Maint Philsp n Devlp Progr

8/3/2019 Maint Philsp n Devlp Progr

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/maint-philsp-n-devlp-progr 1/47

0

Agus Supriyanto

GATC , 17 – 18 November 2011

BATK Training

Maintenance Philosophy

and

Maintenance Program Development



PagePage 11

Definition

Philosophy

A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activ ity.

Maintenance

The process (includes inspection, servicing, overhaul, repair, preservation, and

replacement) of ensuring that a system continually performs its intended functionat its designed in level of reliability and safety. It includes corrective maintenance

and preventive maintenance.

Maintenance Program

Program which define logical sequence of maintenance action to be performed as

even or pieces of whole which w hen performed collectively result in achievement of the desired Maintenance Standard. It is compiled of individual maintenance and

inspections functions util ized by an operator to fulfi l l its total maintenance needs.



PagePage 22

The Bathtub Curve as naturecharacteristic of equipments



PagePage 33

Maintenance shall be implemented toachieve Inherent Reliability



PagePage 44

Objectives of Maintenance Program

To ensure realization of the 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 design improvement

of those items whose inherent reliability proves inadequate.

To accomplish these goals at a minimum tota l cost, including

maintenance costs and the costs of resulting failures.



PagePage 55

FAR 121 that related to maintenance



PagePage 66

Manufacturer, Authority and Operator onMaintenance Program development



PagePage 77

Factor Influencing Aircraft Cost



PagePage 88

Aircraft cost of ownership breakdown



PagePage 99

Generally, Prevention Cost and Correction Cost are inverserly to each other.

Generally, Maintenance Cost is sum of Prevention Cost and Correction Cost.

Using Reliability Control Program, Maintenance Cost is adjusted to Minimum.

Maintenance Cost versus Reliability



PagePage 1010

Maintenance Program DevelopmentHistory



PagePage 1111

MSG Program has applied on the most oflatest aircraft types



PagePage 1212

Aircraft Design Philosophy

Safe LifeSafe Life Fail SaveFail Save Damage TolerantDamage Tolerant



PagePage 1313

MSG-2 Decision Tree Diagram



PagePage 1414

1. HARD TIME

This is a primary maintenance process under which an item is removed

from service for discarded or recondition or heavy maintenance or bench

check before a previously specified time. (Safe Life)

2. ON CONDITION MAINTENANCEThis is a primary maintenance process having repetitive inspection or testto determine the condition of the item or system and to provide areasonable assurance that the item or system w ill survive to the nextschedule inspection or test. (Damage Tolerant)

3. CONDITION MONITORING MAINTENANCEData on the population of Maintenance Significant Items of system inservice is analyzed to determine Maintenance Requirement. ConditionMonitored allows failure to occurred and relies upon analysis of operatingexperience to indicate the need for appropriate action. (Fail Save)

MSG-2 Process Oriented Maintenance



PagePage 1515

Hard Time



PagePage 1616

C

o n d i t i o n

Time

Point where ithas failed

(functionalfailure)

Point Where failureis detectable

(potential failure)

Point wherefailure start to

occur

Scheduledinspection ortest interval

On Condition

Potential failure : Point wherefunctional failure is imm inent.

Functional failure : Point where thesystem does not longer fulfill itsminimum required performance



PagePage 1717

FOR EXAMPLE , THE AIRCRAFT COMPONENT HAS 10 FLIGHT CYCLES LIFE TIME

MOST OF THE AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS LIFE TIME ARE MORE THAN 10.000 FLIGHT CYCLES.

Condition Monitoring



PagePage 1818

Area inspection required by

CPCP C53-202-01 at interval

F:12Y R:6Y

Area inspection required by

SI S53-03-A at interval

24,000 FH

MSG-2 Structure Inspection Redundancy



PagePage 1919

MSG-2 weakness

1. MSG-2 does not treat hidden functional failures adequately (this is even more

critical in today’s “electronic” aircraft where many redundant systems are

“hidden”).

2. MSG-2 logic needs to be more rigorous. A user can determine w hat he/ she want s

to be done to a component and work the logic so that that outcome is

generated. Emotion is not precluded from the decision making process.3. MSG-2 does not address current FAA regulations, e.g. FAR 25.571 (damage

tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structures), aging aircraft concerns,

Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) requirements, Enhanced

Zonal Analysis Procedures (EZAP) that specifically address w iring concerns and

promotes a “clean as you go” culture or analysis for Lightning/High Intensity

Radiated Field (HIRF) tasks and intervals.

4. MSG-2 does not provides a strong and well tested analytical logic which helps

eliminate and minimize emotion from the decision making process of

determining if a maintenance task is needed or not.



Top down approach resulting in less task .

Integration CPCP and Structural Inspection eliminate

redundancy.

Task oriented avoid confusing task to be done.

Clear differentiate safety task and economical task .

Promoted by FAA.

Significantly impact to economical return by 30 % in

reducing man-hour usage and reduce A/ C ground time for

routine maintenance.

MSG-3 is better



PagePage 2121

MSG-3 results in over 20 % reduction inman-hours compare to MSG-2 (B737-C)

Zonal tasks

202 items

Structure tasks

166 tasks

System tasks

627 items

MSG-2 Maintenance Program (Total 1,657 Task Cards / 12,452 Man-hours*)

MSG-3 Maintenance Program (Total 994 Task Cards / 9,423 Man-hours*)

MSG-3 Analysis & Optimization

CPCP tasks101 items

Structure tasks150 items

System tasks1,114 items

ComponentMaintenance

292 items



PagePage 2222

MSG-3 analysis form



PagePage 2323

MSG-3 Analysis Flow 1



PagePage 2424




PagePage 2525




PagePage 2626




PagePage 2727




PagePage 2828

MSG-3 Analysis Flow 5 (cont’)



PagePage 2929

MSG-3 Logic Diagram (Level 1 analysis)

5 6 7 8 9



PagePage 3030

MSG-3 Logic Diagram (Level 2 analysis)



PagePage 3131

MSG-3 Task selection criteria

EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA(based on consequences of item's failure)

TASKAPPLICABILITY CRITERIA

(based on item's failurecharacteristics) SAFETY OPERATIONAL NON-SAFETY

LUBRICATIONor SERVICING

(LU or SV)

The replenishment of the consumablesmust reduce the rate of functionaldeterioration.

The task must reduce therisks of failure.

The task must reduce therisks of failure to anacceptable level.

The task must be cost-effective.

OPERATIONALor VISUAL

CHECK

(OP or VC)

Identification of failures must bepossible.

The task must ensureadequate availability of thehidden function to reducethe risks of a multiplefailures.

Not applicable.

The task must ensureadequate availability of thehidden functions in order toavoid adverse economic

effects of multiple failuresand must be cost effective.

INSPECTION orFUNCTIONAL

CHECK(IN or FC)

Reduced resistance to failures mustbe detectable, and there exists areasonably consistent intervalbetween a deteriorated condition andfunctional failure.

The task must reduce therisks of failure to assuresafe operation


The task must be cost-effective, i.e.; the cost ofthe task must be less thanthe cost of the failuresprevented.

RESTORATION(RS)

The item must show functionaldegradation characteristics at anidentifiable age and a large proportion ofunits must survive to that age. It must

be possible to restore the item to aspecific standard of failure resistance.

The task must reduce therisk of failures to assure

safe operation

The task must reduce therisks of failure to an

acceptable level.

The task must be cost-effective, i.e.; the cost ofthe tasks must be less than

the cost of the failuresprevented.

DISCARD(DS)

The item must show functionaldegradation characteristics at anidentifiable age and on a large proportionof units are expected survive to that age.

A safe-life limit mustreduce the risks of failureto assure safe operation


An economic life limit mustbe cost-effective, i.e.; thecost of the task must beless than the cost of thefailures prevented.



PagePage 3232

Maintenance interval determination(aircraft component)



PagePage 3333

Maintenance interval determination(aircraft system)



PagePage 3434

Maintenance Reference



PagePage 3535

Format of Garuda’s CAMP (using MSG-3)

Unique identifier of

the item to bemaintained

Maintenance actionto be done at

regular time

Maintenanceinterval



PagePage 3636

Maintenance Review Board Report

1. Affectivity2. Issue date3. Revised Item

4. etc



PagePage 3737

Maintenance Planning Data (CMR)


4. etc



PagePage 3838

Maintenance Planning Data (CPCP)


4. etc



PagePage 4040

Airworthiness Directive

1. Affectivity2. Issue date3. Due date

4. Subject5. Content and task

6. Implementation reference7. etc



PagePage 4141

Engineering Order

1. Affectivity2. Mandatory or not3. Issue date

4. Due date5. Subject

6. Content and task7. Work load / man-hour8. Required feed back9. Implementation reference10.etc



PagePage 4242

Job Card

1. Affectivity2. Mandatory or not3. Issue date

4. Subject5. Content and task

6. Work load / man-hour7. Implementation reference8. etc



PagePage 4343

Maintenance Discrepancy & Rectification

1. Affectivity2. Issue date3. Subject

4. Content and task5. Work load / man-hour

6. Required material7. Implementation reference8. etc



Evaluate the source(basic of CAMP) orAnalyze The Dirty

Recordsby Engineers (TEA-TER)

Filter The DirtyRecords

by Engineer (TER-2)Insert The Dirty

Recordsby Data Loader (TER-2)

Make and PlanJobcards

by Planner (TLP-1)

Excecutionthe Jobcards

by Mechanics (TL/TB)

Issue orUpdate the CAMP Doc.

by Engineer (TER-2)

Store The DirtyRecords

by Planner (TLP-3)

Presented the Draft ofCAMP to DGCA for

Appropalby Engineer (MQ)

Distibutethe CAMP Doc.by staff (TER-4)

Garuda’s CAMP Close Loop

MRB Document

CMR Document ALI DocumentCPCP DocumentSSID DocumentRepair DocumentExisting ADService BulletinService LetterOperator’s Experience



PagePage 4545

Environmental

Factor

Care about : lighting, noise, temperature, aroma,

weather, time, ergonomic of equipment, availability of

appliance, space lay out, and handling.

Physical Factor Care about the limitation of : five human senses, brain

capacity, sensation center, think center, muscle

strength, boring conditi on, and fatigue.Psychological

Social Factor

Care about the worse condition of : mind function,

among humans communication, human and machine

communication, conflict, and stress.

Knowledge,

Skill, and Attitude

Understanding of theory by course, study, and training.

Work experience by benchmarking, on the job training,and work practicing.

Enthusiastic for new information, new know ledge, and

new technology.

Human Factor that shall be consideredduring maintenance implementation



PagePage 4646

Summary

1. Maintenance shall be implemented to achieve Inherent Reliability.

2. Manufacturer, Authority and Operator are close involved on

Maintenance Program development.

3. Maintenance Cost shall be considered during Maintenance

Program development.

4. Human Factor shall be considered during Maintenance Program

implementation.

5. Garuda Indonesia has experienced to develop Maintenance

Program refer to MSG-2 (DC-10, B747-200 and B737-Clasic) as

well as Maintenance Program refer to MSG-3 (MD-11, B747-400,

B737-NG, A330-200/300 and A320).

Maint Philsp n Devlp Progr

Documents

Transcript of Maint Philsp n Devlp Progr