Airtime per evaluation interval
b. System level: performance parameters used are Pilots reports (PIREPS) per 100 landings and/or Mechanical delays/Cancellations per 100 Revenue Departures, the ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these two parameters are ATA 21 through 36, 38 and 49. c. Power plant level: parameters used are In-flight shutdowns events (IFSD) per 1000 engine hours and/or unscheduled removal per 1000 engine hours. Transavia airlines also works with an engine removal rate parameter, which is: Engine Removal Rate =
No. of engines removed*1000 Engine Hours
The ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these parameters are ATA 71 through 80.
111
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG d. Component level: parameters used are Unscheduled component removals rate per 1000 unit hours/ landings and/or the Confirmed failures per 1000 unit hours (and consequently MTBUR and MTBF). U. Component Removal Rate =
No. of Component Removal*1000 Quantity per a/c* airtime per evaluaton interval
MTBUR =
Quantity per a/c * Flight hours Unscheduled Removals
MTBF
Quantity per airplane*flight hours No. of confirmed Failures
The ATA chapters considered when calculating the rate of these two parameters are ATA chapters 21 through 36, 38, 49 for systems and 73, 75, 77, 79 and 80 for power plant. The MTBUR is used more often because gathering failure information would require shop reports, which usually take a long time to gather. (See also: List of ATA chapter titles) 2. Upper Control Limit These limits are assigned to each performance parameter to describe desirable or undesirable trends. The limit is a rate of occurrence, which if exceeded, triggers an investigation and corrective action.
Upper Control Limit=X + K where X =
X
N
= SD =
X2
( X ) 2 N N 1
K = multiplier
The mean value ( X ) is calculated by dividing the sum of the entire failure rate for the period under consideration by the number of months in the period. Alert values will exist whenever a three-month average rate of occurrence exceeds the upper control limit.
112
Appendix G
G. Maintenance Governing Regulations

The Standards for design and operation are issued as regulations. These can apply to both Manufacturers and Operators. Approvals by the Regulatory authority showing compliance with these standards are shown by means of issuing certificates.
G.1.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The FAA issues its standards through the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). The Code of Federal Regulation is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The Aviation Regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Chapter I, Parts 1 through 199. The major Parts from Chapter I of the Code that have an impact on Maintenance are: Parts 25, 33, 34, and 36 contain the design standards that are used as the basis of Certification. Parts 39 and 121 are applicable to operating airplanes Standards for Safety in Design are contained in Part 25 and mandatory changes to the certified Design are covered by part 39. Part 25.1529 (Appendix H) contains the requirement for Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. This means that Maintenance Manuals must support a new design. This must include an approved Maintenance Program. The standards in the FARs that relate to how an operator must perform maintenance are found in part 121 and Part 43. Part 121.365 requires a certificate holder to have an adequate maintenance and inspection organization. Part 121.379 requires certificate holders to use approved data for major repairs and alterations. Part 43 requires that methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the administrator be used for inspection and repair of civil aircraft. FAA approved services documents are the major source that fill this requirement. This FAR also identifies what is required (by paper work sign offs) to return an aircraft back to service also defines a Major and Minor Repair or Alteration. Advisory Circulars are the FAA primary means of distributing information of a nonregulatory nature to the public. They provide a description of non-regulatory guidance, policy, and information. There is a Master Index that lists all effective ACs. There are several Advisory Circulars that have an impact on Maintenance Programs. These include: 1. AC 120-16C: Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Programs This AC gives airline the privilege and responsibility of aircraft maintenance. It provides information and guidance on Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Programs. Five elements of an airworthiness maintenance program include: - Performance and approval of maintenance & alterations (routine and non-routine maintenance)
113
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Arrangements for maintenance and alterations (Maintenance scheduling) Responsibility for airworthiness Continuous analysis and surveillance Maintenance and inspection organisation
2. AC 121-22A: Maintenance Review Board (MRB) This AC provides guidelines that may be used by industry during its development and revision of the initial minimum scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements for derivative or newly type certificated transport category aircraft and power plants for submittal to the FAA for approval. These initial minimum scheduled maintenance/inspection requirements are referred to in this AC as the Maintenance review Board Report (MRBR). The requirements, after approval by the FAA, become the framework around which each air carrier develops its own individual maintenance program. FAA regulations require that specific operational authorizations and limitations applicable to an Air Operator Certificate, issued in conjunction with the issue of the Air Operations Specifications, are to supplement the general requirements of the basic certificate, and are to list authorizations and limitations not specifically covered by other FAA regulations. Part 121.25 lists the contents of the Operating Certificate and the Operations Specification. This combined issuance of the Air Operator Certificate and the Operations Specification constitute the FAA approval of the unique airline operation. Variables affecting unique carrier operations include: o Aircraft types o Operating environment o Operator capability o Level of experience o Facilities o Organizational structure
G.1.1. Reliability program requirements

FAR Part 121.373 requires each certificate holder to establish and maintain a system for the continuing analysis and surveillance of the performance and effectiveness of its maintenance program. On the other hand, AC120-17A provides information and guidance materials which may be used to design or develop maintenance reliability programs utilising reliability control methods.
G.1.2. Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

If it is determined that Service Instructions (inspections, repairs, or modifications) are necessary, the manufacturer is required by Part 21 to provide them. The FAA approves all Service Instructions that the manufacturer may develop. An Airworthiness Directive is the only means by which owners and operators (airlines) can be forced to accomplish a manufacturer Service Bulletin. Airworthiness Directives are the end result of the Continued Airworthiness Program performed by the FAA. [References: FAR Parts 21,121, 135]
114
Appendix G
G.1.3. Airworthiness
Two conditions must be met for an airplane to be considered airworthy: An aeronautical product is airworthy when it conforms to the regulations under which it has been certified. This means that the product has to comply with the documentation that demonstrates that the design meets the regulations. This documentation has been submitted to the FAA as the basis for Certification approval. The airplane configuration and the components installed must be consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the Type Certificate. An aeronautical product must conform to its type design, supplemental type design, any applicable Airworthiness Directives (AD), and be in a condition for safe operation. This means that an airplane continues to be airworthy when it continues to meet the design (or approved design changes) and is being inspected in accordance with, and meeting the requirements of, the approved manuals. The condition for safe operation refers to the condition of the airplane relative to wear and deterioration
G.2.
The Joint Aviation Authority (JAA)
The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures. This cooperation is intended to provide high and consistent standards of safety and a "level playing-field" for competition in Europe. Much emphasis is also placed on harmonising the JAA regulations with those of the USA (FAA). The JAA develops and implements Joint Aviation Requirements (JARs) in the fields of: - Aircraft design and manufacture, - Aircraft operations and maintenance, - Licensing of aviation personnel Parts of the JAR directly associated with aircraft maintenance include: 1. The JAR-OPS part 1&3: Maintenance This is a section of JAR-OPS and covers the operator's responsibility for maintenance management and includes the aircraft maintenance programme and flight technical log. The JAR-OPS Part 1 prescribes requirements applicable to the operation of any civil aeroplane for the purpose of commercial air transportation by any operator whose principal place of business is in a JAA Member State. 2. JAR-145: Approved Maintenance Organisations The JAR-145 is a requirement to approve/accept maintenance organisations to maintain any aircraft used for commercial air transport. 115
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG 3. JAR-66: Certifying Staff JAR-66 is a requirement about qualifying maintenance personnel to issue certificates of release to service for JAR-145 organisations. JAR-66 specifically covers the issue of an aircraft maintenance basic licence. 4. JAR-147: Approved Maintenance Training JAR-147 is a requirement for approved maintenance training to satisfy part of the JAR-66 requirements including in particular the conduct of basic and type examinations to be accepted by the JAA-NAA as a basis for issue of the proposed JAR-66 Licence.
116
Appendix H
H. Line Maintenance Planning Norm

Line maintenance is a term used to refer to all maintenance activities performed by Transavia itself. However, Line maintenance can be sub-divided into Platform maintenance (maintenance at the gate/parking area), and Hangar maintenance (maintenance performed at the Transavia hangar). The maintenance-planning norm is an agreement made between Maintenance Planning and Support (MP&S) and the Commercial Planning and Sales Department (CPV) on the amount of time required for scheduled maintenance activities. Such activities include routine maintenance (Daily Checks, Pre-flight maintenance etc., and scheduled non-routine maintenance (Engine/APU change and Exterior/Technical Cleaning. The following is a tabulation of the amount of time allocated to scheduled maintenance activities for the B737 NG:
Maintenance Activity 1st Pre-flight check Pre-flight Daily check
Time
1hr 15 min 0hr 55 min 1hr 30 min
Maintenance Time
1hr 15 min 0hr 55 min 1hr 30 min
Man-hours
Hangar maintenance, 1 slot Hangar maintenance, 2 slots Hangar maintenance, 4 slots Engine Change (QEC* - configuration) APU Change (QEC - configuration) Engine Boroscope inspection (1600 FC) Engine Boroscope inspection- Extensive (1600FC) Exterior Cleaning (*QEC: - Quick Engine Change) < 55 < 100 < 300 40 12 6 12 25
Block (Slot) time

7hr 45 min 10hr 45 min 24hrs 45 min 12hr 45 min 10hr 00 min 7hr 00 min 10hr 00 min 8hr 00 min
Hangar Time
4 hrs 7 hrs 21 hrs 6 3 6 4 9 hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs 45 min 15 min 15 min 15 min
Table H. 1 Maintenance Planning Norm - Line Maintenance (Source: MP&S, TD-Planning 2001)
Assumptions: No maintenance is performed on days other than those agreed upon with CPV Slot Time Hangar Time = 3hrs 45 min consists of: Arrival last flight SPL: Crew/passengers/Catering out, cleaning 50 minutes Towing 30 minutes Hangar activities (miscellaneous) 40 minutes Before Departure after hangar visit: Towing (morning flight) Crew/Catering/passengers in 45 minutes 60 minutes
Routine Maintenance includes the performance of inspections as stated in the job cards, and the performance of eventual non-routines (Normal wear and tear), as specified in the job cards. Source: Transavia Maintenance Department, April 2001 117
118
Appendix I
I.
List of Line and Base Maintenance Checks
The inspection checks detailed in the Operators Maintenance Programme should be completed within the stated flight hours, flight cycles and/or calendar time periods, whichever comes first, and repeated at the same interval. a. The letters D, H and C stand for Days, Hours and Cycles, respectively b. Inspections/checks marked with a * have a dual limit: The checks are performed when either of the limits is reached, i.e. whichever limit comes first c. The 38 preceding the letters D, H, and H indicates that the check is applicable for the B737-800, abbreviated as B738. The checks apply to all next generation aircraft (- 700 and 800) in the Transavia fleet The maintenance checks are developed as follows: 1. All maintenance tasks listed in the MPD and all maintenance tasks developed by the engineering department are broadly categorised into Day, Hour, Cycle, and dual limit (Day/Hour, Day/Cycle, Hour/Cycle) items. 2. Per category, maintenance tasks with equivalent maintenance intervals are grouped together into checks. These checks are then labelled using labels (e.g. 38C4000*) described in a, b and c above.
I.1.
Line Maintenance Checks

"L" Packages Dual Interval 38D60L 38D60L* 38D100L 38D100L* 38D240L* 38D360L 38D360L* 38D480L* 38D540L 38D720L 38D720L* 38D1080L 38D1080L* 38D1440L 38D1800L 38D1800L* 38D2880L 38D2880L* 38C300L 38C1000L 38C2000L 38C3000L 38C3500L 38C4000L 38C4000L* 38C5000L 38C9000L* 38C10000L 38C12000L 38C12500L 38C15000L 38C25000L 400C 1000C 1250C 2000C 2500C 4000C 8000H 18000C 18000C Items 1 5 8 12 6 13 2 2 5 20 24 5 7 2 3 18 7 23 3 6 7 14 2 6 80 5 6 1 2 1 1 5 MPD Man-hours 0.2 1.6 11.2 1.22 2.95 4.05 0.2 0.6 2.5 7.85 35.3 3.5 4.1 3.5 2.5 19.4 4.6 17.9 0.2 1.7 0.64 5.5 0.2 0.9 15.37 1.2 1.18 0.1 0.8 0.25 0 3.9 "L" Packages 38H450L 38H1000L 38H1600L 38H2000L 38H4000L 38H5000AL 38H5000BL 38H5000CL 38H5000DL 38H5000EL 38H6500L 38H8000L 38H10000L 38H12000L 38H12500L 38H15000L 38H20000L 38H25000L 38H30000L Items 29 21 8 19 37 20 28 3 14 15 3 10 15 1 2 7 1 20 1 MPD Man-hours 13 6.05 3.85 3.21 10.75 5.22 6.3 6.1 5.6 12.55 0.6 3 6.05 2 1.9 4.4 1.5 6.85 0.5
540D 900D
Table I. 1 737 NG OMP Line Maintenance Checks
119
I.2.
Base Maintenance Checks

"B" Packages Dual Interval 38D540B 38D720B* 38D1620B* 38D1800B 38D1800B* 38D2160B* 38D2880B 38D3600B 38D3600B* 38D4320B 38D4320B* 38D5400B 38D7200B 38C9000B* 8C24000B* 38C25000B 8C36000B* 38H8000B 38H10000B 38H12000B 38H15000B 38H20000B 38H22400B 38H25000B 38H30000B 4000C 12000C 18000C 18000C 36000C 36000C Items 4 1 5 2 36 1 4 19 42 2 46 2 1 8 14 2 3 7 1 2 2 4 1 4 2 MPD Man-hours 36 0.4 3.84 0.8 17.6 0.5 5.1 14.2 49.38 4.3 62.65 8 0.4 4 13.63 4 5.5 4.35 0.5 5 2 2.15 1.2 1.6 1.3
900D 2880D 2880D
Table I. 2 737 NG OMP Base Maintenance Checks
I.3.
List of all Line Maintenance Tasks in Task Packages
The Maintenance task packaging results from an analysis of all effective OMP tasks, based on the procedure illustrated above.
ALL Tasks
Line? Base?
Line Maintenance Tasks Transavia L/B Classification Criteria Set-up properties Transavia Interval (CT/FH/FC) Maintenance Task Packages
Figure I. 1 Maintenance Task Packaging Process
Base Maintenance Tasks
Maintenance Checks
120
Appendix I The following is a summary of all Maintenance Task packages. A complete list of the contents of each task package follows in Table I. 4. It is worth mentioning that most tasks in a task package are from the same ATA 100 chapter (level 1), even though this does not always have to be the case. The reason for this may be attributed to the relationship between ATA 100 and aircraft Zones Tasks not classified include all engine-specific tasks that require to be performed separately through the application of the staggering principle. This is done in order to ensure power unit reliability, as recommended by Boeing and the engine manufacture, CFMI.
Table I. 3 List of Maintenance Task Packages
Task Package C300 C1000 C2000A C2000B C3000 C3500 C4000A C4000B C4000A* C4000B* C4000C* C4000D* C4000E* C4000F* C4000G* C4000H* C5000A C5000B C9000* C10000 C12000 C12500 C15000 C25000 D60 DYS D60A* DYS D60B* DYS D100* DYS D240* DYS D360A D360B D360C D360* D480* D540A D540B D540C D720A D720B D720C D720D D720E D720F D720G D720H D720A* D720B* D720C* D720D* D720E* TAV Check 38C300 38C1000 38C2000 38C2000 38C3000 38C3500 38C4000 38C4000 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C5000 38C5000 38C9000* 38C10000 38C12000 38C12500 38C15000 38C25000 38D60 38D60* 38D60* 38D100* 38D240* 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360* 38D480* 38D540 38D540 38D540 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* No. of MRIs MPD MHrs MSG-3 Class. Skill MSG-3 Cat 2 2 GV M 8 4 1.2 LU M 5 1 0.3 RS M 6 6 0.34 GV M 0 14 5.5 M 2 0.2 GV M 9 2 0.6 LU M 6 4 0.3 2GV, 2DT M 0,6 7 1.85 5DT, 2GV M 10 1.08 GV M 0 12 2.49 GV M 0 9 4.16 GV M 0 3 0.59 GV M 0 4 0.54 GV M 0 23 3.96 GV M 0 54 11.21 GV M 0 3 1 SV M 6 2 0.2 VC M 9 6 1.18 GV M 0 1 0.1 OP A 0 2 0.8 DT M 6 1 0.25 OP M 9 1 0 OP M 8 5 3.9 3SV, 2OP M 8 1 1 3 12 4 2 1 10 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 10 2 1 9 4 3 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.22 2 0.8 0.35 3.2 0.2 0.6 0.05 0.05 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.05 0.05 2.4 0.1 4.15 0.4 1 7.9 4.8 1.2 VC GV LU GV LU OP FC 6LU, 4DT LU LU OP DT FC FC GV DT OP VC FC GV LU DT DT GV DT M M M M M A A M M M M M M A M M M M A M M M M M M M 8 8 6 0 6 9 7 9 6 6 9 8 8 9 9 8 9 8 6 8 6 0 1 0 0 ATA Chapter 2527217032252770,74 20,32 52 53 53 53 53,54 55 57 27 72 54 24 27 32 32 27 25 25 32 52,53 27 23,31 34 52 27 27 25 25 32 23 25 25 25 25 34 49 52 27 52 52 53 53
121

Task Package D720F* D1080A D1080B D1080* D1440A D1440B D1800A D1800B D1800A* D1800B* D2880A D2880B D1440 D2880C D2880* H500 H1000A H1000B H1000C H1000D H1000E H1000F H1000G H1250 H1600A H1600B H1600C H2000 H2000A H2000B H2000C H2000D H2000E H2000F H2500A H2500B H3000A H3000B H3000C H3200 H4000B H4000C H4000D H4000E H4000F H4000G H4000H H5000A H5000B H5000C H5000D H5000E H6000A H6000B H6000C H6500A H6500B H8000A H8000B H8000C H8000D H10000A H10000B H10000C H10000D H10000E H10000F H10000G TAV Check 38D720* 38D1080 38D1080 38D1080* 38D1440 38D1440 38D1800 38D1801 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880* H450 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H5000A 38H5000B 38H5000C 38H5000D 38H5000E 38H6000 38H6000 38H6000 38H6500 38H6500 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 No. of MRIs MPD MHrs MSG-3 Class. Skill MSG-3 Cat ATA Chapter 5 20 DT M 0 53 1 0.5 FC M 9 26 5 3 2OP, 2DT M 8 28 2 0.6 DT M 8 27 1 1.5 FC A 9 23 1 2 VC M 9 35 1 4 RS M 9 38 2 0.2 OP M 9 71 8 4 DT M 6 20 10 15.4 GV M 0 54 2 1.1 GV M 0 53 2 2 GV M 0 55 2 1 GV M 0 55 1 0.5 GV M 0 57 23 17.9 M 1 52 20 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 6 1 1 19 5 3 2 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 6 1 12 4 1 9 2 20 28 3 14 15 1 6 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.5 0.01 0.05 0.05 3.4 0.05 0.4 3.21 1.0 0.9 0.36 0.55 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 2.1 0.5 5.1 1.15 0.2 1.3 0.1 5.22 6.3 6.1 5.6 12.55 0.05 2.7 0.05 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 1 0.4
OP VC RS SV DT OP DT OP VC LU RS DS VC GV DT DT OP RS DT OP VC 2GV, 2OP OP GV GV DT 7GV, 2OP VC
M M M M M M M M M M M A M M M M M M M M M M MA M M M A M M M
8 9 9 9 6 9 9 8 6 8 6 8 6 8 9 9 9 9 7 9 8 8 8 8 6 9 7 9
25 26 28 32 72 78 79 27 24 26 27 24 29 35 49 79 79 27 38 26 27 78 49, 25 25 27 28 35 49 52 71
GV GV OP DS
M M M M
8 8 9 9
DT FC OP FC OP OP DS
A M A M M M M
8 9 9 9 8 9 8
26 26,28,78 26 38 38 29,32 35 49 52 20 21 23 27 27 28 29
122
Appendix I
Task Package H10000H H10000I H10000J H10000K H12000 H12500 H15000A H15000B H15000C H20000 H25000A H25000B H25000C H25000D H30000 H4000A Engine Tasks 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 2000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS/5000 5000 HRS/5000 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS/5000 5000 CYC/HRS 5000 CYC/HRS 5000 HRS/5000 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1000 HRS TAV Check 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H12000 38H12500 38H15000 38H15000 38H15000 38H20000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H30000 38H4000 Unclassified MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI C MI C MI MI MI MI MI MI MI C MI MI MI C MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI No. of MRIs MPD MHrs MSG-3 Class. Skill MSG-3 Cat ATA Chapter 1 0.4 DS M 8 29 1 0.2 DS M 8 29 1 0.2 DT A 6 34 4 0.85 3GV, 1OP M 49 1 2 FC M 8 28 2 1.9 FC M 8 27 4 3 2DT, 2GV A 8 20 1 1 GV A 8 20 2 0.4 DT A 8 20 1 1.5 DT A 8 20 5 2.45 M 27 7 1.6 6FC, 1DS M 29 6 2.4 FC M 8 29 2 0.4 FC, OP M 32 1 0.5 GV A 8 20 2 0.2 OP A 9 21
1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 1
IN IN IN IN IN IN DT DT SV FC GV GV GV GV GV GV VC VC VC VC VC VC VC VC IN
M M M M M M M M A A A A A M M M M M M M M M M M
9 9 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 6 0 0 6 9 9 9 9 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 0
1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 2 2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05 2
IN VC VC VC VC DS DS VC VC VC VC LU LU VC VC VC VC DS DS DS DS DT DT
M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A
72-180-01 72-180-02 72-200-01 72-200-02 72-210-01 72-210-02 74-010-01 74-010-02 38-020-00 31-120-00 20-110-01 20-110-02 20-130-01 20-130-02 71-050-01 71-050-02 72-070-01 72-070-02 72-080-01 72-080-02 72-090-01 72-090-02 72-110-01 72-110-02 72-120-01 72-120-01 72-120-02 72-120-02 72-300-01 72-300-02 72-340-01 72-340-02 73-010-01 73-010-02 78-020-01 78-020-02 78-050-01 78-050-02 78-060-01 78-060-02 78-070-01 78-070-02 78-080-01 78-080-02 79-010-01 79-010-02 79-040-01 79-040-02 80-010-01 80-010-02 MI-24-20-8002
123

1000 HRS MI 1.5 IN M 0 MI-28-20-8006
Table I. 4 List of Tasks in each Task Package

Task Package C300 C300 C1000 C1000 C1000 C1000 C2000A C2000B C2000B C2000B C2000B C2000B C2000B C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3000 C3500 C3500 C4000A C4000A C4000B C4000B C4000B C4000B C4000A* C4000A* C4000A* C4000A* C4000A* C4000A* C4000A* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000B* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* MPD Interval 300 CYC 300 CYC 1000 1000 1000 1000 CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC MRI Transavia Number Check 25-160-00-01 38C300 25-160-00-02 38C300 27-144-01 27-144-02 27-176-01 27-176-02 21-100-00 70-802-01 70-806-01 70-808-01 70-812-02 70-816-02 70-818-02 32-020-01 32-020-02 32-070-00 32-110-00 32-125-00 32-155-01 32-155-02 32-250-00 32-260-00 32-330-00 32-340-00 32-390-00 32-400-00 32-410-00 25-170-00 25-170-00 27-174-01 27-174-02 70-804-01 70-814-02 74-020-01 74-020-02 20-140-00 20-150-01 20-150-02 20-160-01 20-160-02 32-806-01 32-810-02 52-804-02 52-808-02 52-812-01 52-814-01 52-818-01 52-824-01 52-828-02 52-830-02 52-834-02 52-840-02 53-802-00 53-804-00 53-806-00 53-808-00 53-810-00 38C1000 38C1000 38C1000 38C1000 38C2000 38C2000 38C2000 38C2000 38C2000 38C2000 38C2000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3000 38C3500 38C3500 38C4000 38C4000 38C4000 38C4000 38C4000 38C4000 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* MPD MHrs 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.07 0.1 0.13 0.08 Task Package D60 D60A* D60B* D60B* D60B* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D100* D240* D240* D240* D240* D360A D360A D360B D360C D360C D360C D360C D360C D360C D360C D360C D360C D360C D360* D360* D480* D480* D540A D540B D540C D540C D540C D720A D720B D720C D720C D720C D720C D720D D720E D720F D720G D720H D720H D720H MPD Interval 60 DYS 60A* DYS 60B* DYS 60B* DYS 60B* DYS 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 240* 240* 240* 240* 360A 360A 360B 360C 360C 360C 360C 360C 360C 360C 360C 360C 360C DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS MRI Number 25-250-00 25-140-00 32-030-01 32-030-02 32-080-00 52-802-02 52-806-02 52-810-01 52-822-01 52-826-02 52-838-02 53-818-00 53-836-00 53-870-00 53-872-00 53-890-00 53-892-00 27-170-01 27-170-02 27-220-01 27-220-02 23-060-00 31-140-00 34-110-00 52-021-01 52-021-02 52-022-01 52-022-02 52-030-00 52-041-02 52-042-01 52-042-02 52-091-00 52-092-00 27-152-01 27-152-02 27-222-01 27-222-02 25-380-00 25-400-00 32-200-00 32-215-01 32-215-02 Transavia Check 38D60 38D60* 38D60* 38D60* 38D60* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D100* 38D240* 38D240* 38D240* 38D240* 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360 38D360* 38D360* 38D480* 38D480* 38D540 38D540 38D540 38D540 38D540 MPD MHrs 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.35 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05 2.4 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6
2000A 2000B 2000B 2000B 2000B 2000B 2000B 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC
3500 CYC 3500 CYC 4000A 4000A 4000B 4000B 4000B 4000B CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC
360* DYS 360* DYS 480* DYS 480* DYS 540A 540B 540C 540C 540C DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS
4000A* CYC 4000A* CYC 4000A* CYC 4000A* CYC 4000A* CYC 4000A* CYC 4000A* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000B* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC
720A DYS 720B DYS 720C DYS 720C DYS 720C DYS 720C DYS 720D DYS 720E DYS 720F DYS 720G DYS 720H DYS 720H DYS 720H DYS
23-050-00 38D720 25-150-00 38D720 25-230-00-01 38D720 25-230-00-02 38D720 25-230-00-03 38D720 25-230-00-04 38D720 25-330-00 38D720 25-370-00 38D720 34-010-00 38D720 49-010-00 38D720 52-011-01 38D720 52-011-02 38D720 52-012-01 38D720
124
Appendix I
C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000C* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000D* C4000E* C4000E* C4000E* C4000F* C4000F* C4000F* C4000F* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000G* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000C* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000D* CYC 4000E* CYC 4000E* CYC 4000E* CYC 4000F* CYC 4000F* CYC 4000F* CYC 4000F* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000G* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 4000H* CYC 53-822-00 53-828-00 53-838-00 53-842-00 53-846-00 53-848-00 53-852-00 53-858-00 53-860-00 53-864-00 53-866-00 53-874-00 53-876-00 53-882-00 53-884-00 53-896-00 53-898-00 53-900-00 53-902-00 53-904-01 53-906-02 54-802-01 54-810-02 55-802-00 55-804-00 55-806-00 55-810-00 55-812-00 55-814-00 55-816-00 55-818-00 55-820-00 55-822-01 55-824-01 55-826-01 55-828-01 55-830-01 55-832-01 55-834-01 55-836-02 55-838-02 55-840-02 55-842-02 55-844-02 55-846-02 55-848-02 57-804-01 57-806-01 57-808-01 57-810-01 57-812-01 57-814-01 57-816-01 57-818-01 57-824-01 57-828-01 57-832-01 57-834-01 57-836-01 57-838-01 57-840-01 57-842-01 57-844-01 57-846-01 57-848-01 57-852-01 57-854-01 57-858-01 57-860-01 57-862-01 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 0.13 0.33 0.25 0.5 0.33 0.33 0.17 0.5 0.33 0.5 0.33 0.5 0.67 0.5 0.5 0.33 0.17 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.1 0.1 0.07 0.1 0.07 1 0.07 0.5 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.5 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.5 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.07 1 0.17 0.03 1.25 0.5 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.25 D720H D720H D720H D720H D720H D720H D720H D720A* D720A* D720B* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720C* D720D* D720D* D720D* D720D* D720E* D720E* D720E* D720F D720F D720F D720F D720F D1080A D1080B D1080B D1080B D1080B D1080* D1080* D1440A D1440B D1440C D1440C D1800A D1800B D1800B D1800A* D1800A* D1800A* D1800A* D1800A* D1800A* D1800A* D1800A* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* D1800B* 720H 720H 720H 720H 720H 720H 720H DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS 52-012-02 52-120-00 52-220-00 52-230-00 52-240-00 52-250-00 52-260-00 27-138-01 27-138-02 52-510-00 52-540-00 52-610-00 52-610-00 52-610-00 52-610-00 52-670-00 52-670-00 52-730-00 52-730-00 53-010-00 53-010-00 53-010-00 53-010-00 53-030-00 53-030-00 53-030-00 53-310-00 53-310-00 53-310-00 53-310-00 53-310-00 26-290-00 28-020-01 28-020-02 28-030-01 28-030-02 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D720* 38D1080 38D1080 38D1080 38D1080 38D1080 38D1080* 38D1080* 38D1440 38D1440 38D2880 38D2880 38D1800 38D1800 38D1800 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 38D1800* 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.15 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 4 4 4 4 4 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.5 2 0.5 0.5 4 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.45 0.3 0.65 0.6 0.45 0.15 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 3 3 4 4
720A* DYS 720A* DYS 720B* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720C* DYS 720D* DYS 720D* DYS 720D* DYS 720D* DYS 720E* DYS 720E* DYS 720E* DYS 720F* DYS 720F* DYS 720F* DYS 720F* DYS 720F* DYS 1080A 1080B 1080B 1080B 1080B DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS
1080* DYS 27-034-01 1080* DYS 27-034-02 1440A DYS 1440B DYS 1440 DYS 1440 DYS 23-030-00 35-060-00 55-120-01 55-120-02
1800A DYS 38-040-00 1800B DYS 71-040-01 1800B DYS 71-040-02 1800A* 1800A* 1800A* 1800A* 1800A* 1800A* 1800A* 1800A* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 1800B* 20-180-00 20-190-00 20-200-00 20-210-00 20-220-00 20-230-00 20-240-00 20-250-00 54-010-01 54-010-02 54-015-01 54-015-02 54-030-01 54-030-02 54-070-01 54-070-02 54-080-01 54-080-02
125

C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C4000H* C5000A C5000A C5000A C5000B C5000B C9000* C9000* C9000* C9000* C9000* C9000* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 4000H* 5000A 5000A 5000A 5000B 5000B 9000* 9000* 9000* 9000* 9000* 9000* CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC 57-864-01 57-868-01 57-870-01 57-874-02 57-876-02 57-878-02 57-880-02 57-882-02 57-884-02 57-886-02 57-888-02 57-894-02 57-898-02 57-902-02 57-904-02 57-906-02 57-908-02 57-910-02 57-912-02 57-914-02 57-916-02 57-918-02 57-922-02 57-924-02 57-928-02 57-930-02 57-932-02 57-934-02 57-938-02 57-940-02 27-132-00 27-140-01 27-140-02 72-100-01 72-100-02 54-800-01 54-804-01 54-806-01 54-808-02 54-812-02 54-814-02 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C4000* 38C5000 38C5000 38C5000 38C5000 38C5000 38C9000* 38C9000* 38C9000* 38C9000* 38C9000* 38C9000* 0.05 0.33 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.07 1 0.17 0.3 1.25 0.5 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.33 0.08 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.25 0.17 0.17 D2880A D2880A D2880B D2880B D2880C D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* D2880* 2880A 2880A 2880B 2880B 2880C 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* 2880* DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS DYS 53-020-00 53-050-00 55-080-01 55-080-02 57-030-00 52-530-00 52-550-00 52-570-00 52-620-00 52-620-00 52-620-00 52-620-00 52-650-00 52-650-00 52-650-00 52-650-00 52-680-00 52-680-00 52-710-00 52-710-00 52-740-00 52-740-00 52-760-00 52-760-00 52-816-01 52-820-01 52-832-02 52-836-02 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 38D2880* 0.1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17
CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC
C10000 C12000 C12000 C12500 C15000 C25000 C25000 C25000 C25000 C25000
10000 CYC 24-110-00 12000 12000 12500 15000 25000 25000 25000 25000 25000 CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC 27-172-01 27-172-02 32-310-00 32-285-00 27-134-00 27-142-01 27-142-02 27-168-01 27-168-02
38C10000 38C12000 38C12000 38C12500 38C15000 38C25000 38C25000 38C25000 38C25000 38C25000
0.1 0.4 0.4 0.25 0 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.2
H1000A H1000B H1000C H1000C H1000C H1000D H1000E H1000E H1000F H1000F H1000G H1000G H1250 H1250 H1600A H1600A H1600A H1600A H1600A H1600A H1600B H1600C H2000A
1000A HRS 1000B HRS 1000C HRS 1000C HRS 1000C HRS 1000D HRS 1000E HRS 1000E HRS 1000F HRS 1000F HRS 1000G HRS 1000G HRS 1250 HRS 1250 HRS 1600A HRS 1600A HRS 1600A HRS 1600A HRS 1600A HRS 1600A HRS 1600B HRS 1600C HRS 2000A HRS
25-125-00 26-320-00 28-060-01 28-060-02 28-060-03 32-300-00 72-020-01 72-020-02 78-120-01 78-120-02 79-020-01 79-020-02 27-216-00 27-224-00 24-010-01 24-010-02 24-040-01 24-040-02 24-050-01 24-050-02 26-050-00 27-102-00 24-090-00
38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H1600 38H2000
0.2 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.05 0.5 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.7 0.05 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.4 0.2
H4000A H4000A H4000B H4000B H4000B H4000B H4000B H4000B H4000C H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000D H4000E H4000E H4000E H4000E
4000A HRS 4000A HRS 4000B HRS 4000B HRS 4000B HRS 4000B HRS 4000B HRS 4000B HRS 4000C HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000D HRS 4000E HRS 4000E HRS 4000E HRS 4000E HRS
21-020-00 21-030-00 25-010-01 25-010-02 25-050-00 25-080-00 25-090-00 25-105-00 27-011-00 27-013-01 27-013-02 27-026-01 27-026-02 27-136-01 27-136-02 27-182-00 27-182-01 27-182-02 27-215-01 27-215-02 28-010-00 29-060-00 29-070-00 29-080-00 35-010-00
38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000
0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.05 0.2 0.7 0.2
126
Appendix I
H2000A H2000A H2000A H2000A H2000B H2000B H2000B H2000C H2000C H2000D H2000D H2000D H2000D H2000D H2000E H2000E H2000E H2000F 2000A HRS 2500A HRS 3500 HRS 3000A HRS 3000B HRS 2000B HRS 2000B HRS 2000C HRS 2500B HRS 2000D HRS 2000D HRS 3200 HRS 3200 HRS 3200 HRS 2000E HRS 3000C HRS 3000C HRS 2000F HRS 24-120-00 27-154-00 25-030-00 26-300-00 27-218-00 29-050-01 29-050-02 35-050-00 38-030-00 49-190-00 49-200-00 49-090-00 49-110-00 49-140-00 79-030-02 78-090-01 78-090-02 79-030-01 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 38H2000 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.06 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 H4000F H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000G H4000H H4000H 4000F HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000G HRS 4000H HRS 4000H HRS 49-132-00 52-051-01 52-051-02 52-052-01 52-052-02 52-101-00 52-102-00 52-130-00 52-200-00 52-210-00 71-020-01 71-020-02 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 38H4000 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1
H5000A-E
H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000A H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H5000B H6000A 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS
Previously Classified:
27-012-00 27-016-00 27-028-00 27-030-00 27-036-00 27-038-00 27-040-00 27-046-00 27-056-00 27-058-00 27-060-00 27-062-00 27-068-00 27-070-00 27-073-00 27-074-00 27-075-01 27-075-02 27-076-00 27-086-00 21-010-00 21-040-00 21-050-00 21-060-00 22-010-00 27-088-00 27-094-00 27-106-00 27-110-00 27-114-00 27-116-00 27-118-00 27-120-00 27-121-00 27-122-00 27-158-00 27-164-00 27-171-01 27-171-02 27-178-00 27-186-00 27-188-00 27-190-00 27-214-00 27-225-01 27-225-02 29-240-00 29-250-00 26-250-00 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000A 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H5000B 38H6000 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.75 0.75 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.75 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.05 H5000C H5000C H5000C H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000D H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E H5000E 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS 28-100-00 28-110-00 28-125-00 27-080-00 27-112-00 31-010-00 31-020-00 31-030-00 31-040-00 31-050-00 34-070-00 34-080-00 34-090-00 78-110-01 78-110-02 78-130-01 78-130-02 26-010-00 26-020-00 26-080-00 26-110-00 26-140-00 26-190-00 26-200-00 26-220-00 26-230-00 26-270-00 26-280-00 26-380-00 26-400-00 26-400-00 38-100-00 38H5000C 38H5000C 38H5000C 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000D 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 38H5000E 0.5 5.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.05 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.05 0 1 0 0
6000A HRS
H8000A
8000A HRS 29-025-01
38H8000
0.4
127

H6000B H6000B H6000B H6000B H6000B H6000B H6000C H6500A H6500A H6500B H10000A H10000A H10000B H10000C H10000D H10000E H10000F H10000G H10000H H10000I H10000J H10000K H10000K H10000K H10000K H12000 H12500 H12500 H15000A H15000A H15000A H15000A H15000B H15000C H15000C 6000B HRS 6000B HRS 6000B HRS 6000B HRS 6000B HRS 6000B HRS 6000C HRS 6500A HRS 6500A HRS 6500B HRS 10000A HRS 10000A HRS 10000B HRS 10000C HRS 10000D HRS 10000E HRS 10000F HRS 10000G HRS 10000H HRS 10000I HRS 10000J HRS 10000K HRS 10000K HRS 10000K HRS 10000K HRS 12000 HRS 12500 HRS 12500 HRS 15000A 15000A 15000A 15000A 15000B 15000C 15000C HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS 26-090-00 26-150-00 26-170-00 28-080-00 78-100-01 78-100-02 26-190-00 38-010-00 38-050-00 38-060-00 20-030-01 20-030-02 21-070-00 23-090-00 27-156-00 27-194-00 28-040-00 29-210-00 29-220-00 29-270-00 34-100-00 49-162-00 49-180-00 49-212-00 49-220-00 28-070-00 27-082-00 27-092-00 20-010-01 20-010-02 20-080-01 20-080-02 20-100-00 20-120-01 20-120-02 38H6000 38H6000 38H6000 38H6000 38H6000 38H6000 38H6000 38H6500 38H6500 38H6500 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H10000 38H12000 38H12500 38H12500 38H15000 38H15000 38H15000 38H15000 38H15000 38H15000 38H15000 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.1 0.3 1 1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 1 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.2 2 0.2 1.7 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 0.2 0.2 H8000A H8000A H8000B H8000B H8000C H8000C H8000D H8000D H8000D 8000A HRS 8000A HRS 8000B HRS 8000B HRS 8000C HRS 8000C HRS 8000D HRS 8000D HRS 8000D HRS 29-025-02 32-240-00 35-090-00 35-100-00 49-102-00 49-120-00 52-111-00 52-112-00 52-140-00 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 38H8000 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1
H20000 H25000A H25000A H25000A H25000A H25000A H25000B H25000B H25000B H25000B H25000B H25000B H25000B H25000C H25000C H25000C H25000C H25000C H25000C H25000D H25000D H30000
20000 HRS 25000A 25000A 25000A 25000A 25000A 25000B 25000B 25000B 25000B 25000B 25000B 25000B 25000C 25000C 25000C 25000C 25000C 25000C 25000D 25000D
20-050-00 27-084-00 27-104-00 27-166-00 27-192-01 27-192-02 29-110-00 29-120-00 29-130-00 29-140-00 29-150-00 29-160-00 29-180-00 29-170-00 29-260-00 29-280-00 29-290-00 29-300-00 29-310-00 32-230-00 32-420-00
38H20000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H25000 38H30000
1.5 0.2 0.05 0.2 1 1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.5
30000 HRS 20-020-00
Engine
1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 2000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000H/C 5000H/C 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000H/C 5000H/C 5000H/C 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 2000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC CYC HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS/CYC HRS/CYC HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS/CYC CYC/HRS CYC/HRS
Not Grouped
72-180-01 72-180-02 72-200-01 72-200-02 72-210-01 72-210-02 74-010-01 74-010-02 38-020-00 31-120-00 20-110-01 20-110-02 20-130-01 20-130-02 71-050-01 71-050-02 72-070-01 72-070-02 72-080-01 72-080-02 72-090-01 72-090-02 72-110-01 72-110-02 72-120-01 72-120-01 72-120-02 MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 1 5000H/C 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 5000 HRS 1600 CYC 1600 CYC 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 1600 1600 1000 1000 HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS HRS CYC CYC HRS HRS 72-120-02 72-300-01 72-300-02 72-340-01 72-340-02 73-010-01 73-010-02 78-020-01 78-020-02 78-050-01 78-050-02 78-060-01 78-060-02 78-070-01 78-070-02 78-080-01 78-080-02 79-010-01 79-010-02 79-040-01 79-040-02 80-010-01 80-010-02 MI-24-20MI-28-20MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 2 2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.05 2 1.5
128
Appendix I
Unclassified: H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 H450 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 240* DYS 240* DYS 360 DYS 360 DYS 300 CYC 1000 CYC 4000* CYC 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 1000 HRS 400 HRS 400 HRS 400 HRS 400 HRS 550 HRS 750 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 800 HRS 800 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 500 HRS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 100 DYS 240* DYS 240* DYS 360 DYS 360 DYS 300 CYC 1000 CYC 4000* CYC 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 450 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS 1000 HRS Inconsistent 21-140-01 21-140-02 21-150-00 24-020-01 24-020-02 24-030-01 24-030-02 25-020-00 27-161-00 29-030-01 29-030-02 29-090-00 71-010-01 71-010-02 72-060-01 72-060-02 72-260-01 72-260-02 72-320-01 72-320-02 25-290-00 25-340-00 25-390-00 T05-01-801 T25-60-801B T38-10-801 T38-10-801 T38-30-808 T52-00-804 T25-10-805 T53-00-809 T23-30-8001 T57-20-8001 Task 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D100 38D240* 38D240* 38d60 38d60 Interva 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.5 0.1 0.1 2 4 2 2 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.45
T25-50-803 38C300 T52-00-801 38C1000 T55-30-8001 38C4000* T23-30-801 T25-10-808 T25-10-810 T25-20-801 T25-30-801 T25-60-801A T34-41-804 T38-10-802 T49-60-801 T52-50-802 T25-10-804 T25-20-807 T25-30-804 T34-28-804 T34-41-803 T34-62-803 T34-62-804 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H450 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000 38H1000
0.5
1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.25 0.5 1 0.42 0.25 0.33 0.33
129
Appendix J
J.
J.1.
The Maintenance Item Allocation Model (MIAM)

Necessity
In order to determine the most optimum way of clustering maintenance items (Maintenance tasks grouped into either Transavia Checks or Maintenance Task Packages), a choice can be made between the application of an analytical method or a simulation method. Owing to the large amount of data that needs to be calculated simultaneously, including the consideration of various scenarios, a computer model in the form of a hybrid simulation is preferred.
J.2.
Hybrid Simulation
J.2.1. Components of a Discrete-Event simulation model

The following is a list of components generally present in most discrete-event simulation models. System state: State variables that describe the system state at a particular time Event List: A list containing the next time when each type of event will occur Statistical Counters: Variables used for storing statistical information about system performance Initialisation Routine: A sub-program to initialise the simulation model at a time zero Event Routine: A subprogram that updates the system state when a particular type of event occurs (there is one event routine for each event type). Library routines: a set of subprograms used to generate random observations from the probability distributions determined as part of the simulation model Report Generator: A subprogram that computes estimates (from the statistical counters) of the desired measures of performance and produces a report when the simulation ends Main program: This is the subprogram that invokes the routines to determine the next event and update the system state appropriately. [Hilston, 2001]
J.3.
Library Routine: Utilisation Simulation
J.3.1. Actual Aircraft Utilisation

Table J. 1 below tabulates the specific annual utilisation of the B737 NG Fleet, over the period 1999-2000. It only includes that part of the fleet that was present for the whole calendar year, i.e. from January till December.
131
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG The years 1998 (introduction year) and 2001 (data collection year) are not considered.
a / c re g . H o u rs 2000 ZA ZB ZC ZD ZE ZF 1999 ZA ZB ZC C y cle s 2000 ZA ZB ZC ZD ZE ZF 1999 ZA ZB ZC
Ja n 305 236 269 269 268 278 246 273 238 114 88 89 77 76 102 79 87 81
Feb 288 247 197 240 256 271 229 215 233 109 90 78 79 82 99 76 71 79
M ar 337 259 328 253 284 315 292 251 288 109 86 126 72 81 113 104 94 99
Apr 379 381 301 309 298 405 319 284 329 124 133 101 106 103 113 111 103 119
M ay 386 395 376 398 355 378 374 372 376 136 138 135 139 140 132 136 137 141
Ju n 385 383 349 373 375 356 328 339 343 133 142 140 131 135 134 122 128 130
Ju l 396 373 415 429 395 386 403 394 386 149 143 144 153 146 142 145 150 140
Aug 377 407 391 394 397 405 380 382 381 143 135 149 146 148 143 144 141 143
Sep 365 361 374 383 385 375 371 388 346 122 139 140 142 145 132 147 149 128
O ct 368 324 376 377 366 396 381 369 395 134 105 132 129 128 136 143 134 142
N ov 263 227 114 218 184 218 280 275 268 131 69 131 69 71 82 100 97 96
D ec 205 212 183 224 260 307 224 301 246 67 63 107 70 82 89 75 106 86
A n n u a l T o ta l
4054 3805 3673 3867 3823 4090 3827 3843 3829 1471 1331 1472 1313 1337 1417 1382 1397 1384
Table J. 1 Actual Aircraft utilisation, 1999-2000 (Source: Technical Administration dept.)
The following diagram is an illustration of how the utilisation (in flight hours) varied over the year 2000, per aircraft tail number.
Aircraft Utilisation: Actual vs. Average (2000)
500.00 450.00 400.00 350.00 Monthy Flight Hours Average-2000 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Period [Months] Reg. ZA Reg. ZB Reg. ZC Reg. ZD Reg. ZE Reg. ZF
Figure J. 1 Specific variations in aircraft utilisation
132
Appendix J The values in Table J. 1 may be summarised and illustrated as follows:

Actual Utilisation (Summary) Jan Feb Hours: Cycles Total Hours Mean Standard Deviation Total Cycles Mean Standard Deviation Min Max Min Max 236 305 76 114 2382 197 288 71 109 2176 Dec Annually 183 307 63 107 2162
Mar 251 337 72 126 2607
Apr 284 405 101 133 3005
May 355 398 132 141 3410
Jun 328 385 122 142 3231 359 1195
Jul 373 429 140 153 3577
Aug 377 407 135 149 3514
Sep 346 388 122 149 3348 372 1244
Oct 324 396 105 143 3352
Nov 114 280 69 131 2047
264.7 241.78 289.7 333.9 378.89 793 763 884 1013 1234
397.44 390.44 1312 1292
372.4 227.4 240.2 1183 846 745
21.81 27.806 31.96 43.35 12.917 20.71 16.637 11.137 13.26 21.18 53.47 42.45 88.11 84.778 98.22 112.6 137.11 132.8 145.78 143.56 138.2 131.4 94 82.78 12.59 12.266 16.92 10.91 2.7588 6.058 4.1767 4.1265 9.107 11.16 24.26 15.97
3673 4090 1313 1472 34811 3867.89 128.32 12504 1389.33 57.42
Table J. 2 Aircraft Utilisation: Summary Table
The minimum and maximum values, for both hours and cycles, are used to describe the expectation space of the simulated values.
Aircraft Utilisation 737NG Fleet (Period: Jan 99-Dec 00)
500 450 400
Flight Hour-Flight Cycles
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Calendar Months
Min. Flight Hours Max. Flight Hours Min. Flight Cycles Max. Flight Cycles
Figure J. 2 Utilisation: Minimum and Maximum (Hours, Cycles)
J.3.2. Variable Aircraft Utilisation

Variable utilisation is based on the fact that the utilisation of the fleet may change differ from that witnessed in the actual utilisation. In order to incorporate such changes, the following utilisation scenarios are developed: 1. Conservative Scenario The utilisation to be anticipated will be below average 2. Most Likely Scenario The utilisation to be anticipated will be about average 3. Optimistic Scenario The utilisation to be anticipated will be above average These scenarios apply for both flight hours and flight cycles.
133
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG On a daily basis and on am annual basis:
On a daily basis
Conservative Most Likely Optimistic Hours min 7 9 11 max 9 11 13 Cycles min 1.9 2.2 2.8 Annually: max 2.1 2.7 3.1
On an annual basis
Hours min 2555 3285 4015 Cycles max min max 3285 1344.7 1564.3 4015 1493.2 1433.9 4745 1433.9 1530.6
Table J. 3 Variable minimum and maximum utilisation
Owing to the fact that the increment used in the simulation is in months, the monthly utilisation should be determined. Further, the seasonal increment and decrement should also be incorporated in the resulting monthly utilisation. By considering the average aircraft utilisation, the proportion that each month contributes is: Suppose ai is the average aircraft utilisation (in hours or cycles) per month (calculated for the period between 1999-2000), and that Av is the annual average for the same period. The proportion (P) each month contributes on the utilisation curve is:
Pi =
12 1
ai ; where i is the month being calculated Av

i
From this follow the fact that:
P =1
P (hours) 0.0681 0.0638 0.0752 0.0839 0.0913 0.0905 0.1019 0.1018 0.0966 0.0985 0.0660 0.0624 1 P (Cycles) 0.0659 0.0635 0.0736 0.0824 0.0928 0.0949 0.1029 0.1026 0.0999 0.0964 0.0646 0.0605 1
The simple calculation above results in the following values:

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table J. 4 Month proportions to the seasonal distribution
The values from table x. above are then added to the simulation program for the generation of the required utilisation.
134
Appendix J
J.4.
Visual Basic Code
J.4.1. Line Maintenance Codes

Option Explicit 'Attribute VB_Name = "Module1" 'UMXSMP/PICCO/Anthony\Visual Basic code ' ' ' 'UTDAYS = Days limit on check 'UTHOURS = Hours limit on check 'UTCYCLES = Cycles limit on check 'VISITS = Hangar visit date 'FREQUENCY = Hangar visit frequency 'RDAYS = Days in a Calendar month 'RHOURS = Production hours (following utilisation) corresponding to the indicated month 'RCYCLES = Production cycles (following utilisation) corresponding to the indicated month 'For the leading column applies: If Value>UTLIMIT then MOD(Value,UTLIMIT)
Function DueDate (Visit, Frequency, PrevVal, NextVis As Double, PrevRw, Value, RVALUE, UTLIMIT, NextRw As Integer) As Integer Dim i, j, k, l As Integer 'Calculating due dates for items (checks) with single limits 'RVALUE refers to RDAYS, RHOURS and RCYCLES ' k = RVALUE + NextRw j = PrevVal + PrevRw l = j - UTLIMIT If Value = UTLIMIT Then 'DueDate = l + RVALUE DueDate = RVALUE 'Else 'If j < UTLIMIT Then 'DueDate = RVALUE Else 'If (NextVis < Frequency) And (Value + k < UTLIMIT) Then 'DueDate = Value + RVALUE If Value + k < UTLIMIT Then DueDate = Value + RVALUE Else 'If Visit = Frequency And (Value + RVALUE > UTLIMIT) Then If Visit = Frequency Then
135
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG DueDate = UTLIMIT Else If NextVis = Frequency Then DueDate = Value + RVALUE Else DueDate = Value + RVALUE End If 'End If End If End If End If End Function
Function DUALDH (Switch As Integer, Visit, Frequency, PrevVal, PrevVal2, NextVis As Double, PrevRd, PrevRh, Value, Value2, RDAYS, RHOURS, UTDAYS, UTHOURS, NextRd, NextRh As Integer) As Integer Dim TDDY, TDHR, i, j, k As Integer ' 'Function generates the due dates for checks with dual intervals (applicable to both D/H and D/C items) ' j = RDAYS + NextRd k = RHOURS + NextRh If Value = UTDAYS Then TDDY = PrevVal + PrevRd - Value + RDAYS If TDDY < 28 Then TDDY = RDAYS End If Else If (Value + j < UTDAYS) Then TDDY = Value + RDAYS Else If Visit = Frequency Then TDDY = UTDAYS Else If NextVis = Frequency Then TDDY = Value + RDAYS End If End If End If End If If Value2 = UTHOURS Then TDHR = PrevVal2 + PrevRh - Value2 If TDHR < 200 Then TDHR = RHOURS 136
Appendix J End If Else If (Value2 + k < UTHOURS) Then TDHR = Value2 + RHOURS Else If Visit = Frequency Then TDHR = UTHOURS Else If NextVis = Frequency Then TDHR = Value2 + RHOURS End If End If End If End If
If (TDHR = UTHOURS) Or (TDDY = UTDAYS) Then TDHR = UTHOURS TDDY = UTDAYS End If If Switch = 1 Then DUALDH = TDHR Else DUALDH = TDDY End If End Function Function ToHangar5 (Freq, PrevVal As Double, Value, RDAYS, PrevRd, PPrevRd As Integer) Dim i, j As Double ' 'Function calculates the date on which hangar maintenance should be performed ' 'Value = Value of previous cell 'Freq = Hangar visit Frequency 'RDAYS = Days of the month for the Cell in question ' 'Frequency never exceeds 54, and the least possible summation is 30+28 = 58. Therefore, 'Value < Freq will always be followed by Freq j = Value + RDAYS If Freq < 31 Then i = Freq Else If Value < Freq Then i = Freq 137
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Else If Value < Freq And (Value + RDAYS >= Freq) Then i = Freq Else If Value = Freq And (PrevVal = Freq) Then i = RDAYS Else If Value = Freq And (PrevRd - (Freq - PrevVal) + RDAYS >= Freq) Then i = Freq Else If Value = Freq And (PrevRd - (Freq - PrevVal) + RDAYS < Freq) Then i = PrevRd - (Freq - PrevVal) + RDAYS End If End If End If End If End If End If ToHangar5 = i End Function Function LoSSeS (Value, RDAYS, UTLIMIT As Integer, PrevVal, ValuatorL As Double) Dim i As Double i = PrevVal + RDAYS If (Value = UTLIMIT) And (i < UTLIMIT) Then LoSSeS = (UTLIMIT MOD i)) * ValuatorL * 3.4 Else LoSSeS = 0 End If End Function Function Crosses (Value, UTLIMIT As Integer) As Characters Function identifies maintenance due items with a cross mark If Value = UTLIMIT Then Crosses = "x" Else Crosses = " " End If End Function Function General1(Value, RVALUE, UTLIMIT As Integer) Dim i As Integer This function calculates the exact maintenance demand 138
Appendix J If Value = UTLIMIT Then i = RVALUE Else If Value + RVALUE < UTLIMIT Then i = Value + RVALUE Else i = UTLIMIT End If End If General1 = i End Function Function General2(Switch, Value, Value2, RVALUE, RVALUE2, UTLIMIT, UTLIMIT2 As Integer) Dim i, j As Integer This function calculates the exact maintenance demand If Value = UTLIMIT Then i = RVALUE Else If Value + RVALUE < UTLIMIT Then i = Value + RVALUE Else i = UTLIMIT End If End If If Value2 = UTLIMIT2 Then j = RVALUE2 Else If Value2 + RVALUE2 < UTLIMIT2 Then j = Value2 + RVALUE2 Else j = UTLIMIT2 End If End If If i = UTLIMIT Or j = UTLIMIT2 Then i = UTLIMIT j = UTLIMIT2 End If If Switch = 1 Then General2 = j Else General2 = i End If End Function
139
J.4.2. Base Maintenance Codes

Option Explicit 'For the leading column applies: If Value>UTLIMIT then MOD (Value, UTLIMIT) Function ShortDue (RVALUE, Value As Double, UTLIMIT As Integer) As Integer Dim m As Integer If Value = UTLIMIT Then ShortDue = RVALUE Else If Value + RVALUE < UTLIMIT Then ShortDue = Value + RVALUE Else ShortDue = UTLIMIT End If End If End Function Function CheckDue (RVALUE As Double, ADDIT, Freq, Value, UTLIMIT, UTVALUE As Integer) As Integer Dim i, j, k As Integer 'Calculating due dates for items (checks) with single limits 'RVALUE refers to RDAYS, RHOURS and RCYCLES
i = Value + UTVALUE j = Freq k = RVALUE
If Value = UTLIMIT Then CheckDue = RVALUE
Else If (ADDIT = 1) And (i > UTLIMIT) Then CheckDue = UTLIMIT Else CheckDue = Value + RVALUE End If End If End Function
Function DUALDC (Switch, ADDIT, Value, Value2, UTLIMIT, UTLIMIT2, UTVALUE, UTVALUE2 As Integer, RVALUE, RVALUE2 As Double) As Integer
140
Appendix J Dim TDDY, TDHR, DAYSD, i, k As Integer, CYCSD, j, l As Double ' 'Function generates the due dates for checks with dual intervals '(applicable to both D/H and D/C items) '
i = RVALUE j = RVALUE2 k = Value + UTVALUE l = Value2 + UTVALUE2 If Value = UTLIMIT Then DAYSD = RVALUE Else If (ADDIT = 1) And (k > UTLIMIT) Then DAYSD = UTLIMIT Else DAYSD = Value + RVALUE End If End If If Value2 = UTLIMIT2 Then CYCSD = RVALUE2 Else If (ADDIT = 1) And (l > UTLIMIT2) Then CYCSD = UTLIMIT2 Else CYCSD = Value2 + RVALUE2 End If End If If (DAYSD = UTLIMIT) Or (CYCSD = UTLIMIT2) Then DAYSD = UTLIMIT CYCSD = UTLIMIT2 End If If Switch = 1 Then DUALDC = CYCSD Else DUALDC = DAYSD End If End Function
Function BaseLosseS (Value, RVALUE, UTLIMIT As Integer, PrevVal, ValuatorL, Manhours As Double) Dim i As Double i = PrevVal + RVALUE 141
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG If (Value = UTLIMIT) And (i < UTLIMIT) Then BaseLosseS = (UTLIMIT - i) * ValuatorL * Manhours * 3.6 'BaseLosseS = (UTLIMIT Mod i) * ValuatorL * Manhours * 3.6 Else BaseLosseS = 0 End If End Function
J.5.
Model Verification and Validation

MODEL DESIGN REAL LIFE SYSTEM DATA SIMULATION
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
INPUT DATA
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
MODEL VALIDATION (Replication)
MODEL VALIDATION (Predictive)
QUANTITATIVE MODEL PROGRAM VERIFICATION
PROGRAMMING COMPUTER VISUAL BASIC/ EXCEL MODEL DATA COMPUTER

VISUAL BASIC/ EXCEL MODEL
DATA
SIMULATION Source: Syllabus-Digital Simulations A
Figure J. 3 Model Verification and Validation Process J.5.1. Validation

Model validation is done in order to ascertain that the model is a reasonable representation of the real life process. This follows from the fact that various aspects of the real life situation are either simplified or left out, and in other cases, various assumptions are made. The following aspects of model validation can be considered (and tabulated here below):
142
Appendix J a. Assumptions b. Input parameter values and distributions c. Output values [Hillston, 2001]
Table J. 5 Assumptions
Assumptions 1. Aircraft utilisation Real Life - Aircraft do not perform flight every day of the year, especially not during the low season, when the flight demand is low - During the low season, a part of the fleet is leased out. The specific tail number of the aircraft to be leased out depends on the choice of the lessee, and on the approval of the technical department. - This is basically seasonal, as was illustrated in Figure J. 1 above. - The utilisation strongly varies per tail number and is not repeated over the years. No tail number flies to specific destinations. - If an aircraft is leased out, the utilisation by the lessee may differ strongly from that of Transavia, - This varies from much in advance, to past the due dates. In cases where a maintenance cluster cannot be performed on time, extensions are requested. - The METALS system considers maintenance tasks as performed at the moment the aircraft enters the maintenance facility. Model - The aircraft performs flights daily - The aircraft considered is present in the Transavia fleet for the period considered (not leased out)
2. Aircraft utilisation pattern
- Follows the same seasonal pattern witnessed in reality - Varies over time. Each simulation run results in a different utilisation quantity (flight hours cycles) - The aircraft utilisation considered always follows the Transavia pattern - All clusters are performed on time. No extensions are incorporated in the model - The model considers tasks as done, once they have been clustered.
3. Execution of maintenance clusters
Table J. 6: Input parameters and distributions

Parameters/Distributions 1. Dates (Maintenance dates/time since last performed) 2. Man-hours Real Life - dd/mm/yy format Model - mm/yy format: Maintenance is performed at intervals larger than 4 weeks (28 Days). Hence, visits occur at most once a month - Same principle is utilised as in real life
- Based on Boeing man-hours; a factor 1.7 for Transavia hangar work, and 3.6 for an MRO station - Based on the exact utilisation of the aircraft. Varies with the seasons (see also Figure J. 1) and per aircraft
3. Aircraft utilisation
- Based on assumptions derived from reality, and projected situation; assumptions modelled into utilisation scenarios. Varies with seasons. - Uniform distribution used in the simulation process meant to represent patterns on Figure J. 1.
Table J. 7: Output Values

Output Values 1. Clusters Real Life - Date of performance (dd/mm/yy) - Man-hour demand - Down-time demand Model - Date of performance (mm/yy) - Man-hour demand - Model meant to calculate the
143

maintenance demand (how often maintenance, and how many manhours are required) - Maintenance execution team composition is not of importance in this model - Considered as lost labour (shorter intervals than stipulated mean more frequent maintenance execution, hence more labour)
- Skills demand
2. De-escalation
- Considered as lost utilisation time
From the data above, it may be assumed that the model created idealises the real situation, without misrepresenting it. Hence, it may be sat that the model is valid.
J.5.2. Verification
Verification of a model is meant to certify that the program runs as intended, and that it produces the desired outputs. The following kinds of verification will be performed: 1. Verification of Logic/ Check against known solutions 2. Modular testing: Ensuring that each sub-routine produces sensible output for all possible input 3. Sensitivity testing: Checking the effect of a parameter on the performance of the model 4. Stress testing: Ensuring that the model works for extreme values of all input parameters
Verification of the utilisation scenario outputs In order to verify whether the library routine draws utilisations as required, a number of runs are done for each utilisation scenario: The results of this are tabulated below:
Table J. 8 Utilisation Scenario runs
Scenario 1
Random Values 1 Hours Cycles Random Values 2 Hours Cycles Random Values 3 Hours Cycles Jan 178 93 Jan 179 97 Jan 191 101 Feb 205 90 Feb 190 98 Feb 205 87 Mar 227 115 Mar 244 100 Mar 243 106 Apr 243 127 Apr 275 120 Apr 265 128 May 285 127 May 276 125 May 239 143 Jun 240 141 Jun 246 139 Jun 284 130 Jul 286 152 Jul 322 148 Jul 333 156 Aug 304 155 Aug 305 158 Aug 324 145 Sep 271 146 Sep 310 154 Sep 290 146 Oct 290 132 Oct 283 135 Oct 323 144 Nov 198 91 Nov 212 89 Nov 199 88 Dec Total 197 2924 84 1453 Dec Total 163 3005 90 1453 Dec Total 180 3076 89 1463
Scenario 2
Random Values 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
144
Appendix J
Hours Cycles Random Values 2 Hours Cycles Random Values 3 Hours Cycles 219 85 Jan 176 111 Jan 193 95 167 94 Feb 177 78 Feb 206 100 239 112 Mar 206 93 Mar 247 92 227 109 Apr 226 106 Apr 231 110 277 143 May 290 168 May 242 129 269 151 Jun 276 131 Jun 269 151 278 151 Jul 283 146 Jul 263 145 272 128 Aug 284 150 Aug 264 151 299 152 Sep 289 169 Sep 276 165 287 160 Oct 312 144 Oct 323 139 195 95 Nov 194 90 Nov 194 90 203 2932 99 1479 Dec Total 172 2885 95 1481 Dec Total 162 2870 83 1450
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
145

Scenario 6
Scenario 7
Scenario 8
Scenario 9
Random Values 1 Hours Cycles Random Values 2 Hours Cycles Jan 282 97 Jan 306 99 Feb 270 93 Feb 262 96 Mar 350 106 Mar 335 111 Apr 380 125 Apr 380 122 May 399 142 May 387 142 Jun 425 145 Jun 414 143 Jul 475 154 Jul 414 156 Aug 412 149 Aug 483 157 Sep 396 152 Sep 392 148 Oct 401 144 Oct 450 141 Nov 285 93 Nov 304 96 Dec Total 275 4350 87 1487 Dec Total 278 4405 92 1503
146
Appendix J
Random Values 3 Hours Cycles Jan 307 98 Feb 267 97 Mar 331 112 Apr 368 121 May 373 135 Jun 381 144 Jul 472 149 Aug 457 152 Sep 429 149 Oct 452 144 Nov 296 97 Dec Total 281 4414 87 1485
Scenario 10
Random Values 1 Hours Cycles Random Values 2 Hours Cycles Random Values 3 Hours Cycles Jan 245 105 Jan 302 99 Jan 301 106 Feb 199 80 Feb 208 83 Feb 201 78 Mar 282 123 Mar 271 113 Mar 334 110 Apr 320 120 Apr 299 129 Apr 312 128 May 390 138 May 357 140 May 373 139 Jun 370 122 Jun 369 126 Jun 356 137 Jul 381 148 Jul 395 143 Jul 394 149 Aug 389 148 Aug 390 147 Aug 401 149 Sep 383 130 Sep 376 131 Sep 360 145 Oct 332 143 Oct 366 142 Oct 356 143 Nov 178 120 Nov 235 101 Nov 191 126 Dec Total 253 3722 95 1472
Dec Total 194 3762 103 1457 Dec Total 290 3869 100 1510
It may be said that the random values drawn remain within the specified ranges (Table J. 3). The extreme minimums and maximums are not attained, owing to the large variation in the random numbers drawn. This does compare to the reality (see also Figure J. 1). It can therefore be said that the utilisation simulations produce the desired outputs. Effect of utilisation scenarios on the base maintenance man-hour demand In order to establish whether the maintenance scenarios have an effect on the base maintenance man-hour demand, a number of runs are made for each scenario. After three consecutive runs, the following base maintenance man-hours are established for an 18-month interval:
Table J. 9 Base Maintenance Demand variation by scenario
Type Visit
HMV HMV HMV HMV HMV HMV 1 2 3 4 5 6 [Sep 02] [Mar 04] [Sep 05] [Mar 07] [Sep 08] [Mar 10]
Scen-1
209 229 297 239 307 550 1830
Scen-2
209 229 297 239 307 550 1830
Scen-3
209 229 297 239 307 550 1830
Scen-4
211 236 299 248 303 553 1851
Scen-5
211 236 299 248 303 553 1851
Scen-6
211 236 299 248 303 553 1851
Scen-7
229 236 327 243 316 563 1915
Scen-8
229 236 327 243 316 563 1915
Scen-9 Scen-10
229 236 327 243 316 563 1915 211 236 303 244 303 557 1855
Total MHrs
From Table J. 9 above, it is clear that there is no variation in the maintenance demand within a given utilisation (Conservative, Most Likely, Optimistic). The reason behind this can be attributed to the fact that the differences in flight hours and cycles within scenarios are relatively small compared to the large interval between two consecutive base maintenance visits. Further, it is evident that there is minimal difference between the Most Likely utilisation and scenario 10. This follows from the fact that the Most Likely utilisation range forms a large part of the actual utilisation See also Table J. 2 and Table J. 3.
147
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG It would therefore be justified to refer to one scenario per utilisation. Table J. 9 can be simplified to the following table:
Table J. 10 Base Maintenance Cluster man-hours by scenario
Cons ML Opt Scenario 10 Type Visit Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc Base MHrs % De-esc HMV1 [Sep 02] 209 9 211 8 229 10 211 8 HMV2 [Mar 04] 229 11 236 9 236 11 236 9 HMV3 [Sep 05] 297 9 299 8 327 9 303 8 HMV4 [Mar 07] 239 11 248 9 243 11 244 9 HMV5 [Sep 08] 307 7 303 6 316 8 303 6 HMV6 [Mar 10] 550 10 553 9 563 10 557 9 Totals 1830
1851
1915
10
1855
Effect of utilisation scenarios on the line maintenance man-hour demand In order to establish whether the maintenance scenarios have an effect on the line maintenance man-hour demand, a number of runs are made for each scenario.
Table J. 11 Maintenance Demand, Current situation - 5-week frequency
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total MHrs 218 410 333 397 342 412 218 422 326 405 333 421 218 410 317 426 330 424 218 467 372 460 468 458 218 455 385 452 468 452 218 448 378 460 481 426 218 475 502 463 481 385 218 475 471 494 481 373 231 462 481 463 481 407 218 467 476 356 481 458 2455.5
2111.8 2125.6 2124.8 2443.3 2429.6 2410.9 2524.0 2512.2 2524.4
Table J. 12 Maintenance Demand Proposed situation: 5-week frequency

Maintenance Demand: New Situation
Cons
ML
Opt
Scen-10
218 533 527 438 594 520 2829.7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
Scen-1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 231 218 467 467 467 512 513 513 533 520 533 389 401 376 439 446 531 545 550 534 483 470 508 540 519 435 568 542 579 451 443 438 555 582 594 601 623 601 474 494 494 521 534 521 427 427 427 2480.9 2494.3 2501.6 2785.2 2811.6 2811.6 2891.6 2892.4 2892.0
Despite the fact that the differences in the maintenance demand from various maintenance scenarios are minimal, it can be said that the maintenance demand does vary with the utilisation. By analysing the changes in the maintenance demand within a randomly selected year, the following is observed:
148
Appendix J
Table J. 13 Maintenance Demand variation from 3 runs: Scenario 2, 6-weeks Mx frequency
HV MHrs 1st run HV MHrs 2nd run HV Mhrs 3rd run Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Total Mhrs 42.2 0 71.04 0 54.92 0 82.22 77.04 125.66 0 52.4 50.54 556.02 42.2 0 71.04 0 48.5 0 88.64 77.04 32.44 0 145.62 50.54 556.02 30 0 83.64 0 40.58 0 96.56 56.74 40.14 0 158.22 41.34 547.22

HV MHrs 1st run HV MHrs 2nd run HV Mhrs 3rd run Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Total MHrs 37.7 0 37.7 0 103.86 0 35.9 0 174.24 63.16 45.04 37.7 0 82.36 21.5 35.9 0 174.24 56.74 51.46 0 52.4 59.44 571.74
82.36
21.5 35.9 0 174.24 63.16 45.04 0 53.6 58.24 571.74
0
53.6 58.24 571.74

HV MHrs 1st run HV MHrs 2nd run HV MHrs 3rd run Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Total MHrs 70.52 0 71.04 70.52 0 63.34 113.52 39.3 0 84.04 57.94 45.04 0 68.2 61.96 603.86 70.52 0 71.04 105.82 35.9 0 87.44 57.94 45.04 0 81.6 71.16 626.46
105.82
35.9 0 87.44 57.94 45.04 0 68.2 58.56 600.46
149
Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG Table J. 13 till Table J. 15 clearly show that no three runs will result in identical clusters all year round. However, the total maintenance demand remains more or less stable. The purpose of the simulation model was to ensure that the maintenance demand follows the aircraft utilisation, and that this varies over the years and over the selected periods (Months). The tables above indicate that this purpose is achieved. Modular Testing: Subroutines in the program include: - The Utilisation Scenario Sub-routine (See above): The working of this subroutine has been verified above - The Maintenance Frequency Sub-routine: This sub-routine incorporates the maintenance frequency into the model. Its working can easily be checked, owing to the fact that the maintenance frequency is included in all outputs - The Maintenance Mode Sub-routine: Incorporates either the current maintenance item definition or the proposed Maintenance Task Packages into the model. Its working is also easy to verify, in that either Maintenance Checks or Maintenance Task packages are listed in the model. Sensitivity testing: The model works well when a single parameter is altered. Stress testing: Model inputs include: the maintenance frequency, the maintenance interval limits, and the aircraft utilisation. - The aircraft utilisation varies as listed in Table J. 3 above. The model behaviour under this conditions it included in Table J. 8 above - The maintenance frequency is defined to lie between the following ranges: Line Maintenance 4 7 Weeks: At a three-week frequency, the model functions inappropriately because it is designed to cluster at intervals of 4 Weeks and above. Three weeks translates to 21 days, while the model works with values above 28 days (See also: Model Validation). At an eight-week frequency, the model functions properly as pertains to the maintenance frequency sub-routine. However, this frequency leads to the violation of a number maintenance limits, hence rendering all outputs invalid Base Maintenance 18 24 Months: The model operates normally for all intervals. However, intervals larger than 24 months leads to the violation of a number of maintenance limits, hence rendering the outputs invalid. As for the maintenance interval limits, the model will calculate all limits not lower than 28 days, 250 flight hours and 50 flight cycles. This is because it is modelled to work with the lowest maintenance interval indicated in the OMP. It will also not calculate Fight Cycle intervals exceeding 32780. The reason behind this is not clear, but it may be attributed to the program (MS Excel) itself. However, such high limits may be ignored because Transavia
150
Appendix J does not operate airplanes with over 50,000 flight hours or 25,000 flight cycles.
151
Appendix K
K. MIAM Results - Tables

K.1. Base Maintenance
Scenario considered: Scenario 10

Table K. 1 Without utilising the Line/Base Classification Airplane considered: New as of 01-04-2001
Without Utilising the L/B Classification:

18 Months HMV1 [Sep-02] HMV2 [Mar-04] HMV3 [Sep-05] HMV4 [Mar-07] HMV5 [Sep-08] HMV6 [Mar-10] [-] Totals 24 Months HMV1 [Mar-03] HMV2 [Mar-05] HMV3 [Mar-07] HMV4 [Mar-09] HMV5 [Mar-11] [-] Totals 24 Months* HMV1 [Feb-03] HMV2 [Feb-05] HMV3 [Feb-07] HMV4 [Feb-09] HMV5 [Feb-11] [-] Totals B-MHrs 469 524 640 532 646 924 0 3734 B-MHrs 504 695 512 1100 730 0 3541 B-MHrs 511 695 524 867 725 0 3322 De-Esc 84 93 95 99 83 133 0 587 De-Esc 32 59 33 103 57 0 285 De-Esc 36 62 30 59 0 0 187 Mx Cost () 24403.4 27249.9 33297.0 27661.9 33594.7 48050.2 0.0 194257 Mx Cost () 26220.0 36143.5 26632.0 57241.6 37990.0 0.0 184227 Mx Cost () 26594.5 36143.5 27249.9 45091.4 37733.4 0.0 172813 Mx Loss () 4346.3 4848.8 4937.7 5127.2 4315.9 6943.1 0.0 30519 Mx Loss () 1689.8 3086.0 1732.6 5341.0 2988.7 0.0 14838 Mx Loss () 1860.1 3221.1 1573.9 3072.2 0.0 0.0 9727 % loss 18 18 15 19 13 14 0 16 % loss 6 9 7 9 8 0.0 8 % loss 7 9 6 7 0 0 6
* = First Base Maintenance visit at 23 months

Table K. 2 By utilising the Line/Base Classification
By Utilising the L/B Classification:

24 Months HMV1 [Mar-03] HMV2 [Mar-05] HMV3 [Mar-07] HMV4 [Mar-09] HMV5 [Mar-11] Totals B-MHrs 186 278 199 595 427 1685 De-Esc 11 27 12 71 48 169 Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9691.3 554.9 14483.6 1426.3 10328.1 624.8 30928.0 3675.3 22229.2 2499.4 87660 8781 % loss 6 10 6 12 11 10
153

24 Months* HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5 [Feb-03] [Feb-05] [Feb-07] [Feb-09] [Feb-11] [-] B-MHrs 179 278 191 366 408 0 De-Esc 13 26 10 25 0 0 Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9316.8 675.9 14483.6 1364.4 9953.5 517.0 19021.2 1283.4 21223.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3841 % loss 7 9 5 7 0 0 5
Totals 1423 74 73999 (Assuming That Open and Close Manhours amount to 230 per Visit):
Table K. 3 Previous situation

Previous Situation: Base Mx at 18 Months
18 Months HMV1 [Sep-02] HMV2 [Mar-04] HMV3 [Sep-05] HMV4 [Mar-07] HMV5 [Sep-08] HMV6 [Mar-10] [-] Totals B-MHrs 570 624 740 632 746 1024 0 4336 De-Esc 84 93 95 99 83 133 0 587 Mx Cost () 29679.9 32491.7 38531.8 32908.2 38844.2 53319.7 0.0 225776 Mx Loss () % Loss 4350.4 15 4853.4 15 4942.5 5132.1 4320.1 6949.8 0.0 30548 13 16 11 13 0 14
Optimised Situation: Base Mx at 24 Months, First Visit at 23 Months

24 Months* HMV1 [Feb-03] HMV2 [Feb-05] HMV3 [Feb-07] HMV4 [Feb-09] HMV5 [Feb-11] [-] B-MHrs 409 508 421 596 638 0 De-Esc 13 26 10 25 11 0 Mx Cost () 21301.8 26473.6 21939.2 31015.6 33220.0 0.0 133950 Mx Loss () % Loss 675.9 7 1364.4 9 517.0 5 1283.4 7 572.8 2 0.0 4414 0 3
Totals 2573 85 * = First Base Maintenance Visit at 23 Months
Table K. 4 Expectation: Base Maintenance Man-hours
Summary: Base Mx at 18 Months

18 Months HMV1 [Sep-02] HMV2 [Mar-04] HMV3 [Sep-05] HMV4 [Mar-07] HMV5 [Sep-08] HMV6 [Mar-10] [-] Totals Routine 189 219 283 223 287 441 0 1642 Non-routine 170 197 255 201 258 397 0 1478 Open& Close 230 230 230 230 230 230 0 1380 B-MHrs 570 624 740 632 746 1024 0 4336 De-Esc (Mhrs) 84 93 95 99 83 133 0 587
154
Appendix K
Optimised Situation: Base Mx at 24 Months, First Visit at 23 Months
24 Months* HMV1 [Feb-03] HMV2 [Feb-05] HMV3 [Feb-07] HMV4 [Feb-09] HMV5 [Feb-11] [-] Totals Routine Routine 100 155 106 203 227 0 791 = 2*Boeing Manhours Non-routine 90 139 96 183 204 0 712 Open& Close 230 230 230 230 230 0 1150 B-MHrs 409 508 421 596 638 0 2573 De-Esc (MHrs) 13 26 10 25 11 0 85
Assumptions (Approximations)
Non-Routine = 1.6* Boeing Manhours Open & Close = 230 Manhours (approximation)
Table K. 5 Maintenance demand trends for the rest of the fleet

HZA 24 Mths 24 months Type Visit HMV2 [Apr-02] HMV3 [Apr-04] HMV4 [Apr-06] HMV5 [Apr-08] HMV6 [Apr-10] Period Apr-02 Apr-04 Apr-06 Apr-08 Apr-10 B-MHrs 274 278 508 424 280 De-Esc 19 15 67 47 24 Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 14258.9 969.8 14472.4 802.8 26409.1 3476.1 22079.4 2463.5 14558.5 1239.3
Totals
HZA 24 Mths* Type Visit HMV2 [Mar-02] HMV3 [Mar-04] HMV4 [Mar-06] HMV5 [Mar-08] HMV6 [Mar-10] Period Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-06 Mar-08 Mar-10
1764
B-MHrs 274 198 366 420 282
172
De-Esc 23 11 27 12 27
91778
8951
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 14258.9 1180.9 10309.3 586.7 19039.9 1398.7 21822.8 624.3 14652.2 1426.5
Totals
HZC 24 Mths Type Visit HMV2 [Jun-02] HMV3 [Jun-04] HMV4 [Jun-06] HMV5 [Jun-08] HMV6 [Jun-10] [-] Period Jun-02 Jun-04 Jun-06 Jun-08 Jun-10 Jan-00
1539
B-MHrs 274 285 500 432 273 0
100
De-Esc 21 18 67 46 24 0
80083
5217
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 14258.9 1070.7 14846.9 944.6 26034.6 3495.9 22453.9 2412.1 14184.0 1265.5 0.0 0.0
Totals
HZC 24 Mths* (-100 D) Type Visit HMV2 [Mar-02] HMV3 [Mar-04] HMV4 [Mar-06] HMV5 [Mar-08] HMV6 [Mar-10] [-] Period Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-06 Mar-08 Mar-10 [-]
1764
B-MHrs 274 198 366 420 523 0
177
De-Esc 40 12 27 15 28 0
91778
9189
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 14258.9 2087.7 10309.3 637.9 19039.9 1389.2 21822.8 772.9 27190.0 1441.8 0.0 0.0
Totals
1780
122
92621
6329
155

HZE 24 Months Type Visit HMV2 [May-03] HMV3 [May-05] HMV4 [May-07] HMV5 [May-09] HMV6 [May-11] Period May-01 May-03 May-05 May-07 May-09 B-MHrs 186 271 286 496 432 De-Esc 11 24 17 66 46 Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9691.3 566.8 14109.1 1261.6 14865.7 861.0 25791.1 3457.0 22453.9 2373.6
Totals
HZE 24 Mths* (-60 D) Type Visit HMV2 [Mar-03] HMV3 [Mar-05] HMV4 [Mar-07] HMV5 [Mar-09] HMV6 [Mar-11] Period Mar-03 Mar-05 Mar-07 Mar-09 Mar-11
1671
B-MHrs 274 203 361 420 527
164
De-Esc 18 12 27 12 28
86911
8520
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 14258.9 947.9 10552.8 637.3 18796.5 1403.5 21822.8 618.3 27433.5 1461.8
Totals
HZJ 24 Mths Type Visit HMV1 [Apr-02] HMV2 [Apr-04] HMV3 [Apr-06] HMV4 [Apr-08] HMV5 [Apr-10] Period Apr-02 Apr-04 Apr-06 Apr-08 Apr-10
1785
B-MHrs 179 278 199 595 427
97
De-Esc 8 26 13 72 48
92864
5069
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9316.8 430.9 14483.6 1328.9 10328.1 665.0 30928.0 3765.9 22229.2 2501.6
Totals
1678
167
87286
8692
HZJ 24 Mths*
Type Visit HMV1 HMV2 HMV3 HMV4 HMV5
Period Mar-02 Mar-04 Mar-06 Mar-08 Mar-10
B-MHrs 179 278 199 366 415
De-Esc 14 27 12 28 11
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9316.8 731.1 14483.6 1395.2 10328.1 636.8 19021.2 1473.3 21598.1 565.2
Totals
HZM 24 Mths Type Visit HMV1 [Apr-03] HMV2 [Apr-05] HMV3 [Apr-07] HMV4 [Apr-09] Period Apr-03 Apr-05 Apr-07 Apr-09
1437
B-MHrs 186 278 286 507
92
De-Esc 10 28 19 71
74748
4801
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9691.3 509.9 14483.6 1433.3 14865.7 973.3 26390.4 3690.1
Totals
HZM 24 Mths* (-48 D) Type Visit HMV1 [Feb-03] HMV2 [Feb-05] HMV3 [Feb-07] HMV4 [Feb-09] HMV5 [Feb-11] Period Feb-03 Feb-05 Feb-07 Feb-09 Feb-11
1258
B-MHrs 179 274 203 354 420
127
De-Esc 18 26 13 24 9
65431
6607
Mx Cost () Mx Loss () 9316.8 922.8 14258.9 1375.3 10552.8 653.2 18421.9 1236.9 21822.8 493.6
Totals
Aircraft Delivery 1998 1999 2000 2001 Dates HZA HZD HZG HZL
1430
90
74373
4682
HZB HZE HZI HZM
HZC HZF HZJ XRA
HZK
156
Appendix K The quantities shown on Table K. 5 above are estimations of what the situation would look after the application of an initial de-escalation. In reality, the exact maintenance demand will differ from that tabulated above, owing to the fact that an evaluation of tasks already performed needs to be done. The last base maintenance visit also has to be reviewed.
K.2.
Line Maintenance
Table K. 6 Maintenance Demand: Current situation: Transavia man-hours per aircraft

Maintenance Demand, Current Situation Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total MHrs 5-week Maintenance demand Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 327 590 478 524 498 556 2972.1 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10 327 601 467 535 487 571 327 577 491 524 498 556 347 596 584 572 510 575 347 600 580 494 588 586 347 596 584 480 602 575 388 612 584 578 611 583 381 614 588 588 602 594 381 610 592 573 610 590 347 600 580 572 510 575 3184.5 218 410 333 397 342 412 2111.8 Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10 218 422 326 405 333 421 218 410 317 426 330 424 218 467 372 460 468 458 218 455 385 452 468 452 218 448 378 460 481 426 218 475 502 463 481 385 218 475 471 494 481 373 231 462 481 463 481 407 218 467 476 356 481 458 2455.5
2125.6 2124.8 2443.3 2429.6 2410.9 2524.0 2512.2 2524.4
2986.9 2972.5 3184.5 3195.5 3184.5 3355.5 3366.5 3356.3
5-week Frequency: de-escalation
Scen-1
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 12 42 40 36 35 37 202.5
Scen-2 Scen-3 Scen-4 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10

11 35 36 45 35 49 209.0 8 34 44 44 37 36 202.1 12 40 38 32 40 28 190.1 13 40 36 34 28 31 181.6 12 30 29 31 42 29 172.2 15 42 25 34 25 31 172.5 17 43 28 27 31 34 180.2 16 44 23 26 18 34 161.1 12 31 33 36 39 39 190.4
Table K. 7 Proposed Situation:

Maintenance Demand: Proposed Situation Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 218 467 389 483 451 474 2480.9 Scen-2 218 467 401 470 443 494 2494.3 Scen-3 218 467 376 508 438 494 2501.6 Scen-4 218 512 439 540 555 521 2785.2 Scen-5 218 513 446 519 582 534 2811.6 Scen-6 218 513 531 435 594 521 2811.6 Scen-7 218 533 545 568 601 427 2891.6 Scen-8 231 520 550 542 623 427 2892.4 Scen-9 218 533 534 579 601 427 2892.0 Scen-10 218 533 527 438 594 520 2829.7
157
Maintenance Demand at Intervals: 4 Weeks
Scen-1
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 420 701 677 728 592 809 3927.7
Scen-2
420 711 668 743 581 820 3942.1
Scen-3
420 701 677 732 588 813 3931.1
Scen-4
428 725 811 648 735 845 4190.9
Scen-5
428 725 798 673 713 844 4181.2
Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10

428 732 803 762 621 832 4178.3 447 777 806 785 737 853 4406.1 440 811 786 795 725 861 4417.5 447 777 806 785 745 853 4413.8 440 734 821 762 634 845 4235.2
De-escalation In Man-hours - 4 Weeks Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 18 34 32 39 31 44 198.6 Scen-2 17 40 37 36 34 42 205.5 Scen-3 16 35 35 37 35 40 197.5 Scen-4 18 36 56 41 59 60 269.0 Scen-5 18 36 41 46 56 53 250.0 Scen-6 18 50 53 52 50 42 264.0 Scen-7 24 55 58 57 49 48 290.3 Scen-8 26 58 50 51 50 49 284.4 Scen-9 23 52 50 57 60 48 289.5 Scen-10 27 51 60 55 52 52 296.0
Table K. 8 Maintenance Demand: 5 Week frequency

Maintenance Demand at Intervals:5 Weeks Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 364 685 595 609 626 680 3558.3 Scen-2 364 666 615 599 647 665 3555.3 Scen-3 396 684 693 605 691 709 3777.8 Scen-4 396 688 689 608 700 710 3791.6 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10 396 684 693 605 704 707 3788.6 415 740 696 686 732 717 3987.3 415 744 692 691 728 721 3990.7 476 728 737 696 711 728 4074.6 409 684 705 664 669 694 3826.4 409 684 705 664 687 696 3845.9
De-escalation In Manhours: 5 Weeks Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 11 43 41 36 36 34 201.5 Scen-2 12 36 33 34 42 45 201.1 Scen-3 9 42 39 38 37 48 212.0 Scen-4 11 40 37 33 32 33 185.1 Scen-5 Scen-6 Scen-7 Scen-8 Scen-9 Scen-10 11 37 38 29 33 31 179.3 13 32 29 33 39 40 186.0 16 44 27 33 28 29 177.1 16 45 24 35 27 26 172.0 14 39 25 29 26 32 166.2 11 37 31 29 31 42 182.0
Table K. 9 Maintenance demand: 6 weeks frequency

Maintenance Demand at Intervals 6 weeks Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 337 588 501 593 586 560 Scen-2 337 604 512 594 585 566 Scen-3 337 592 512 582 606 548 Scen-4 362 603 597 585 657 606 Scen-5 362 606 606 600 646 587 Scen-6 362 614 599 584 645 594 Scen-7 370 689 603 653 678 624 Scen-8 370 681 590 653 678 628 Scen-9 370 681 603 653 678 618 Scen-10 362 626 606 584 677 573
158
Appendix K
Total 3164.4 3198.9 3175.5 3410.4 3407.4 3397.8 3615.8 3599.3 3601.7 3428.5
De-escalation In Man-hours: 6 Weeks Scen-1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 20 37 31 36 33 29 185.8 Scen-2 17 41 37 37 28 29 188.5 Scen-3 16 32 30 35 25 31 168.2 Scen-4 17 34 36 31 30 36 184.8 Scen-5 16 33 34 33 27 35 178.9 Scen-6 16 29 38 23 22 42 170.2 Scen-7 23 37 41 25 33 27 186.2 Scen-8 22 34 26 32 32 29 175.5 Scen-9 21 35 38 32 30 24 180.3 Scen-10 17 48 33 28 26 30 181.3
159
Appendix L
L.
Appendix L
161

Maintenance Planning Optimization - Research Publication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance Planning Optimization - Research Publication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance Planning Optimisation for the Boeing 737 Next Generation

Masters Thesis By ir. Anthony K. Muchiri

Supervisors: Prof. ir Klaas Smit ing. Willem van Steenis

Delft/ Schiphol East, 30 May 2002

Author: Date: Board Of Examiners:

- TU Delft (Coach) - TU Delft - Transavia Airlines (Supervisor) - Transavia Airlines

Anthony Muchiri Delft, May 2002

BMV 6 [Mar-10] Total Base Mhrs

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

Total Base Mhrs

Total Base Mhrs

100 199 119 279 336 1033

Figuur 0.1 Ontwikkelen van Onderhoudstaken-Paketten en Onderhoudsinspecties

BMV 5 [Sep-08] BMV 6 [Mar-10] Total Base Mhrs

Total Base Mhrs

Total Base Mhrs

100 199 119 279 336 1033

Inherent Reliability: Maintenance Check:

Maintenance Items: Maintenance Slot:

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

150.0 Ja n F eb M ar A pr May Jun Jul A ug S ep O ct Nov De c

Figure 1.1 Annual utilisation, 737NG

(Source: Aircraft Technical Administration)

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

See definition in section 2.6

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

B ackg rou n d R e se arch

C h ap te r 2: M ain te n an ce P lan n in g an d Sch ed u lin g :

B ackground R esearch & M ain tenance Program an alysis

O ptim isation proposal

Figure 1.2: Relationship between phases and chapters

The following diagram is an illustration of how these phases interrelate

Assignment Analysis Phase 1 Background Research

Optimization Proposal Phase 4

Figure 1.3: Approach strategy

The following is a motivation and a description of the above-mentioned phases.

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

Maintenance program analysis: 737NG

Maintenance planning definition and development

Requirements, constraints and assumptions Requirements

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

Maintenance Planning and Scheduling

Figure 2.1 Establishing maintenance planning and scheduling within Transavia

Maintenance Program (MP) Development

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

2.1.1 MRIs based MPD items:

2.1.2 MRIs based on non-MPD items

B737 NG Maintenance Requirement Review Documents

B737 NG Aircraft Task Cards

B737 NG MPD Document (Boeing)

B737 NG MRB Report (FAA)

Boeing MRIs Tasks,TaskEOs/MIs

Transavia Task Cards

National Aviation Authority (IVW/DL) Approval

Source: Boeing 737-NG MPD (derived)

Figure 2.2 MPD and OMP development

2.1.3 Maintenance Checks

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

Table 2.1 MRI Properties

2.1.4 Maintenance Task Cards and task card control

Figure 2.3 Task card numbering

2.1.5 The B737-300 MP vs. the B737 NG MP

Maintenance Planning Optimisation: B737 NG

Table 2.2 Maintenance program comparison 733 vs. 738