Tag: Featured Story

As airlines shrink, there is a silver lining – a vast disposal of older-generation jets, a fleet planning shift and the acceleration of the digital transformation.

“The industry is moving towards more efficient fleets that have larger average seating capacity and lower maintenance costs especially over the short-to-medium hauls,” says Paramaguru ‘Guru’ Prakash speaking for himself, not as Information Technology manager for Boeing Distribution Services. “This will slow MRO spend since the expensive, late-life maintenance declines and intervals between scheduled maintenance lengthen with newer jets.”

Still, a parked fleet requires maintenance, and, according to American Airlines Vice President Engineering & Quality Technical Operations Stacey Morrisey American Airlines’ 400 parked aircraft required 100,000 man-hours.

Return to Service (RTS) requires a lot of maintenance, Aviation Consultant Bob Mann says. This work now includes MAX 8 RTS given FAA’s re-certification in mid-November.

“RTS is an intensive task,” Mann explains. “It requires a separate set of AMM-specified ground and flight tasks designed to validate system integrity and performance, then an engineering/maintenance flight test back into service. The huge scale of the entire industry’s RTS will probably throw on-condition event codes of types and at scales that have never previously been seen and will test how maintenance and OEM organizations parse and efficiently utilize this data, while maintaining and supporting operational integrity.”

Mann noted different airlines have different solutions.

“Southwest, is cycling through its entire fleet to keep them active,” Mann says. “And, for all but long-term ‘pickling’ of fleets, this generally requires periodic engine starts, hydraulic system pressurization, control movement, rolling the aircraft forward several wheel rotations, all to keep seals from deteriorating and wheels and bearings ‘taking a set’ from lack of exercise. Southwest appears to be idling very few aircraft long-term, but to cycle the fleet through a two-to-three-day week, meaning most are idle less than the number of days required to force storage tasks. This approach will pay off when ramping up.”

Changing Strategies

Hitting that reset button not only reduces fleet complexity but changes acquisition strategies from growth to replacement.

“Airlines are optimizing specific fleet types for certain routes,” Teal Group vice president Analysis Richard Aboulafia says. “They are also leveraging their perceived negotiating power in buying planes back and forth between OEMs. For those carriers offering MRO services, like Delta TechOps, it is to gain competence in work provided to other customers. They also may have disparate fleets especially if deals were harder to get out of after mergers.

“It will be interesting to see if the A321neo will allow others to follow a single fleet type given its international range with a family of aircraft,” he continues. “The pandemic is unlikely to change anything because the 737 MAX grounding was more disruptive, having led to doubts of other non-MAX 8 variants. It also created the risk Boeing will offer a new single-aisle type, even a complementary one, in the not-to-distant future, accelerating Southwest’s decision on a second fleet type.”

Yes, fleet simplification streamlines the operation but, “the simplicity of a single fleet type, such as the famous efficiency of Southwest’s Boeing 737 fleet, restricts it from serving markets. It doesn’t allow single-fleet airlines to check every box but the boxes they do check are at lowest cost and greatest commonality, which pays forward to airlines, employees, customers, investors.”

Changing fleet decisions may bring Southwest’s single fleet to an end, according to Aboulafia. In 2019, MAX groundings prompted new Southwest fleet evaluations of the Airbus A220 and the Boeing MAX 7.

“This is a day of reckoning for Southwest,” says Aboulafia. “The MAX is the last 737 family. At some point, when they need new planes for capacity expansion or for fleet modernization, they will need to move on from the 737 to whatever the next generation brings because the MAX 7 might not be their best option for smaller routes. Its larger engines may mean it is not as appealing as previous shrink models. If they conclude that this is the case, and that they still want something in the 100/130-seat class, the A220 would be logical.”

Even so, Southwest has always taken advantage of deals it can make with Boeing on white tails, coloring its fleet decisions in the past.

Immediate Benefits

“This streamlining of the fleet provides a number of benefits to the airline, particularly by removing complexity from the operation,” Morrisey told Aviation Maintenance. “From Technical Operations to Flight and Flight Service, Airports and every team in between, reducing the number of fleets has the benefit of making what we do simpler and more effective.”

Morrisey sees multiple fleet types as a competitive advantage allowing service to different size cities difficult to serve with only a single type.

“This greatly improves the scale of the network and, since we aim to attract more schedule-sensitive passengers, our fleet mix allows us to build more schedule options,” she says. “While it introduces an additional element of complexity, the tradeoff is being able to better serve our customers.”

American is now down to two mainline flight deck types. “This benefits our operational performance through training efficiency and streamlined maintenance,” she says. “Overall, we try to make things as similar as possible within a specific fleet type including Boeing 737s and Airbus A321s, which gives us the same consistent cabin layout on each fleet, making the aircraft more interchangeable throughout the network and operating day.”

Universal Synaptics CEO Kenneth Anderson III agrees.

“A one size fits all business strategy does not exist,” he says. “Aircraft such as the B737-900 or A220 provide better customer experience. Replacing outdated fleets positively impacts reliability and fuel economy. It is in the best interests of airlines to minimize fleet types to reduce the complexity of managing varying maintenance requirements specifically during a time where a reduction in force has led to those with the most experience taking on different roles or retiring. Fleet trends prior to Covid-19 maximized load factors while reducing fuel and maintenance cost, without compromising customer requirements. Post Covid-19, fleet trends have started to take shape but with applicable factors weighted much differently.”

Shifting Life Cycle

“Covid prompted a shift in maintenance fleet life-cycle view,” Mann says. “The normal view is to manage fleets for greatest returns on lowest investment over their economic lifetime which is normally 20-plus years, consuming green time and staging checks to optimize fleet operational and maintenance line utilization. Suddenly, the view is a quick acid test of fleet viability vs. complexity costs and cash burn during a multi-year demand desert. As a result, some middle-aged fleets are facing early demise, if utilization will be impaired for years to come. This requires a re-set of fleet plan and route assignment as the network recovers. Furthermore, this lessens the viability of acquiring or retaining an aircraft type and configuration unique to route.”

In the current pandemic, companies are pulling many levers to shave costs, according to Prakash. “Beyond standardizing the fleet by optimizing aircraft design that can improve efficiencies, maintenance is leveraging technology with robots performing digital crack inspections on engine parts using advanced sensors rather than humans. Similarly, maintenance is using drones for aircraft inspections that helps reduce the time from up to six hours to between one and two hours. Finally, on-demand 3-D printing has replaced lengthy orders for replacement polymer parts such as screen surrounds and tray latches.”

All this was part of a process predating Covid. In the summer of 2019, American operated nine fleets. As it heads into 2021, the number of mainline fleet types is now four.

“This past year we integrated all of our parts into a single system and are now completing a multi-year migration of all of our aircraft into one operating system,” says Morrisey, one of the few women operational VPs in the industry. “Innovation doesn’t stop because of this pandemic. Less fleet complexity means we can focus our efforts on improving our processes that underpin our maintenance machine. With fewer aircraft types, we don’t need to store as many spare parts for younger fleet types.”

Training also benefits. “One of the great things that we have seen is the evolution of distance learning for our frontline AMTs,” she reported. “It’s been a great option in addition to some in-person training, to more easily accommodate our team members specifically in cities currently under Covid-19 travel restrictions, allowing them to stay current on their fleet qualification requirements no matter where they are. The new distance learning helps us quickly deliver training in new stations to accommodate network changes that fly different fleet types to various cities where a particular fleet did not operate previously.”

Regional Dancers

Regional airlines must perform a “pretty sophisticated dance” when it comes to maintenance, according to Tom Duffy, Republic Airways vice president of Maintenance.

“We only get paid when we fly, so we have to work with our partners who want the minimum amount of heavy maintenance when an aircraft is out of service,” he explained, noting the airline flies for all three major carriers. “They need to be able to schedule the aircraft efficiently throughout the year, so it is always a shuffle to ensure aircraft availability.”

The airline now operates a single Embraer fleet which saves money on inventory costs from its pre-bankruptcy multi-certificate, multi-fleet type operation. It is now down to two heavy maintenance operators and has a lower mechanic training footprint.

Republic owns the vast majority of the 215 aircraft is has under contract today. The regional is responsible for maintenance and reimbursement is baked into its capacity purchase agreement contracts.

Digital Transformation

wPerhaps the biggest benefit to retiring older aircraft is the promise of health monitoring systems on newer aircraft. While normally not good for MROs, it does reveal a path to the future.

“Right now, the hype is bigger than the reality,” says Richard Brown, Naveo Consultancy managing director. “The majority of MRO spend is generated by mature, mid-life aircraft between five and 17 years. MROs are mostly dealing with metal fuselages, pneumatics, hydraulics and electronics but increasingly they will be dealing with composites and advanced avionics and electrical systems which offer far greater prognostic and diagnostic capabilities compared to the mid-life-to-mature aircraft. Those aircraft do not have the sophisticated health monitoring systems of the Dreamliner, the A220 or A350. While a lot of people are excited about the wealth of data available from aircraft, this highly digital fleet is relatively small but growing.”

Duffy’s experience with digital aircraft extends back to 1988 and the Airbus 320. Indeed, when he arrived at Republic, he lobbied for the Embraer EJet because of the digital tools it offered.

“Changes coming from data analysis is not officially endorsed by international regulators on transport category aircraft yet,” he told Aviation Maintenance, noting Republic is part of the ICAO task force working on acceptance. “Airlines and OEMs have been pushing but regulators are still concerned. Still Republic has enough experience with it to know it is the right thing to do. We are already using downloaded data and tools to diagnose and identify faults. We can also receive information during the flight via ACARs. So, combined with our historical knowledge of the aircraft and systems, we can determine how we need to respond.”

Brown pointed to the popularity of the engine and OEM health monitoring solutions and Airbus’s Skywise system, a digital platform designed to increase dispatch reliability and customer satisfaction. Other OEMs and MROs have developed or are developing their own monitoring capabilities including Lufthansa Technik’s Aviatar and Air France KLM E&M’s Prognos.

“These systems are meant to achieve the holy grail of aviation maintenance – taking an unscheduled event and turning it into a scheduled event,” says Brown. “So, if an airline knows an APU is going to fail, they can replace it before it fails. Now, it is fly to fail and then deal with the unplanned disruption. If you can use predictive analytics to look at how the component or engine or system is performing you can predict failure and save the industry billions of dollars in the cost and compensation associated with disrupting passenger flights. The implications on the supply chain is huge because OEMs and parts suppliers make money on spares.”

Two other advances also promise to streamline maintenance.

“OEMs and engine makers are looking at how parts perform in real time and in real life,” Brown explained. “They are looking at whether the performance in a harsh environment like the Middle East means different wear compared to a milder one like, say, Iceland. If they can discern the differences these environments have on aircraft and engines, they can customize maintenance programs to the operator for more cost-effective maintenance. We must re-evaluate the way we think of MRO to the way the operation and aircraft is performing which not only benefits airlines but encourages good behavior.”

Prakash agrees. “Advances like Cloud computing and Internet of Things (IOT) gathers engine health monitoring data quickly and efficiently,” says Prakash. “With the use of smart data analysis, predictive tools and engineering expertise to add additional insight, engine OEMs are helping airlines reduce fuel usage, optimize routes, ensuring the right equipment is in place to service engines more quickly and to maintain the highest levels of availability. Using these advanced tools OEMs can maximize the operational life of engines and help operators become more predictive and less reactive in terms of repairing and replacing their aircraft engines.”

Brown noted real-time monitoring is becoming standard offering the potential for more on-wing, on-aircraft maintenance all designed to keep the aircraft flying, reduce disruption and reduce the amount of time the aircraft is out of service.

That is exactly what another tool offers. A development from Netherlands Aerospace Laboratory (NLR) uses artificial intelligence operators can schedule a bundle of small maintenance tasks between flights.

“FlexPlan only uses readily available information, namely the Maintenance Planning Document, aircraft maintenance status, aircraft configuration, flight schedule, and a list of maintenance facilities,” wrote NLR Principal Arjan de Jong in an August 2019 post. “FlexPlan is a tool that automatically creates maintenance programs comprising of small packages and a tool that plans these packages optimally between scheduled flights. The result is a comprehensive maintenance program that schedules maintenance around your flight schedule and is sufficiently robust to facilitate last-minute changes if your flight schedule is disrupted. And, since FlexPlan adheres to the task intervals specified by the original equipment manufacturer, you do not face regulatory issues.”

The question is how MROs will be integrated into this brave new world. Brown indicated MROs, need to think about how they plan and deliver maintenance.

“This transformation takes a mindset and skills change,” he says, “because you also must believe what the data is saying is correct. You must trust that removing a part before failure is the right thing to do but as we build expertise this will become easier. But the industry must do a better job of explaining the savings they have achieved on health monitoring. Skeptics need to be reassured it’s all worthwhile. So far, OEMs, MROs and airlines are reluctant to talk about the benefits – to allow airlines to compare the different solutions. The industry also needs to do a better job of promoting the advantages of this technology on the bottom line and in passenger satisfaction.”

Duffy wants to take subjectivity out of maintenance. “So much of maintenance is subjective, making it difficult to identify what is really going on,” he explains. “The question is whether the deterioration that happens during normal operations is affecting how a component is performing.”

He pointed to the four Embraer air data smart probes, saying aircraft mechanics need a less subjective way of determining performance.

“We compared the photos of probes to the data retrieved from the aircraft and can prove that subjective human evaluation can’t be directly related to system performance determined with aircraft recorded data. We are pushing Collins Aerospace to move us to a science-based, performance monitoring system to eliminate this subjectivity. That is a fundamental change we want to get to.”

He also dreams of an aircraft coming into the gate and the captain reporting a problem. “I see a maintenance tech opening a panel and taking a photo with a smartphone,” he says. “Because of Google recognition, we identify the part, it asks whether we want to replace it. If yes, the smartphone works with sourcing the part and, when it’s delivered, the instructions for replacing it is delivered on the smart phone. The entire transaction is logged into the maintenance system digitally and are aircraft records are automatically updated. I know all this exists now so it will happen.”

That would be a brave new world.

Aero Norway has built its reputation as an exclusive CFM56 engine provider, priding themselves on high standards, EGT margins, Competitive turnaround times and long-term client partnerships. The company also says they try to “harness the special characteristics of strength, focus and independence that embody the Norwegian way of life.” We spoke to CEO Glenford Marston to see how this specialist shop is doing amidst the pandemic and what advice he may have to offer others trying to survive this unusual time.

In one year we have seen a dramatic change in the aviation industry. How has this change impacted Aero Norway?

MARSTON:

We have, of course, seen a significant impact upon Aero Norway as a result of the pandemic and have adapted our working practices to support our customers as well as protecting our team. Although we have been busy and have been fortunate that we have kept our skilled workforce intact, we will certainly not be reaching 2019 revenue levels due to the reduced number of shop visits. We have seen more CFM56-3s coming to the shop for induction and are carrying out repairs on CFM56-5Bs and CFM56-7Bs, but fewer engines are coming in for major overhaul.

Aero Norway’s has always been on supporting our customers and as part of this we are undertaking short and hospital workscopes on engines as a bespoke service. More and more engine MROs are gearing up for these short workscopes as demand increases, and even though not our core business model, we are offering these services for existing customers. Another shift we have observed is that customers are sending us engines which we would ordinarily work on in-the-field because of restrictions in flying and quarantines in place. However, we are still carrying out field work for target customers or existing customers requiring additional support.

What is your view of the outlook for airlines/aviation vis-à-vis the pandemic?

MARSTON:

With fewer people flying, and many aircraft grounded we can expect to see significant reductions in fleet sizes as operators are forced to restructure. I also anticipate increased numbers of Classic freighter engines in the shop as the demand for air cargo continues to rise. This restructuring will affect all MROs as there will be more engines available for teardown or part out. It may also help customers and Aero Norway as we will be able to acquire materials which were difficult to source in 2019. There is potential for 2021 to be to be a good year for that at least.

Has your backlog been impacted?

MARSTON:

Many shop visits which were planned for our customers did not materialise. We had initially forecasted that we would induct 102 engines this year however we reassessed our predictions early on and changed our goal to 87 engines this year. The impact of this has been a visible shift in workscope ratios from heavy engine core performance to hospital visits. We had initially predicted 65-70 percent heavy engine full core performance workscopes for this year but this is becoming a 50/50 split between heavy to light engine workscopes in Qs 3 and 4 of 2020.

What is Aero Norway doing to weather the crisis?

MARSTON:

We are in preparation mode for better times. We had committed to necessary investment in modifications and upgrades and have used this quieter period to carry these out. At Aero Norway we are constantly reassessing, re-evaluating and looking for ways to improve our processes in pursuit of reduced turn-around times. In 2019 we invested in a state-of-the-art high-speed grinder, which was followed by an upgrade to our plasma spraying machine and most recently to our static balancing machine. We are also carrying out numerous small projects around the shop to benefit our customers and this time has given us the opportunity to complete these.

In terms of our team, our skilled workers have modified working patterns to accommodate social distancing measures, and we have followed all the guidelines set by the Norwegian Government with regard to restrictions to visitors in to the shop, and business travel. Our mechanics, engineers and technicians are currently only working four days a week, and some have been redistributed within the facility where there is demand and they have the relevant skills. We are proud to have kept our team intact during this challenging time and have all taken a 20 percent reduction in pay to accommodate the change in workload.

Do you envision more focus on the CFM56-5BS and -7B engines for the future or are you adding new models to your offerings?

MARSTON:

As a CFM56 specialist repair station our intention has been to add the LEAP capability to our offering and we have recently finished all necessary assessments. We have accessed the manuals for the 1a and 1b and have evaluated the levels of workscopes required for the introduction into our shop. In light of the current situation, however, we have decided to put this on hold until Q4 2021 and will not make any more investments until that time.

Our focus has always been to get more 5B and CFM56-7Bs into the shop, and in 2019 63 percent of our inductions were CFM56-5Bs and CFM56-7Bs, with 37 percent CFM56-3s. Our forecast for 2020 was 72 percent CFM56-5BS and CFM56-7Bs, and 28 percent CFM56-3s and we had paved the way to encourage those customers into the shop, however the actual split in inductions between CFM56-5BS/CFM56-7Bs and CFM56-3s has been 52 percent to 48 percent. Although this is not the worst-case scenario by any means, it is certainly not what we had envisaged and planned for. We would of course like to focus more on the CFM56-5Bs and CFM56-7Bs, however supporting our customers remains a priority and we have already agreed to support their CFM56-3 requirements until 2026.

How are you helping your clients deal with the challenges brought about by the pandemic?

MARSTON:

One of the biggest issues for our customers at present is cash flow and we are working closely with them to understand their immediate needs. Many are requesting customised workscopes designed to reduce costs or lengthened payment terms that will allow them to carry out necessary works. Our survival is linked to their survival. We have many smaller customers and for them particularly the option of being able to have flexible payment plans is important for their business, and they really appreciate that.

We spoke with Rune Veenstra, chief business officer for Aero Norway, a year ago. He mentioned at that time, the supply chain was struggling to keep up with demand for shop visits. Has that changed now? Is the supply chain better? Has anything been done to improve it? Or is the slower pace of operations the only change?

MARSTON:

There are still some supply chain issues. Although there are many aircraft parked, people are not interested in purchasing material as they are waiting to see how the market will unfurl. There are some parts which are currently more readily available, for example new parts, however most of our customers prefer to have used parts which offer them some cost savings. The only real benefit seen by our logistics team has been more leverage when closing a deal.

When our parts are sent for repair, we maintain an open dialogue with the OEMs and third party workshops as many of them are working at a reduced level with some only operating two days a week. This does affect TATs in terms of the time taken for parts to be returned to us, however we are endeavoring to work closely with the repair teams to ensure that our end customers are not affected.

Aero Norway is known for being flexible and customizing for their clients. Give us some examples of how Aero Norway customizes offerings for their clients.

MARSTON:

Early on in the pandemic we invested in five CFM56-3 engines to support our customers which were introduced to our refurbish and sell programme. Although the CFM56-3 is a legacy product for Aero Norway, we have the skilled technicians to extract the best EGT margins and consequently generate greater efficiencies and economies for our freighter customers. Within our facility we have converted major module build space into four additional repair bays to satisfy the volume of lighter workscopes currently coming into the shop as well as investing in the training, fixtures and tooling to support it.

Currently we are seeing customers sending in three engines, for example, with a view to getting two back to revenue service. One engine would therefore be a donor engine to repair the other two reducing our customers’ costs, as well as giving us the opportunity to also harvest some good materials for ourselves. We have previously done this with CFM56-3s, and continue to do so, but this has now also been extended to CFM56-5BS and CFM56-7Bs. With so many aircraft grounded this is certainly a growing trend and we are carrying out these workscopes for owners, lessors and operators alike.

With every challenge comes opportunity. Where are you seeing opportunity amidst the pandemic? Have there been any bright spots in the crisis?

MARSTON:

We are continually looking for opportunity, and one of the main opportunities for us would, of course, be sourcing good material/parts. At Aero Norway we have an engine programme where we buy assets, rebuild them and recycle them back to the market. We would like to focus more on CFM56-5BS and CFM56-7Bs and are waiting for the price to be right. However we are still not in a position to be able to gauge the price escalation for this year from CFM, to find out how they will support us and whether they will be looking to clear their backlog of material. We have never lost our focus on the -3 and we still have a significant number of -3 customers who we will continue to support. But we did not expect so many CFM56-3s to be entering the shop for large workscopes such as full core performance and LLP replacement. This year CFM56-3s will account for around 50 percent of the engines which will pass through the shop.

Are there any other challenges in the engine MRO marketplace right now (in addition to the pandemic)?

MARSTON:

Every MRO is facing challenges right now as replacement parts are the drivers of cost. We can control the cost of the workscope management, but especially now, all customers are looking for added value. Management of material is the main challenge: how it is moved around, and what support we can get from suppliers and the OEM.

Do you predict there will be pent up demand for engine services when the pandemic ends?

MARSTON:

Engines will always need shop visits, and this cannot be avoided. There will certainly be a pent-up demand, however this will very much depend on the resurgence of air travel. Engine service requirements are driven by usage and currently we are seeing more of the classic freighter engines as air cargo booms. However, we are still actively bidding to secure 5B and 7B engine inductions for the future.

The old saying goes “Hindsight is 20/20.” Knowing what we know now, what would you have changed or done differently two years ago to prepare for the current situation?

MARSTON:

With the benefit of hindsight, I would of course have made some strategic buys and reduced the inventory of materials for engines that will not be entering the shop. For example, purchases we made to support CFM56-5BS and CFM56-7Bs would not have been made, and we would have had more CFM56-3 engines ready to go. This pandemic may create a marketing place where material purchased for use in 2020, will diminish in value; we could then have waited until 2021 to buy the same material at a reduced cost.

How should aviation MRO businesses be preparing for the future?

MARSTON:

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the timescale for recovery, which could be up to four years we need to be more cash conscious going forward. I think the upturn will take some time and I do not expect to get back to 2019 levels in the near term.

ATR is working hard to ensure its customers stay flying through COVID-19 and into the future with an interesting series of initiatives

Laurent Caballe, VP Products and Services, says around 60 percent of the ATR 42/72 fleet has remained flying during the pandemic. This is partly a reflection of a customer base that includes many airlines in remote areas and islands, where aircraft are absolutely vital in a crisis like this one, delivering key equipment and personnel where and when needed. It is also a reflection of the feeder role that ATR operations play for some airlines. With long haul services being slashed, there are fewer transfer passengers, so the smaller ATR can replace an Airbus A320/Boeing 737 sized aircraft to maintain important routes into major hubs while reducing operating costs for the airline.

Where airlines have grounded aircraft, the company has been providing engineering advice through Operators Information Messages (OIM), for example, how to avoid corrosion in the propellers during storage. He notes that operators are mainly choosing to park their aircraft. Airworthiness authorities require that they have to fly at the end of three months or they will be put into storage, a more complicated expensive option that also requires more time to get them back into service. The simplest way of avoiding this is by rotating aircraft in and out of the operational fleet.

As many ATR operators also tend to be smaller airlines, the company developed its General Maintenance Agreement (GMA). This has been running for 20 years and has grown to cover over 70 percent of the worldwide fleet (under Power By the Hour terms), with more than 390 aircraft with more than 60 customers. It has also attracted larger airlines as well.

The GMA can be customised to suit the individual needs of airlines, depending on where they are in the world and their specific operating conditions, but the essence of GMA is repair, overhaul, pooling services of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) and transportation of LRUs to the airline’s facilities. For the first, ATR has a network of repair shops and by consolidating the work from several sources, can negotiate better prices. A faulty part is returned and replacement issued from one of three spares centres – Paris, Singapore and Miami. After repair, it is returned to the pool. The spares centres carry around $350 million in stock and 95% of orders are normally fulfilled in less than two days. Each operator has its own leased pool stock at its main operating base, the components held being based on actual consumption trends to avoid holding seldom used items, but it has access to the main pool as well. ATR says aircraft covered by GMA fly an average of 300 more flight hours per year compared to non-GMA aircraft, which amounts to $1 million of extra revenue over 10 years.

Payment is based on monthly flight hours, with a defined minimum level. Given that many operators are currently running a reduced schedule, Caballe says ATR has adjusted payments, as far as possible, in line with actual hours flown to help with reducing costs. Similarly, the monthly rate for stock access has been reduced as well. However, it has also reached out to non-GMA operators by allowing them temporary access to both the repair network (on a time and materials basis) and highly discounted standard exchange spares, helping their cash flow as well.

A further incentive is ‘Spares Day’, when components are offered with attractive price reductions. The first was held recently with a mix of parts including high consumption items. This is another way of ATR being able to assist customers in difficult times.

As GMA provides ATR with a detailed overview of trends in spares consumption and repairs, it has a team dedicated to engineering analysis. This can reveal an issue relating to a particular airline as it stands out from the rest of the worldwide fleet. Solutions can include upgrades, troubleshooting advice, training or specific maintenance procedures.

In recent years, leasing companies have become significant purchasers of ATR aircraft and the company is now offering complementary CAMO services as part of GMA. Leasing companies also want quick transitions between clients and this work often includes modifications. In addition, there is a constant improvement programme as requirements change.

Caballe says airframers cannot be too dogmatic about what happens to the aircraft. As this is not their core business, the response time can be long and it may also be expensive. Instead, ATR is taking a pragmatic approach, appreciating that there is considerable expertise elsewhere in the industry that can be harnessed.

In October, it released two new editions of its Upgrades Catalogues. They offer 120 solutions, such as cabin reconfigurations, inflight entertainment systems, avionics upgrades and passenger to freighter conversions. These can be carried out by ATR Service Bulletin or external Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) and minor modifications. In the last two years, ATR has developed a network of external Design Organisation Approval (DOA) partners: Aero Engineering Services, Akka Technologies, ECM Skyservices, Eirtech Aviation Services, PMV Engineering and Recaero.

A good example of this cooperation came earlier this year when there was an urgent need for light cargo solutions in response to the pandemic. In less than a month, ATR, Akka, PMV and Recaero came up with proposals for quick/temporary cargo conversions that allowed four additional tonnes of payload to be carried for the ATR 42 and 7 tonnes for the ATR 72.

The first solution was simply putting cargo on the seats or inside seat bags, restrained with straps that are either attached to the seats or fixed to the seat tracks. The second, called ‘floor-to-floor nets configuration’ saw removal of the seats and cargo placed on the floor and secured with nets attached to the seat tracks.

Caballe notes that the company has continued to gain GMA contracts during the crisis. One of the most important in recent times, signed in May, was with Finnair. Nordic Regional Airlines (NoRRA) operates a fleet of 12 ATR 72-500s on behalf of Finnair, feeding traffic to the major carrier’s Helsinki hub. On an historical note, Finnair may be a late comer to GMA but it took delivery of its first ATR in 1986, MSN 006.

The significance of this deal, he explains, is that it is for 10 years, which is longer than most, and that it goes much further than usual, tying the OEM closer to the airline. For example, ATR is committed to aircraft reliability and availability improvement, while its engineering department and those at Finnair and NoRRA will be collaborating. The latter will include the monitoring and analysis of in service events with the aim of improving troubleshooting capabilities and developing new maintenance procedures. He adds that careful analysis may lead to items being removed before they fail but this is not really predictive maintenance like the Airbus Skywise program, as the aircraft does not generate enough data.

That careful analysis has also been used to benefit the entire ATR community. Last year, A-check intervals were extended from 500 hours to 750 hours and the next step, expected in 1Q 2021, will see C-check intervals increase from 5,000 to 8,000 hours.

Finally, he says that all these efforts will ensure that airlines operating ATR aircraft will be well placed in a post-Covid future, where regional aviation will have a key role to play in terms of connecting people and economies, stimulating economic recovery and growth.

There is no doubt that fatal airline accidents, especially those involving maintenance, have decreased significantly over the last two decades.

That’s a good thing for three reasons: (1) Less people are killed; (2) Increased public confidence in aviation maintenance, and (3) the resources that were once tied up in the messy aftermath fatal accidents can now be applied to no-injury events that, but for the grace of God, and the redundancy of our aviation system, could have been catastrophic.

Nowadays, the biggest bang for the investigation buck can be found with deep-dives into the circumstances of no-injury airline incidents in order to cull out lessons learned to prevent potentially deadly crashes.

Case in point: American Airlines flight 1400 — a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 that experienced an in-flight engine fire after takeoff from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL), Missouri, on September 28, 2007. Fortunately, the flight crew conducted a successful emergency landing, and the 2 pilots, 3 flight attendants, and 138 passengers deplaned safely on the runway. No one was hurt, other than the left engine that suffered the fire. I was working at the NTSB at the time but was not involved in this investigation.

Regardless, I was proud to be a part of an agency that would commit investigator resources on an event that did not garner much public attention but was likely chock full of concerns about the operation of a large scheduled airline.

Engine Problems

The crew and passengers of flight 1400 were ready to go at the gate but attempts to start the left engine failed. The pilots called for a mechanic to help. A few minutes later, a mechanic instructed the captain to initiate the manual engine-start sequence by holding the engine-start switch while the maintenance personnel outside manually opened the left engine’s air turbine starter valve (ATSV). The engine started and the flight was on its way. As the airplane climbed through an altitude of about 500 feet above the ground, the cockpit Engine Fire warning bell rang out.

“Fire! Left Engine!” called the first officer, as captured on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The captain immediately turned back to STL as the first officer declared an emergency. The airplane began to experience electrical problems resulting in the loss of the captain’s primary flight and navigation displays. Attempts to start the auxiliary power unit (APU) for backup electrical power were not successful. The nose landing gear would not retract. Everything was going to hell in a hand basket (see graphics A-C, above).

The crew abandoned the approach and elected to go around. As flight 1400 flew past the tower, the controller radioed “there is quite a bit of black soot on that engine…the fire was real.” The crew manually lowered the nose gear, lined up again for landing, touched down safely on the runway and came to a stop. Airport firefighters arrived immediately and reported that the engine was still on fire! They put it out quickly and the passengers deplaned safely.

The Investigation

The NTSB did not immediately launch a full go-team. Instead, they “staked down” the damaged airplane by sending a field investigator to St. Louis from one of the NTSB regional offices that I managed. The next day, a “mini go-team” consisting of an investigator-in-charge (IIC) and three specialists in Operations, Powerplants and Maintenance Records arrived in St. Louis.

The wounded MD-82 was equipped with a Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine start system with a pneumatic air turbine starter to convert compressed air into rotational power sufficient to accelerate the engine to start. At the time of the accident, the established inspection interval for the ASTV was inadequate. The system includes an ATSV equipped with an air filter, an engine-start switch, and a pneumatic line (See graphic D page 40). The ATSV was an electrically controlled and pneumatically operated butterfly-type valve. If the electric start does not work, mechanics can utilize a lever arm with a manual override button. The ATSV filter comprises an inner screen consisting of a coarse stainless steel filter and an outer screen consisting of a finer stainless steel mesh (see graphic E). The ATSV filter comprises an inner screen consisting of a coarse stainless steel filter and an outer screen consisting of a finer stainless steel mesh (see graphic F page 40).

The ATSV air filter assembly components were removed from the burnt engine (see graphic G page 41) and examined by NTSB. The filter element was found fractured near the fitting braze joint and much of the filter element material was missing.

The remaining material was found adhered to the inner wall of the filter housing. Examination of the manual override button and ball valve housing revealed that the override button was buckled in an S-shape on the end of the pin closest to the ball valve and that the pin end was deformed with a concave indentation, as if someone had tried to use a pry bar on it.

At the time, the airline’s MD-80 Maintenance Procedures Manual contained one approved manual engine-start procedure, which stated that maintenance personnel must open the ATSV using an approved, specialized wrench to turn the wrenching flats on the upper end of the butterfly valve shaft and request that the flight crew activate the engine-start switch. During post-accident interviews, mechanics complained that the approved procedure was “very time consuming” and could take about 20 to 40 minutes to perform because the required wrench was not part of the standard tool kit. So, they usually chose to use a “prying device” to reach, depress and hold down the ATSV’s manual override button, which is accessed through a small panel located on the forward lower cowl door.

Investigators surmised that the ASTV filter element disintegrated, allowing the end cap to become free, which blocked the air flow and caused the engine no-start condition. Damage to the override button from a pry bar resulted in the uncommanded opening of the ATSV during the high-power engine conditions at the beginning of the takeoff roll and caused the air turbine starter to freewheel until it sustained a catastrophic internal failure. The open ATSV and resulting failed air turbine starter allowed a hotter than typical airstream to flow into the engine nacelle area and likely provided the ignition source for the in-flight fire.

Maintenance Records
Tell a Tale

During the 12-day period preceding the accident, the left engine ATSV was deferred and/or replaced a total of six times without resolving the engine no-start condition on the accident airplane. Over that time, the airline’s technical services personnel, who were assigned to review and act on alert items reported by line maintenance, issued three “Action to be Taken” notices in response to the alerts, indicating that they were aware of the repeated engine start failures and ATSV changes — but these actions failed to address the systemic issue. Instead of forbidding additional ATSV replacements until maintenance could properly troubleshoot and correct the problem, the airline continued to allow the airplane to be dispatched with deferrals against the left engine start system.

About four months after the STL engine fire, another uncommanded ATSV-open event occurred with an American Airlines MD-82 in in Salt Lake City. The airline removed the ATSV filter from the airplane and sent seven more serviceable filters to the NTSB for evaluation. Three of the seven filters revealed evidence of the onset of fatigue in the filter elements’ outer mesh. In addition, the airline sent 15 more serviceable ATSV filters to the filter manufacturer for inspection ­— five had damaged mesh and required replacement.

The NTSB determined that the early-stage fatigue fractures within the outer mesh were too small to be seen by the naked eye or when using 7-power magnification as recommended in the ASTV component maintenance manual (CMM). In addition, investigators found that the approved test method did not adequately detect early-stage fatigue cracks in the filter. The NTSB concluded that the inspection criteria for the ATSV-air filter were inadequate to detect early-stage fatigue fractures of the outer mesh of the filter element and that, because of the filter design, the inner mesh of the filter element could not be inspected for evidence of fatigue (see graphic H above).

In addition to the pry bar use, investigators also learned that airline maintenance personnel did not clean the accident ATSV filter in accordance with its C-check cleaning procedures and, therefore, missed an opportunity to identify and replace the damaged filter. The filter element disintegrated, allowing the end cap to become free, which blocked the air flow and caused the engine no-start condition.

Adding insult to injury, the NTSB discovered that the pilots failed to properly allocate tasks during the emergency, including checklist execution and radio communications, and this adversely affected their ability to conduct essential cockpit tasks.

Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS)

The FAA provides guidance to operators regarding Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) programs in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-79, “Developing and Implementing a Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System.” CASS is a risk management system required for commercial air carriers (per FAR 121.373 and Part 135.431) that comprises a continuous cycle of surveillance, investigation, analysis, and corrective action. The system provides a structured process of collecting and evaluating information to identify factors that could lead to an accident.

American Airlines had a CASS system, but it obviously was not robust enough to alert the company to recognize the recurring failed engine starts, ATSV replacements, and MEL deferments as a possible serious problem that needed to be systemically addressed. The NTSB stated that the unresolved ASTV maintenance problems were not adequately addressed through daily conference calls with maintenance and engineering staff conducted as part of the airline’s CASS program.

In addition, a CASS program is meant to ensure that an airline is following its inspection and maintenance procedures, but the investigation found that the airline was not complying with several maintenance program requirements including the use of approved manual engine-start procedures and appropriate tools to perform ATSV filter cleaning procedures during C-checks, and to correctly document the work accomplished on the accident airplane.

The Probable Cause and Words of Wisdom from NTSB

During the Board Meeting to close out this investigation, the NTSB determined that the probable cause was “maintenance personnel’s use of an inappropriate manual engine-start procedure, which led to the uncommanded opening of the left engine air turbine starter valve, and a subsequent left engine fire, which was prolonged by the flight crew’s interruption of an emergency checklist to perform nonessential tasks.” The Board also stated: “Contributing to the accident were deficiencies in American Airlines’ Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) program.”

The Board issued eight safety recommendations to the FAA, including one to establish an interval for servicing an engine component and another to evaluate the history of air start-related malfunctions in MD-80 airplanes. The Board also recommended that the airline evaluate and correct deficiencies in its CASS program.

“The airline’s own internal maintenance system…failed to do what it was designed to do,” said then-Chairman Mark Rosenker. “And that allowed this sequence of events to get rolling… Following the appropriate maintenance procedures would have gone a long way toward preventing this mishap.”

Board Member Kitty Higgins added her own view: “It seems to me it was a series of people taking short cuts that accumulated on this particular day into what could have been much more catastrophic.”

Automated wastewater treatment systems help the industry remain in compliance with EPA and local standards, while significantly reducing the cost of treatment, labor and disposal

In the manufacture, maintenance and cleaning of aircraft, the aerospace industry must meet EPA and local wastewater requirements for effluent, including those under the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA has identified 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants as “toxic pollutants”, of which 126 specific substances have been designated “priority” toxic pollutants. Failing to do so can result in severe fines that quickly escalate.

Typically, manufacturing military or commercial aircraft, jet engines, helicopters, or specialized parts can involve using process rinse water. This can be utilized while producing, deburring, or finishing aluminum, titanium, or composite parts. Water is also used for plating metals, molding composites, and manufacturing electronics. For example, in defense, to improve wear and tolerance, aerospace components can use cyanide cadmium plating, a process that produces a toxic waste that must be treated.

In addition, in the maintenance and cleaning of aircraft, washing may be utilized to rid everything from components to fleets of any dirt, debris, or residues that could degrade performance or aesthetics. In the commercial airline portion of aerospace, even running onboard amenities such as toilets and sinks can produce wastewater.

For the aerospace industry, this means installing a wastewater treatment system that effectively separates the contaminants from the water so it can be legally discharged into sewer systems or even re-used.

However, traditional wastewater treatment systems can be complex, often requiring multiple steps, a variety of chemicals and a considerable amount of labor. Even when the process is supposedly automated, too often technicians must still monitor the equipment in person. This usually requires oversight of mixing and separation, adding of chemicals, and other tasks required to keep the process moving. Even then, the water produced can still fall below mandated requirements.

Although paying to have aerospace industry wastewater hauled away is also an option, it is extraordinarily expensive. In contrast, it is much more cost effective to treat the industrial wastewater at its source, so treated effluent can go into a sewer and treated sludge passes a TCLP (Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure) test and can be disposed of as non-hazardous waste in a local landfill.

Fortunately, complying with EPA and local wastewater regulation has become much easier with more fully automated, wastewater treatment systems. Such systems not only reliably meet regulatory wastewater requirements, but also significantly reduce the cost of treatment, labor and disposal when the proper Cleartreat separating agents are also used.

Cost-Effective, Automated Wastewater Treatment

In contrast to labor-intensive multiple step processes, automated wastewater treatment can help to streamline production, usually with a one-step process, while lowering costs at aerospace facilities.

An automated wastewater treatment system can eliminate the need to monitor equipment in person while complying with EPA and locally mandated requirements. Such automated systems separate suspended solids, emulsified oil and heavy metals, and encapsulate the contaminants, producing an easily de-waterable sludge in minutes, according to aerospace industry consultants at Sabo Industrial Corp., a New York-based manufacturer, distributor and integrator of industrial waste treatment equipment and solutions, including batch and fully automated systems, Cleartreat separating agents, bag filters, and accessories.

The water is typically then separated using a de-watering table or bag filters before it is discharged into sewer systems or further filtered for re-use as process water. Other options for de-watering include using a filter press or rotary drum vacuum. The resulting solids are non-leachable and are considered non-hazardous, so will pass all required testing.

These systems are available as manual batch processors, semi-automatic, automatic and can be designed as a closed loop system for water reuse or provide a legally dischargeable effluent suitable for the sewer system. A new, fully customized system is not always required. In many cases, it can be faster and more cost effective to add to or modify a facility’s current wastewater treatment systems when this is feasible.

However, because every wastewater stream is unique to its industry and application, each wastewater treatment solution must be suited to or specifically tailored to the application. The first step in evaluating the potential cost savings and effectiveness of a new system is to sample the wastewater to determine its chemical make-up followed by a full review of local water authority requirements, say aerospace industry consultants at Sabo Industrial.

The volume of wastewater that will be treated is also analyzed, to determine if a batch unit or flow-through system is required. Other considerations include the size restrictions so the system fits within the facility’s available footprint.

Separating Agents

Despite all the advances in automating wastewater treatment equipment any such system requires effective separating agents which agglomerate with the solids in the wastewater so the solids can be safely and effectively separated out.

Because of the importance of separating agents for wastewater treatment, Sabo Industrial uses a special type of bentonite clay in a line of wastewater treatment chemicals called ClearTreat. This line of wastewater treatment chemicals is formulated to break oil and water emulsion, provide heavy metals removal, and promote flocculation, agglomeration and suspended solids removal.

Bentonite has a large specific surface area with a net negative charge that makes it a particularly effective adsorbent and ion exchange for wastewater treatment applications to remove heavy metals, organic pollutants, nutrients, etc. As such, bentonite is essential to effectively encapsulate the materials. This can usually be achieved in one-step treatment, which lowers process and disposal costs.

In contrast, polymer-based products do not encapsulate the toxins, so systems that use that type of separating agent are more prone to having waste products leach back out over time or upon further agitation.

Today’s automated systems along with the most effective Cleartreat separating agents can provide aerospace industry facilities with an easy, cost-effective alternative so they remain compliant with local ordinances and the EPA. Although there is a cost to these systems, they do not require much attention and can easily be more economical than paying fines or hauling.

For more information visit saboindustrial.com.

The company Research Frontiers developed light-control technology that enables any window, sunroof or skylight to control the transmission of light by electrically aligning nanoparticles in the film. The product is being used in aircraft and business jets like those from Textron, Honda and Epic and can be installed as an aftermarket modification. Aviation Maintenance spoke to the company’s vice president of Aerospace Products, Mike LaPointe to learn about the product and how it came to be.

What is the history of SmartGlass?

The roots of SPD-SmartGlass technology began with Dr. Edwin Land, founder of Polaroid Corporation. Research Frontiers, the developer and licensor of SPD (“Suspended Particle Device”) SmartGlass technology continued the early work done by Dr. Land and others had done in the area of light-control. The industry was built via a licensing business model – through license agreements with over 45 companies around the world, The SPD-SmartGlass industry has a robust supply chain infrastructure to serve the global market.

Why was it developed?

Glass and other types of transparent materials have been highly valued across many applications (e.g. buildings and transportation vehicles) for centuries, enabling people when indoors to continue to enjoy views and maintain their connection to the outside world. The downside to the use of transparent panels is that visible light, glare and heat can become too intense. SPD-SmartGlass provides the solution by enabling users to precisely control and manage these elements.

What industries are already using SmartGlass?

Research Frontiers’ SPD-SmartGlass technology is being used in tens of thousands of cars, aircraft, yachts, trains, homes, offices, museums and other buildings around the world.

How long has it been in use for aviation applications?

The first installation of SPD-Smart EDWs (Electronically Dimmable Windows) on aircraft was in 2001, on a Learjet 25.

You talk about the glass being “tunable” – please explain what that means.

SPD-Smart EDWs on aircraft switch from transparent to over 99 percent light-blocking, and any state of tint in between. This enables the passengers to “tune” the level of tint to any level between clear and dark, by use of any type of switch that can vary the voltage applied to the EDW, similar to a dimmer switch for light bulbs or LEDs.

Is the tunability one extreme or the other – clear or dark or is it adjustable like a rheostat?

It is infinitely tunable. Unlike other types of glass, with the touch of a button passengers can instantly change the tint of SPD-SmartGlass windows onboard aircraft from dark to clear and anywhere in-between. This allows passengers to get the optimum ideal amount of shade or light and to preserve views without the clunky pull down shades that are typically found on most aircraft. Moreover, SPD-SmartGlass windows can be in tuned on a window-by-window basis so that each passenger can get the exact amount of light they are looking for.

Please explain technically how the glass works. Are there any special considerations for aircraft operation?

The foundation of SPD-Smart aircraft EDWs use SPD film enclosed between thin plastic layers. Within this film are microscopic particles. When no electrical voltage is present, the particles absorb light and block it from passing through the film. When an electrical voltage is applied, the particles align so that light can pass through. Adjusting the voltage to the film provides a range of transparencies (i.e. very dark to fully clear) where light transmission can be rapidly varied to any degree desired depending upon preference or pre-programmed requirements. The SPD film is laminated between two layers of substrates (polycarbonate, acrylic, chemically strengthened glass, etc.), and this EDW then sits in a window shroud. Historical installations include a scratch lens inboard of the EDW to protect it, however, recent advancements in chemically strengthened glass demonstrating FAA/EASA compliance offer the SPD-SmartGlass industry the opportunity to have a single panel function not only as the EDW but for the scratch lens as well. The SPD-Smart EDW system is 28Vdc that integrates into the aircraft electrical system.

And the electrical current doesn’t impact any avionics equipment onboard?

That is correct. All components: the SPD-Smart EDW panel, the controller, the master switching unit, the emergency power supply, the control switch, and all of the wiring harnesses have gone through full DO-160 testing to ensure all of the components do not emit any EMI/RFI signals on to existing avionic equipment.

Aircraft pressurization is not an issue?

The SPD-Smart EDW is not a structural window, and is located on the interior side and is non-structural. This panel feels what the passenger feels, so a cabin altitude of 8000 feet or less.

Can SmartGlass be used in any size aircraft window?

Yes, including any shape and on curved panels.

Are these windows FAA/EASA approved now?

Yes, they are both FAA and EASA approved via STC, PMA, and OEM TC.

Are they installed and flying in aircraft now?

Yes, they are standard equipment on new production aircraft including King Air 350i, King Air 250, King Air C90GTx, Honda Aircraft HondaJet, Epic E1000, and others. Including aftermarket installations, SPD-Smart EDWs have been installed on over 50 models of aircraft.

What products are available now for aircraft?

The product is available for passenger windows; cockpit lateral windows; cockpit sun visors; and cabin partitions.

What are the benefits of using SmartGlass in an aircraft?

The overarching benefit of SPD-Smart aircraft EDWs is improving the passenger experience. Passengers and crews can “tune” the amount of light coming into the aircraft cabin, at the touch of a button – to preserve views, reduce unwanted glare, and manage the optimum amount of healthy daylight for passenger well-being. Cabin-wide control of the amount of light and glare entering the aircraft improves the flying experience for all, instantly transforming the cabin interior, and synergistically complementing other systems, such as mood lighting and in-flight entertainment systems. Aircraft windows are a primary path for heat, noise, glare and other environmental elements entering an aircraft through the window opening. These unwanted elements – cabin heat while the aircraft is on the ramp, and cabin noise during the entire flight – are well known to cause passengers discomfort, fatigue, jet lag and other ailments. SPD-SmartEDWs, with their multilayer configuration of films and interlayers, provide all passengers with a cooler, quieter, and more comfortable cabin.