Tag: Featured Story

A conversation with Gilles Mercier, CEO of Barfield.

Barfield is celebrating its 80th anniversary as a company. Acquired in 2014 by Air France KLM Engineering & Maintenance, the company has grown into a now world-leading multi-product aviation maintenance provider with over 500 customers and supporting nearly 250 aircraft globally. Its services include MRO (maintenance, repair, and overhaul), ground support test equipment (GSTE), distribution, rotable and trading, and drones.

We sat down with Gilles Mercier, CEO of Barfield, to discuss the company’s legacy, current challenges in the aviation industry, and his outlook on the future of aviation maintenance.

Aviation Maintenance: It’s my understanding that Barfield is celebrating their 80th anniversary. Can you provide an overview of the company, its history, and where it’s at today in the aviation industry?

Gilles Mercier: Barfield has been a trusted name in aviation for 80 years now. Mr. James Barfield founded the company as an electronic shop in 1945 with a group of fellow veterans. Remarkably, we still operate in the same building where it all began, near the airport.

Over the decades, Barfield evolved into a key player in the MRO sector, distribution, and ground support test equipment. Today, as part of the Air France KLM Group, we serve airlines, MROs, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and military customers together with helicopter and general aviation operators.

We operate from four locations: Miami where we also have our headquarters; Precision Electronics in Atlanta; Phoenix, Arizona; and Louisville, Kentucky.

Aviation Maintenance: From your perspective, what are some of the challenges that you see in the aviation industry and specifically with your customers and prospects who seek out your services?

Mercier: The industry is constantly evolving. Right now, our customers are facing significant supply chain disruptions and are looking to reduce operating costs.

There is also a shortage of skilled labor. Many technicians retired after Covid and more retirement looms in the next years, and the demand for qualified technicians is growing. This labor gap is a major concern for the overall industry.

In addition, airlines are integrating newer aircraft while still operating older models, which creates complexity in maintenance strategies.

Aviation Maintenance: Looking forward, how stable do you feel the supply chain is for aviation maintenance in general and what are some of the risks you see on the horizon? How has Barfield approached this facet of the aviation industry?

Mercier: The supply chain remains fragile, though it’s improving year over year. Lead times are unpredictable, and parts availability can be affected by obsolescence or shifts in demand.

At Barfield we have built strong relationships with our suppliers and OEMs. We provide them with clear visibility into our needs, which helps with inventory planning and reduces disruptions. Since Covid, we’ve invested heavily in this approach. Our team of talented engineers also plays a critical role in developing solutions for our airlines and partners when challenges arise.

Aviation Maintenance: Looking forward 3-5 years, what will the aviation maintenance industry look like and be challenged with?

Mercier: Training and retention are critical not only for Barfield, but for the entire industry. Aviation demands high standards and strict processes, and you can’t train someone overnight.

We focus on knowledge transfer at Barfield. We pair younger team members with more experienced employees to ensure continuity and prepare for the future.

Aviation Maintenance: What do you feel is key to success in the aviation industry and are there any stories you can tell that demonstrate such success?

Mercier: I can only speak from my 17 years in the industry. I’ve learned that success hinges on reliability and relationships. You must do what you say and say what you do. Aviation is global, but it’s also a tight-knit community of highly skilled professionals.

One story that stands out to me is from the Covid period. With travel restrictions in place, we wanted to maintain our connection with customers. So, our team created a cookbook featuring recipes from Barfield team members. Each recipe was prefaced by a personal story explaining its special meaning and connection to their families. We sent the cookbooks to our customers as a gift, and it was so well received that we now publish one annually. One customer even asked if they could replicate the idea for their own company and we happily agreed.

I’m proud to be part of Barfield’s journey. The company wouldn’t exist without our team members, some of whom worked directly with Mr. Barfield many years ago. As we welcome new talent into the company, we remain committed to our values and legacy. We maintain our strong relationships with our customers and partners, and our team is looking forward to serving the aviation community for the next 80 years.

The aviation maintenance industry stands at a particular juncture where traditional hands-on expertise meets ever-evolving digital technology. As aircraft systems become increasingly sophisticated and maintenance operations integrate artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and automated monitoring systems, the human element remains both the most important asset and ultimate decision maker.

Human factors in aviation maintenance have evolved far beyond the foundational concerns of tool management and procedural compliance. Today’s maintenance technicians must navigate a hybrid cognitive landscape where physical dexterity intersects with data interpretation, where experience-based intuition must coexist with algorithm-generated recommendations, and where fatigue management requires both technological sophistication and fundamental human awareness.

The integration of fatigue risk management systems (FRMS) within safety management systems (SMS) represents a paradigm shift towards a predictive safety culture. Simultaneously, the emergence of AI-powered predictive maintenance systems challenges technicians to become interpreters of probabilistic data while maintaining their critical role as decision makers in complex, high-stakes environments.

This convergence of human capability and technological advancement creates new opportunities for safety and efficiency, yet it also introduces cognitive challenges that can have profound implications for aviation safety. Understanding how cognitive biases influence the adoption of AI systems, how shifting workloads affect mental processing, and how automated tools can either support or undermine human judgment is becoming essential for maintenance organizations.

In this feature, we examine these critical intersections, drawing insights from industry experts to illustrate both the promise and the pitfalls of current technological evolutions.

FRMS, SMS, and Technology-Based Fatigue Monitoring

Automated FRMSs are designed to integrate with an organization’s SMS, according to Michael Parrish, president of Elliott Aviation. “They can provide information that helps make better planning and staffing decisions within a safety framework. They use data and science to help predict and manage fatigue risk, but they do not replace human judgment,” he says. “Fatigue management is ultimately aimed at ensuring the safety and effectiveness of teams. If automated tools can help achieve this goal without adding unnecessary burden, they are worth exploring as part of an overall safety strategy.”

Dr. Antonio Cortés of GMR Human Performance affirms that FRMS seek to prevent one of the most basic factors and causes of human error, i.e., the significant impairment of human performance once a certain level of fatigue has been exceeded. “We know that fatigue directly impacts many of our personal actions, such as increasing the risk of cognitive fixation, sometimes referred to as channelled attention or tunnelling, or distraction. It is no surprise, then, that FRMS are promoted by EASA, FAA, and ICAO, among other agencies. A good FRMS will address the main causes of fatigue, which are sleep loss, circadian misalignment and workload. By integrating fatigue monitoring as a key component of hazard identification and risk assessment into the SMS’ systematic safety processes, better performance is achieved,” he says. “It is like enhancing our efforts. Furthermore, such anti-fatigue interventions should not be performed only at the technician or inspector level. They require teamwork, close collaboration, and a coordinated approach, many of which should already be present with a good SMS. By integrating this commitment into an SMS, one should aim to also benefit from the established identity protection measures that help foster a Just Culture and encourage voluntary reporting of fatigue-related safety issues.”

An FRMS integrated into existing SMS hazard reporting and corrective action processes, rather than being treated as a standalone initiative, fosters overall safety improvements by learning from fatigue alerts, according to Dr. Cortés. “A technician once told me about his wife, a software engineer, who was working herself to the bone and found herself with five days of extra work due to a single typo. In her exhaustion, she had typed the letter ‘O’ instead of the number ‘0.’ This is exactly the kind of error an FRMS should help us avoid — small oversights that become major headaches when fatigue is left unchecked,” he points out. “How would FRMS handle such a situation, if it were self-reported by the individual, if it were managed autonomously, outside of an SMS? Would the system find a Just Culture solution?”

More sophisticated FRMSs can leverage machine learning algorithms to monitor work cycles, circadian rhythms, weather impacts, and even data from wearable sensors to estimate fatigue levels, observes Dr. Cortés. “Such a system can even predict a high fatigue window, recommend postponing non-critical inspections, and assign a second technician in such cases. This growing sophistication and use of technology in FRMSs is also occurring in SMS,” he says. “However, low-tech approaches guided by human factors principles should not be overlooked. These approaches can include developing policies for work-rest scheduling practices and promoting healthy habits that become almost automatic, such as listing and verifying steps on a checklist to avoid overlooking an indication or condition, maintaining hydration, double-checking work, or learning to detect mutual fatigue symptoms using a ‘buddy’ system.”

Automated fatigue risk management belongs inside the SMS as an enabler, not as a parallel system, according to Jonathan Huff, senior solutions engineer at TeamViewer. “When paired with TeamViewer Frontline’s augmented reality (AR)-enabled workflows, fatigue-related signals become contextual, actionable inputs that strengthen the SMS’ core pillars: hazard identification, risk assessment, mitigation, assurance and promotion of a just safety culture,” he says. “When fatigue monitoring is implemented through an AR-native platform like TeamViewer Frontline, it becomes a practical safety layer: earlier detection, clearer mitigations, and objective records that support continuous improvement — provided design respects human factors, preserves worker control and avoids creating new cognitive or administrative burdens.”

Human factors principles should guide the implementation of technology-based fatigue monitoring to avoid creating additional stressors, including prioritizing situational fit and minimal interruption, affirms Huff. “AR prompts and fatigue alerts should be designed so they appear only when relevant to the task phase, and present concise, actionable guidance rather than lengthy diagnostics. Head-mounted displays and voice control should be used to keep technicians focused on the physical task and reduce the cognitive cost of shifting attention,” he says. “Technicians should be allowed to acknowledge an alert, request a remote expert, or follow a defined mitigative workflow rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all lockout. Using TeamViewer Frontline’s guided workflows in training, workers experience the fatigue-mitigation workflows in low-risk settings before relying on them in service. Lastly, routine follow-ups and reporting should be automated to avoid increasing administrative workload, and TeamViewer Frontline dashboards should be used to make organizational risk visible without manual collation.”

Human factors initiatives not directly related to fatigue prevention also help prevent fatigue-related errors, such as automatic toolboxes that alert about tool shortages at the end of the shift, according to Dr. Cortés. “The more one invests in raising awareness of how it is not possible to simply ‘tackle fatigue’ with force, and the more one learns about maintenance resource management (MRM) procedures and habits to fatigue-proof tasks, the fewer unwanted maintenance events one will experience,” he says. “The current SMS framework can be leveraged for FRMS purposes by defining policies, identifying and managing fatigue-related risks, measuring these factors as part of safety assurance and promoting awareness that fatigue can be lethal.”

Cognitive Workload Changing and Digital System Interaction

Parrish points out that with the rise of technology in maintenance processes, the cognitive workload for technicians is changing. “Traditional maintenance relied largely on manual skills and experience, while today’s work often involves interacting with digital systems, troubleshooting software and interpreting data, in addition to hands-on tasks. This requires technicians to span different types of thinking. They must move from physical, task-based work to analyzing information and making decisions based on technology reports. To adapt, we focus on training, soft skills, and providing teams with the tools they need to gain confidence in using new systems,” he says. “The goal is to ensure that technology supports our technicians rather than creating unnecessary complexity. By providing clear procedures, ongoing training, and access to resources, we help our teams manage these transitions effectively while maintaining the high standards of safety and quality our customers expect.”

According to Dr. Phillip Jasper, principal on the Human Factors and User Research team at J.S. Held, the current transformation in cognitive workload introduces dual task demands, requiring technicians to seamlessly transition from hands-on, mechanical work to interacting with digital interfaces. “This cognitive switching can lead to increased task fragmentation, increased mental workload, and workflow disruptions. That said, not all impacts are cause for concern, as well-designed automated systems can significantly increase efficiency and ease technicians’ workload by taking responsibility for routine tasks, allowing them to focus exclusively on those that truly require their attention. Conversely, poorly designed systems often require constant input or supervision, further increasing technicians’ workload rather than alleviating it,” he says. “Adapting to these changes requires thoughtful interface design; for example, minimizing cognitive load through intuitive layouts, as well as training that reflects real-world task transitions. Simulation-based training or hands-on scenario exercises that include both digital and manual transitions can help crews develop the mental models needed to operate confidently in hybrid workflows.”

AR-assisted maintenance does not eliminate cognitive work, but it redistributes and refines it, according to Huff. “A TeamViewer Frontline’s peculiarity is that it shifts routine information handling away from fragile human memory while preserving the technician’s role as the critical decision maker. With thoughtful training, interface design, and governance, teams can reduce unnecessary cognitive switching, improve throughput, and raise safety and quality simultaneously,” he says.

AI-Powered Predictive Maintenance

AI-based predictive maintenance has the potential to improve efficiency by predicting and reporting problems before they occur, Dr. Jasper affirms. “However, these systems shift the technician’s role from problem solver to interpreter of probabilistic data, a cognitively different task. One of the primary challenges of human factors in this context is understanding uncertainty,” he says. “AI systems often provide probabilities or confidence levels, which technicians must translate into actionable decisions. Another challenge is overconfidence and under confidence. If AI predictions are accepted without thorough analysis, critical issues may go undetected or, conversely, ignored due to scepticism. Finally, alert fatigue, a well-known challenge that human factors scientists have been discussing for decades, can desensitize users to frequent and ineffective alerts, similar to the problems observed in cockpit warning systems.”

AI-powered predictive maintenance systems reduce the mental burden on users by automating data analysis, detecting faults early, simplifying interfaces, and offloading routine decisions, affirms Huff. “However, risks include overreliance on AI, diminished user skills, reduced trust under cognitive overload, and increased mental strain from poorly designed interfaces,” he says.

Dr. Cortés believes that too often, when referring to human factors, there is a tendency to discuss obvious and complex topics, like distractions and communication breakdowns, without realizing that there are many smaller, subtle effects that impact human performance in unexpected but significant ways. “For example, the thinking biases all humans have influence the adoption and use of AI-based predictive maintenance systems for decision making. Biases are sometimes difficult to understand, but they can influence human thinking in ways that silently have a significant impact, especially if one’s own biases begin to feed back into oneself,” he says. “Many people find it flashy to talk about artificial intelligence, the incredible practical insights AI can generate in maintenance, or about how it helps anticipate problems while simultaneously improving safety, reliability, and operational efficiency. But AI proponents themselves often shy away from discussing data, as such conversations lack the brilliance of AI.”

If the goal is to have reliable AI, whether for predictive maintenance or other processes, there must first be a discussion on data quality and completeness, affirms Dr. Cortés. “For AI-based systems, data is essentially the fuel of the system. Poor data quality or an incomplete amount of data can produce inaccurate AI output. This explains the growing emphasis, rightfully so, with the ‘certified data’ that fuels AI systems. Predictive excellence depends on data quality,” he says. “There is a tendency to overlook the quality and completeness of data when talking about AI. Humans are naturally drawn to new and exciting ideas, a tendency some call ‘novelty bias’. There is a predisposition to be captivated by the new and shiny, to the detriment of familiar fundamentals. Furthermore, humans fall prey to the availability heuristic, judging importance based on what comes to mind first. Because AI success stories are everywhere, one can overestimate the true effectiveness of AI and pay less attention to hidden factors. Humans may also fall victim to an overconfidence bias, which leads to overestimate the reliability of data and AI systems.”

To address current challenges, AI system design should promote transparency, while maintenance organizations may consider investing in training that teaches not only how to use AI but also how to think in concert with it, according to Dr. Jasper. “This builds appropriate trust and preserves the technician’s critical thinking role. However, caution is needed, as AI is not yet sufficiently advanced to serve as a completely reliable tool for detecting fatigue or other cognitive states,” he says. “More research is needed before we can accurately measure the complex processes of the human brain, let alone rely on AI to interpret that information or generate recommendations based solely on its inputs.”

Cognitive Bias and Over-Reliance Issues

When working with AI-generated recommendations, one of the challenges is the potential risk of cognitive bias, observes Parrish. “Technicians may become overly reliant on the system, assuming its recommendations are always correct, or they may underestimate valuable information if it conflicts with their own experience. Confirmation bias and automation bias are common examples that can influence the decision-making process. Balancing human expertise with system recommendations requires a structured approach,” he says. “Technicians should be trained to critically evaluate data and use AI insights as one input among many. Clear procedures, cross-checks, and open communication help ensure that human judgment remains central, especially when recommendations conflict with practical experience. The key is to view technology as a tool to enhance the decision-making process, not replace it, so that safety and quality remain the top priorities.”

Huff illustrates some other cognitive biases which may be observed when working with AI systems. “The anchoring bias occurs when AI recommendations ‘anchor’ a user’s thinking, making it harder to consider alternative options. The authority bias is when users treat AI systems as authoritative, leading to blind trust in outputs. The framing effect is when the way AI presents information influences decisions, even if the underlying data is the same,” he says. “By fostering collaboration rather than competition between AI and human expertise, organizations can unlock the full potential of predictive maintenance while minimizing errors and maximizing trust. AI excels at pattern recognition and data crunching, but it lacks contextual intelligence, i.e., the ability to understand why a machine might behave differently in a specific environment or under unusual conditions. Human experts bring intuition, experience and adaptability that AI simply cannot replicate.”

According to Dr. Jasper, organizations should design collaboratively. “Interfaces should present AI data in a way that supports human reasoning; for example, highlighting the reason why a particular prediction was made. Organizations may also consider establishing escalation protocols so that, when AI recommendations conflict with expert judgment, there is a clear and structured way to resolve the discrepancies without fear of repercussions,” he says. “Ultimately, the goal is to create human-AI teams, where each supports the other’s strengths, so that AI provides speed and scalability, while humans contribute context, experience and judgment.”

Summing Up

The future of aviation maintenance lies not in choosing between human expertise and technological capability, but in converging towards their optimal integration. The most significant advances in maintenance safety and efficiency emerge when sophisticated systems enhance rather than replace human judgment, when fatigue management combines scientific rigor with practical awareness, and when cognitive biases are acknowledged and addressed rather than ignored.

The implementation of comprehensive FRMS within existing SMS frameworks demonstrates that effective safety management requires both systematic processes and cultural commitment. Technology can predict fatigue windows and recommend staffing adjustments, but the cultivation of Just Culture principles and voluntary reporting mechanisms depends fundamentally on human leadership and organizational values. The most advanced monitoring systems remain ineffective without the human factors foundation that encourages open communication about safety concerns.

Similarly, the promise of AI-powered predictive maintenance systems will only be realized when organizations invest equally in data quality and the training of human operators. The cognitive shift from problem solver to data interpreter represents a fundamental transformation in the maintenance technician’s role, one that requires thoughtful interface design, comprehensive training programs and the development of new models for hybrid workflows. The recognition that data quality has cornerstone importance underscores that technological advancement must be grounded in meticulous attention to foundational elements.

Perhaps most critically, the challenge of cognitive biases, from automation bias to confirmation bias, reveals that human factors considerations must evolve alongside technological capabilities. The goal is not to eliminate human judgment but to enhance it through structured verification processes, collaborative interfaces and escalation protocols that honor both algorithmic insights and experiential wisdom.

Moving forward, maintenance organizations that embrace this integrated approach will find themselves better positioned to navigate the increasing complexity of modern systems. By fostering human-AI teams where each element supports the other’s strengths, these organizations can achieve the dual objectives of enhanced safety and efficiency while maintaining the human-centred focus that has always been the main asset of aviation safety.

The path ahead demands investment in the more challenging but ultimately more rewarding work of optimizing human-technology partnerships. In this endeavor, the maintenance technician remains what they have always been: a guardian of flight safety, now equipped with predictive tools to fulfill this critical role.

A critical enabler of aviation, composite repair ensures continued airworthiness and aircraft reliability.

Composite materials offer the aerospace industry many benefits because they are stronger, lighter and more durable than metals like aluminum for many components and applications. These materials’ repair is a vital part of maintaining today’s aircraft. With their increasing use in airframes, control surfaces, nacelles and interiors, the ability to repair rather than replace them helps operators reduce costs, minimize downtime and extend the service life of critical structures, while ensuring safety and regulatory compliance.

“Composite repair is the unsung backbone of the aviation industry,” says Nick McDonald, vice president and general manager of Evans Composites, Mansfield, Texas. “As fleets age and shift increasingly toward composite materials, its role has become indispensable. At its core, composite repair ensures that the external components of every aircraft remain safe, reliable and airworthy.”

Sunny Mirchandani, general manager at HAECO Composite Services, Greensboro, North Carolina, explains that, “Composite materials now account for more than half of the structure in advanced aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 …making it a critical enabler of modern aviation. Effective repair solutions are essential not only to restore structural integrity after damage but also to ensure the continued airworthiness and reliability of these aircraft throughout their life cycle. By maintaining safety standards while minimizing downtime and cost, composite repair supports both operational efficiency and the long-term sustainability of the aerospace industry.”

Repair Techniques

While there are different composite repair procedures, each has the basic function of restoring a part’s structural performance, aerodynamic smoothness and safety certification.

Composite cosmetic repairs are used when the integrity of a part is not affected by the damage. “Cosmetic repairs address surface scratches, paint or erosion without affecting structural integrity,” says Nick Weber, regional vice president of Middle East, EXECUJET MRO Services, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Scarf repairs remove damaged material and tapers the edges to bond in new composite layers. “[This] provides structural integrity and restores aerodynamic shape,” says Kyle Shoemaker, director of marketing at Coltala Aerospace, Mansfield, Texas. “Bolted/bonded patch repairs add a composite or metallic patch over the damaged area using fasteners or adhesive. [This] provides strength quickly but may not be as aerodynamic.”

Wet layup repair is a practical solution for less structurally demanding applications or field-level repairs. “Resin injections fill damaged areas with resin under pressure, or a flush plug patch by removing the damaged section and filling the hole with adhesive material,” says François Fermaut, aerostructures operations director at Vallair. “This also includes some temporary wet layup repairs performed on the aircraft through the installation of composite layers impregnated with resin and cured under a vacuum bag with a hot bonding system.”

“Wet layup involves saturating dry fiber material, typically fiberglass or carbon fiber, with resin, layering it to restore strength and then curing it under controlled conditions,” adds Patrick Meyer, senior vice president and general manager at STS Aviation Services, Shannon, Ireland.

In contrast to wet layup repair, pre-preg repairs use fabric pre-impregnated with resin, requiring controlled temperature and pressure — typically through an autoclave or heat blanket — to cure. “This method offers greater consistency and strength, making it the preferred choice for load-bearing or primary structures,” Mirchandani says. “While both techniques aim to restore structural performance and airworthiness, the selection depends on the criticality of the component, repair environment and operational requirements.”

“Core replacement focuses on damaged honeycomb or foam structures, which is crushed or moisture-contaminated,” Meyer says. “The damaged core is removed and replaced before being sealed with new plies. Vacuum bagging is often used with wet layup and core replacement techniques to eliminate air pockets and excess resin, while controlled heat application ensures uniform curing and a stronger bond. The end goal is always the same: restore the original strength, rigidity and aerodynamic profile of the component.”

Difficult to Repair

Some composites are more difficult to repair than others. And, any structures with complex geometries or limited access will be a challenging repair. This includes, “Structures that have integrated (molded) stiffeners such as stringers in composite wing skin and fuselage designs,” says Louis C. Dorworth, direct services manager at Abaris Training Resources Inc., Sparks, Nevada. “These are susceptible to high energy, wide area, blunt impact (HEWABI) damage from ground vehicles and other overloading situations, and are hard to detect, inspect and repair. On a smaller scale, parts and structures with compound contoured, aerodynamic requirements can be challenging and often require localized tooling to maintain surfaces.”

Meyer explains that large structural components such as fuselage sections, wing skins or internal load-bearing members are particularly challenging because they cannot always be removed from the aircraft. “In those cases, repairs must be performed in situ, often in less-than-ideal environments compared to a clean workshop. This creates added challenges for quality control, health and safety, and environmental conditions like dust, temperature and humidity, all of which directly affect repair outcomes.”

At Vallair, Fermaut has witnessed three problematic composite repair scenarios:

• The position of the damage. When Vallair technicians need to repair the lower skin of the fly control, it’s not always evident how to properly install the repair patch and the vacuum bag due to gravity.

• The shape of the part to be repaired. If the surface is not flat, the part needs to be removed and Vallair needs to perform some local tooling to support the material during curing process mainly for the belly fairing and radomes.

• The nacelle parts — the composite is exposed to lots of stress, environmental or heat damage. For those units Vallair teams normally need to remove them from the aircraft and send to the shop to perform the defect analyses and repair to the correct condition.

Weber agrees that composite repairs are more challenging on curved or complex geometries like winglets, nacelles and radomes because achieving correct ply orientation, surface preparation and vacuum bagging can be technically demanding. “Large, bonded structures, such as fuselage skins, can also be difficult due to access, repair size and the need for precise curing conditions.”

Composite Repair Evolution

In the last five years, Fermaut says Vallair has increased non-destructive testing (NDT) during composite repairs, at different stages including initial inspection and/or final check. Even if they still use visual and TAP test methods to find disbanding in a sandwich structure, the use of thermographic or ultrasonic inspection is now a key factor. “This process gives us a clear understanding of the condition of the part and we can perform a clear mapping of the damage. In the MRO repair environment, Vallair can see improvements at all stages of a repair. During inspection, advanced NDT methods produce a correct mapping of the damage. During the repair itself new scarfing tools ensure repeatable and accurate repair geometries. During the curing system portable hot bonding systems [have improved]. And there has been improvement of the repair material itself: adhesive and resin.”

Composite repair sophistication has advanced significantly via artificial intelligence, machine learning and advanced software tools. Collectively, these technologies are slowly transforming composite repair from a highly manual craft into a more data-driven, precise and predictive discipline, ultimately improving safety, efficiency and sustainability in aviation maintenance.

“At its core, AI involves creating algorithms and models that can analyze data, identify patterns and make decisions based on that analysis,” Mirchandani says. “Without quality data, AI models are ineffective. AI adoption for composite repairs would require an AI database of repairs. For this to happen, many MROs, operators and OEMs would need to foster collaboration and promote transparency to contribute repair-data as a source for AI database. Composite repairs are a special skill and require process, materials and tools that are often of competitive advantage and an IP of the organization. There has been adoption of AI and machine learning (ML) and NDT where AI can identify and characterize damage (e.g., delamination, impact cracks) far more consistently than the human eye, thus reducing inspection time and eliminating technician subjectivity.”

ML algorithms can analyze large datasets from previous repairs and inspections, helping refine repair strategies and forecast material behavior. It supports continuous improvement by studying thousands of repair outcomes, refining processes and recommending more efficient repair schemes.

McDonald has witnessed the development of complex composite 3-D printing of aircraft components. He says it allows for the production of hard-to-find components at cheaper prices and in some cases higher durability. Also, “A major improvement in our shop is the use of a new cloud-based ERP allowing our technicians to have their data with them when they need it and not having to waste time returning to a workstation.”

“Advances in NDI methods and equipment continue to make inspection easier and more precise,” Dorworth says. “A technician can do the inspection on the part, on the aircraft, and consult in real time virtually with an offsite ASNT Level III engineer to best understand the damage assessment prior to and after damage removal and repair.”

New technologies such as Smart Susceptor heat systems are finding their way into procedures. This equipment plays an active role in heat distribution over the repair area by reducing heat to hotter areas while continuing to heat cooler areas. Dorworth says it helps compensate for underlying heatsinks such as frames and stringers. “Other innovations such as using double vacuum debulk (DVD) processing for near autoclave quality patches to embedded heat sensors, surface-tolerant repair resins and other emerging technologies continue to enhance aviation composite repairs moving forward.”

Into the Cloud

Cloud-based and internal digital platforms, along with hand-held tablets or cell phones allow the technician/mechanic direct access to instructions, drawings, specifications and serialized record-keeping programs where step-by-step photo documentation can be stored. Weber explains that because of cloud testing, remote monitoring, and sharing of repair and curing data allows OEMs and operators to verify repair compliance in real time, enhancing traceability and quality assurance.

Digital transformation is indeed reshaping aviation repair and testing by making maintenance more predictive, data-driven and connected. Cloud-based platforms now store repair records, inspection results and historical data, enabling maintenance teams to access information globally in real time. “Combined with digital twin technology, operators can simulate the performance of components under various conditions, track degradation and anticipate failures before they occur,” Mirchandani says. “This supports predictive maintenance, where algorithms analyze fleet-wide trends to forecast repair needs, reduce unscheduled downtime and optimize maintenance planning. Ultimately, digital transformation enhances reliability, efficiency and safety while lowering lifecycle costs.”

“Composite repairs are not ‘difficult’ but they require the technician to follow all the processes without deviation, precise layering, bonding, curing and inspection,” Fermaut says. “A single mistake can compromise the entire structure. If the process is properly followed the repair can meet or exceed the strength of the original structure. Most composite repairs are invisible when completed and covered by the paint scheme of the aircraft. A proper follow-up of those repairs and a complete record needs to be kept by the CAMO to warranty the airworthiness of the aircraft.”

A Core Competency

Composite structure repair has moved to the forefront of aviation safety and reliability. It is not simply a maintenance task — it is a highly specialized discipline that combines materials science, precision engineering and advanced technologies to ensure structural integrity. It requires a unique combination of technical knowledge, precision and environmental control. Meyer believes that unlike traditional metalwork, mistakes in composite repair can compromise the structure in ways that are difficult to detect until much later. “That is why investment in training, tools and procedures is so critical. As more aircraft move to composite structures, the industry must continue to raise awareness that composite repair is a core competency, not an afterthought.”

Acknowledging that composite repair is indeed an essential core competency for modern MROs and no longer a niche capability, Weber stresses that with composite content in new-generation aircraft continuing to rise, “Operators should ensure they partner with MROs that have the facilities, OEM approvals and skilled technicians to handle both minor and complex composite repairs efficiently and safely.”

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects severe supply chain issues to continue to impact airline performance into 2025, raising costs and limiting growth.

IATA quantified the scale of the challenges facing airlines because of supply chain issues in its latest airline industry outlook:

• Average age of the global fleet has risen to a record 14.8 years, a significant increase from the 13.6 years average for the period 1990-2024.

• Aircraft deliveries have fallen sharply from the peak of 1,813 aircraft in 2018. The estimate for 2024 deliveries is 1,254 aircraft, a 30% shortfall on what was predicted going into the year. In 2025, deliveries are forecast to rise to 1,802, well below earlier expectation for 2,293 deliveries with further downward revisions in 2025 widely seen as quite possible.

• The backlog (cumulative number of unfulfilled orders) for new aircraft has reached 17,000 planes, a record high. At present delivery rates, this would take 14 years to fulfil, double the six-year average backlog for the 2013-2019 period. However, the waiting time is expected to shorten as delivery rates increase.

• The number of “parked” aircraft is 14% (approximately 5,000 aircraft) of the total fleet (35,166 as at December 2024, including Russian-built aircraft). While this has improved recently, parked aircraft remain 4 percentage points higher than pre-pandemic levels (equivalent to some 1,600 aircraft). Of these, 700 (2% of the global fleet) are parked for engine inspections. We expect this situation to persist into 2025.

“Supply chain issues are frustrating every airline with a triple whammy on revenues, costs, and environmental performance. Load factors are at record highs and there is no doubt that if we had more aircraft they could be profitably deployed, so our revenues are being compromised. Meanwhile, the aging fleet that airlines are using has higher maintenance costs, burns more fuel, and takes more capital to keep it flying. And, on top of this, leasing rates have risen more than interest rates as competition among airlines intensified the scramble to find every way possible to expand capacity. This is a time when airlines need to be fixing their battered post-pandemic balance sheets, but progress is effectively capped by supply chain issues that manufacturers need to resolve,” said Willie Walsh, IATA’s director general.

Specifically, IATA noted that persistent supply chain issues were at least partially responsible for two negative developments:

• Fuel efficiency (excluding the impact of load factors) was unchanged between 2023 and 2024 at 0.23 liters/100 available tonne kilometers (ATK). This is a step back from the long-term (1990-2019) trend of annual fuel efficiency improvements in the range of 1.5-2.0%.

• Exceptional demand for leased aircraft pushed leasing rates for narrow body aircraft to levels 20-30% higher than in 2019.

“The entire aviation sector is united in its commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. But when it comes to the practicality of actually getting there, airlines are left bearing the biggest burden. The supply chain issues are a case in point. Manufacturers are letting down their airline customers and that is having a direct impact of slowing down airlines’ efforts to limit their carbon emissions. If the aircraft and engine manufacturers could sort out their issues and keep their promises, we’d have a more fuel-efficient fleet in the air,” said Walsh.

One company caught in the middle of this is U.K.-based AerFin. Specializing in aviation asset management, it buys, sells, leases and repairs aircraft, engines and parts to maximize the value for owners and provide a lower-cost supply of material to airline, lessor and MRO customers.

Right now, says Mark Shimizu, SVP EMEA, engine material leads demand — especially hot-section parts and engine LRUs — because OEM lead times and pricing pressure keep operators looking for certified Used Serviceable Material (USM) to keep aircraft flying and to reduce engine shop-visit costs. Life Limited Parts (LLPs) are particularly sought after thanks to the high cost-saving potential from procuring components with specific hours and cycles remaining to help operators align engine build goals.

High-use, flight-critical LRUs on the airframe side — avionics, pneumatics/air systems, hydraulics and flight-control actuators — also remain priority items because of their impact on dispatch reliability.

Landing gear and APU material also see steady pull because they are lifecycle-driven and it is expensive to defer maintenance. USM shortens downtime compared with waiting on new.

In principle, lower-failure structural items and many cabin/interior parts should be more stable because failure rates are lower and maintenance is more predictable. In practice, the opposite can occur. With fewer aircraft disassemblies taking place, these event-driven structural items are becoming harder to source, and new-buy lead times are extreme. Cabin interior items can suffer the same issue. Operators are facing indefinite lead times in some cases for repairs of various flight surfaces, so USM — where available — is key to circumnavigating the delay.

Piece parts from cooler sections of engines, which experience lower levels of scrap exposure due to reduced heat and degradation, are typically more reliable and therefore less exposed to bottlenecks. The greatest pressure remains where turnaround times, OEM pricing and utilization collide — engines and high-failure LRUs. This reinforces the need for a robust, reliable supply chain that can identify and secure these dependable parts ahead of surges in demand, ensuring operators have continuity even when high-stress components face extended lead times.

The most active source of UMS at the moment is from strategic teardowns. In fact, AerFin has just acquired a fifth A320neo, from EMPAviation Trading, with the continued collaboration of a Middle Eastern investor. Like the previous five aircraft, it has completed a six-year maintenance check and full interval shop visits on both engines. The airframe is planned for disassembly in Asia to support existing customer base in the region. The engines are available for purchase.

He says AerFin differentiates itself through acquisition and purchasing at scale, buying whole assets to unlock material in volume. This ability to execute at fleet level sets it apart from much of the market and allows it to feed high-quality USM into the supply chain faster and more predictably. Inventory purchases to build breadth and responsiveness across our hubs.

Repair and refurb

Mark Shimizu continues: “AerFin’s repair management is key to turning material faster and stabilizing flow for operators. By leveraging strategic relationships and Tier-1 vendor partnerships, we can launch high-volume repair campaigns that secure favorable pricing and turnaround times. Our scale in repair activity gives us the agility to keep material moving and customers flying when market constraints tighten.”

He adds that this is a global issue driven by a supply-led market. AerFin supports a variety of regional, narrowbody and widebody aircraft and their complementary engine types. Engines operated in hot-and-harsh environments can face higher maintenance costs because Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) margins degrade faster and OEM manuals can impose stricter limits in these conditions.

AerFin mitigates these pressures with strategically located stock — Gatwick, Newport, Miami and Singapore — to support operators locally and compress lead time.

Of course, short supply and extended lead times have driven higher fair-market values, particularly for engine material and critical LRUs. While USM prices are increasing, they still offer considerable cost savings compared with new. The continually rising price of whole assets inevitably cascades to USM prices.

Those increases have been significant with engine hot-section components and scarce LRUs with long OEM turnaround times showing the most acute inflation, reflecting where downtime risk, and willingness to pay to avoid it, is highest. CFM HPT blade parts are among the highest-demand items on the market, with production delays and high scrap rates intensifying pressure. Engine LRU pricing continues to rise as engine disassembly volumes remain limited. Early teardowns are helping to ease these pinch points by bringing fresher, durable parts into the pool sooner.

He describes the solution to the problem as “use the difficulty”: accelerate strategic teardowns across all asset types — from A320neo to A330, E-Jet, 777, 737, CFM56-5B, CFM56-7B, V2500 and CF6 — to unlock high-quality USM earlier, reduce OEM dependence and cut operator downtime. In addition, make supply programmatic by combining teardown-fed USM, repair management and, where appropriate, green-time engine leasing to bridge peaks in demand. Partnering with key strategic customers allows AerFin to provide integrated supply solutions in this constrained market.

Positioning inventory close to the need means AerFin’s extensive stock can be spread globally without impacting availability in any specific region, while planning dynamically with customers by sharing live TATs, FMVs, utilization and vendor performance can secure critical material ahead of events.

He believes normality will return progressively as OEM capacity improves and as more mid-life assets feed USM through structured teardowns. The aftermarket remains structurally strong for the medium term, so the pragmatic path is to stabilize now with programmatic USM, repair management and targeted leasing rather than waiting for a single step change. IBA released its second engine value update for 2025 in September, and it echoes Shumizi’s views.

Values for narrowbody engines increased through 2025. The new generation LEAP-1A and PW1100G are prime examples of engines showing strong market value performance despite well-publicized engine performance-related issues. Most discussed are Pratt & Whitney and aircraft-on-ground (AOG) occurrences related to powdered metal issues on their GTF engines. However, recent reports point towards increased material availability aimed at improving AOGs.

The current generation of engines, such as the CFM56-5B/-7B and V2500-A5, have benefited from showing year-on-year market value increase as operators continue to acquire and lease engines to maintain their flight schedules. This year has been one of both increased transaction pricing and lease rates. The CFM56-7B market finds itself in a situation with a distinct lack of availability, and both market values and lease rates are above the long-term trend. This is partly due to elevated levels of operator retention of the 737NG amid variant delays and FAA production ramp-up restrictions on the LEAP-1B powered MAX. There is a similar situation with 777-300ER due to 777X delays.

Moving to the regional engine market, this is seen as relatively stable for turbofans and turboprops. However, the instability can have serious consequences for smaller operators.

The U.K. Civil Aviation Authority recently published its 2Q2025 Aviation Trends report, which showed that, of 20 airlines surveyed, Blue Islands was the least reliable, with only 55% of flights arriving on time or less than 15 minutes late.

The airline operates a fleet of four ATR 72-200s and one ATR72-600. It had been forced to restrict operations in late May after the ATR 72-600 arrived that month, almost four months late due to an extended lease transition maintenance turnaround time. In addition, a newly installed Pratt & Whitney Canada PW124B engine on one of the 72-200s experienced FOD problems. Extended delays in accessing the required parts and maintenance services meant the airline needed to access an alternative new engine.

The airline not only suffered a financial hit, but it also ran a huge risk of reputational damage. It operates from hubs in Guernsey and Jersey in the Channel Islands. Those communities rely on air travel to access services not available locally. That means reliability is a paramount requirement when selecting an airline and Blue Islands does not have a monopoly. The good news is that, in August, of 863 flights, 74% arrived on time and 99% of the schedule was completed.

In an industry where cutting-edge airframes and advanced engines grab the public’s attention, the actual tools that MROs use to keep these items in service rarely get much attention, if any at all.

But make no mistake — without high quality hand tools, equipment testers and durable lightweight ladders, no MRO shop would be able to maintain, repair, and overhaul any of these high-tech items. To shed light on these vital assets, Aviation Maintenance magazine is examining three leading suppliers — Sonic USA, Druck, and LockNClimb — to learn more about their products, including the new tools they are bringing to the MRO market.

Three Trusted Tool Suppliers

When it comes to doing aircraft and engine repairs, Sonic USA (sonictoolsusa.com) naturally comes to mind. Sonic USA provides high-quality hand tools, toolboxes, and premium storage solutions to the aviation, space and automotive sectors. Founded in 2015, Sonic USA is the North American subsidiary of the Netherlands-based Sonic Group, a global specialist in the development, marketing, and distribution of professional hand tools and storage solution systems since 2004.

“Our aviation toolsets generally come in three versions with customizable foam inserts and serialized tool ID laser etching: basic (145 pieces), intermediate (263 pieces), and advanced (454 pieces),” said Sonic USA CEO Colby McConnell. “We most recently announced a TSA-approved mobile case that can hold either the beginner set, or our latest MRO offering, the intermediate mobile case set, respectively. We also provide a Sonic Next S12 XD storage system with eight drawers.”

Durability is a top priority for Sonic USA. “We want to ensure our tools are built to last a lifetime,” McConnell said. “This is why Sonic USA stands behind every Sonic tool we make via the hassle-free lifetime warranty program that is the best in the tool industry. Our online warranty process takes just a few minutes to submit and replacement tools are processed within 24 hours. They are then shipped out from our warehouse in Auburn, Alabama.”

Of course, one major reason that mechanics lose access to their most-prized tools is not because they break, but rather because they go missing. This is why Sonic USA offers its aviation customers the “No Lost Tools” Guarantee, which the company announced earlier this year. “Sonic will replace up to $250 in hand tools on any of Sonic’s preconfigured aviation complete toolkits in the Sonic Foam System (SFS),” said McConnell. “The No Lost Tools Guarantee applies for one calendar year after purchase, or from the toolkit ship date. Customers can file a claim through sonictoolsusa.com and then each claim will be processed within 24 hours whereby Sonic will then ship the replacement tool.”

The second trusted tool supplier that spoke to Aviation Maintenance for this article is Druck (www.bakerhughes.com/druck). Starting as a small business in Leicester, U.K., in 1972, Druck (a Baker Hughes business) has grown into a global pressure measurement company specializing in high-quality, high-accuracy silicon-based pressure sensors and calibration instrumentation for various markets, including aviation.

“For the MRO sector, Druck provides essential tools such as air data test sets, pitot static leak testers, handpumps, and after-market pressure sensors,” said Chris Roberts, the company’s product leader for test and calibration. “Producing more than 400,000 sensors annually, and with some 4,000 customers, Druck’s pressure measurement technology provides advanced levels of accuracy, reliability and stability, enabling customers to enhance safety performance and drive efficiencies and productivity.”

According to Roberts, “Druck’s expertise extends across the aerospace sector; their Aerospace Flight qualified pressure sensors division has served the aviation industry for more than 45 years, supplying over 700,000 sensors. This means 80% of commercial and several military aircraft fly with Druck sensors on board,” he said. “Beyond flight-qualified sensors, Druck also offers pitot static testers (ADTS) for precise testing and calibration of aircraft airspeed and pitot static systems, alongside a range of ground test pressure sensors and multi-function calibrators.”

Our third trusted toolmaker is LockNClimb, LLC (https://locknclimb.com), whose products make aircraft and engine servicing safer, faster and easier. “LockNClimb, LLC designs and manufactures ergonomic safety ladders for the aviation industry used in MRO facilities around the world,” said Banning Lary, the company’s communications director. “These ladders have been engineered to meet all applicable OSHA and ANSI standards and are proven to prevent costly accidents and injuries to line and hangar maintenance technicians. They provide a stable means to access many hard-to-reach maintenance areas on most big commercial and corporate jets. LockNClimb ladders’ durability is unmatched: after five years of continuous daily service in the demanding MRO environment, their repair costs remain at only 1/10 of 1%.”

LockNClimb’s product lineup includes safety ladders customized to serve all Airbus and Boeing aircraft along with all corporate and private jets. This company also can custom design and build safety ladders for any specific purpose or industry need. All of LockNClimb’s ladders are manufactured in the USA, which is useful information in this time of tariffs.

New Tools for MROs

Savvy MRO technicians and engineers are always on the lookout for new tools to help them do their work better and easier. Aviation Maintenance asked the three trusted suppliers in this article what new items they have to offer to the MRO market. This is what they told us.

In April 2025, Sonic USA released its new 263-piece Intermediate Aviation Toolset with Mobile Case, a mobile toolset comprising sockets, wrenches, pliers, punchers, and other tools all backed by Sonic’s hassle-free lifetime warranty. The tools are conveniently organized into one TSA-approved, hard-shell case with multiple handles and wheels.

“The complete Intermediate Aviation Toolkit (IAT) weighs less than 100 pounds, ideal for the aviation technician on the go,” McConnell said. “This new intermediate set is designed for aviation technicians who are, or are working towards becoming, airframe and powerplant (A&P) technicians. The intermediate toolset is also the perfect solution for hassle-free travel, yet robust enough to tackle most aviation repair and service jobs.”

Inside the IAT case, the company’s custom Sonic Foam System (SFS) keeps everything in its proper place even during the roughest of transports. (There’s no hassle that is more irritating to an MRO technician than opening their toolbox, only to discover everything inside is in a heap.) “When the toolset is in motion, technicians don’t need to worry about tools becoming jumbled and falling out of place,” said McConnell. “The two-toned chemical-resistant foam interior also maximizes storage space while keeping tools organized during the job.”

On the outside, a metal reinforced padlock hole enables technicians to completely secure all of the IAT’s compartments with one single lock, as desired. To further aid organization and prevent cross-contamination with other toolsets, serialized tool ID laser etching comes standard on each tool. Custom etching is available at an additional cost.

So, what does the aviation maintenance industry think of Sonic’s new product? “We first announced the 263-piece Intermediate Aviation Toolset with Mobile Case at the MRO Americas Show in April, and the initial response has been tremendous,” McConnell replied. “We feel we’ve found the right balance of providing the tools a technician might need for most service and repair jobs, but in a ruggedized yet lightweight TSA-approved casing that enables technicians to easily maneuver the tools wherever they need to go. Furthermore, the case is designed in such a way that it enables full access to the entire toolset at once without tipping over. And there’s still room for additional tools. We’re excited to offer such a comprehensive yet portable option for technicians who must frequently travel. It’s a must for ‘fly-away techs’.”

Meanwhile, Druck has recently introduced its DPl610E-Aero, which is a low-cost yet flexible portable calibrator for precision leak testing of aircraft pitot static systems. “During aircraft maintenance, when any work is undertaken on the pitot static system of an aircraft, a leak check must be completed to verify integrity,” said Roberts. “Any leaks in the avionics system will cause pressure changes resulting in false airspeed or altitude readings. Maintaining accurate airspeed and altitude is a vital safety parameter for aircraft operations. If an aircraft’s airspeed or altitude reads incorrectly due to pressure leaks, in-flight calculations become inaccurate. Leak testing is therefore a vital part of MRO procedures, meaning the integrity of the equipment cannot be overlooked. Using accurate and reliable equipment is a necessity.”

Worth noting: While pitot static testers can perform leak tests during full maintenance processes, aviation technicians often require a quick leak test for low level, go/no-go testing. Unfortunately, the often-cumbersome pitot static testers, whilst more than capable of performing this test, are usually not portable enough to do such quick tests quickly due to their size and weight. As well, pitot static testers are also very often tied up performing more complex scheduled maintenance tasks when a quick leak test is required. “This creates a gap in the arsenal of avionics technicians for a low-cost, portable precision leak tester,” Roberts said. “Hence the reason for the recent launch of our DPI610E-Aero portable leak tester.”

Now Druck has a history of producing quality pitot static leak testers. In fact, “the legacy DPI610A has been a staple of MRO service providers’ equipment for decades,” said Roberts. “But given this tester’s aging technology and limited user interface functionality, we at Druck decided the time was right for an upgraded leak tester, the DPI610E-Aero. It augments the most-loved features of its predecessor, combined with the latest pressure sensor technology.”

As for the MRO market’s response to the Druck DPI610E Aero? “Customers value the portability, reliability and long battery life resulting in less downtime,” he said. “It also means customers do not have to tie up a pitot static test system for a simple process. This time saving directly influences operational efficiencies, in terms of calibrations completed and aircraft leak tests. The DPI610E-Aero’s cost-effective price point is also a benefit to the customer. This is why, since launching the DPI610E in 2024, we’ve experienced high demand for this tester. Indeed, it is already benefiting many of our customers in Europe, Asia, Americas and the Middle East.”

LockNClimb’s newest products include a 3-foot platform ladder with fold down tool tray (3LNCB737WWPLT) designed and built for aircraft mechanics who needed a simple sturdy ladder to access the wheel wells and landing gear of Boeing 737 and Embraer aircraft.

According to Lary, a similar request was made by mechanics who wanted a single ladder they could use to access a dozen maintenance points around the exterior of the Airbus 320 series aircraft — and thus the 51LNCWWPLAT was born. This 51-inch high platform ladder features an OSHA 1AA Special Purpose ladder ANSI tested to hold 375 lbs. It allows technicians to quickly roll around an aircraft to service avionics, hydraulic, oxygen, E&E ports and many others. When the company is designing new ladders, “maintenance technicians, supervisors and safety managers are consulted during the research and design phase of each ladder,” said Lary. “It is not unusual for prototypes of new ladders to be brought back to the hangar and flight line half a dozen times for testing and development until they perfectly match aircraft profiles with technician working comfort. When we do bring the prototypes to market after being refined into finished products, mechanics and management alike praise our ladders for making work faster, safer and easier. This increases morale and productivity, thereby decreasing aircraft downtime.”

What’s Coming Next

As we have seen, Sonic USA, Druck, and LockNClimb are doing their best to bring advanced tools to the aviation maintenance sector. This leaves one last question to be answered: What’s coming next?

“Sonic USA remains focused on providing complete tool solutions that improve efficiency and asset management, along with FOD (foreign object debris) mitigation,” replied McConnell. “Sonic provides solutions to assist in FOD mitigation by implementing our organization system that optimizes tool control and inventory control system, allowing technicians to ensure every tool is back in place. We also want to ensure we provide complete hand tool solutions, including tools, toolboxes, and cabinets tailored for the aviation industry, eliminating the need to wait for a tool truck. For these reasons and more, international airlines ranging from United Airlines to Alaska Airlines, to regional players such as Piedmont Airlines rely on Sonic tools every day.”

Druck’s future plans rely on “harnessing our culture of innovation,” Roberts said. “At Druck we’re always looking to push the boundaries of innovation and reinforce our market leading position with new technologies. While our product launch plan is a closely guarded secret for commercial reasons, I can tell you that across aviation MRO we are looking to build a more systems-based offering with integration across the range, from asset management and calibration software to third-party instruments to drive operational efficiencies and deliver productivity gains. So, watch this space!”

“LockNClimb is continually engaged in developing new and better ladders to match the working needs of technicians with new and improved aircraft,” concluded Lary. “These include the 10- and 12-foot cowl pylon ladders that allow technicians to quickly access maintenance panels on the top of the wing pylon area of Airbus and Boeing aircraft. Our complete line of advanced A-frame ladders is preferred by many mechanics today and will be just as preferred tomorrow.”

Introduction: The Urgency of Now

Special Missions Aircraft utilization is not a new concept in the history of the military or U.S. Government. The Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) dates to the early 1950s and as early as WWII, the DC-3 was used as the CH-47 for cargo and troop transport. It was even earlier — during WWI — when the Curtiss Jenny was first utilized.

The demand for special aircraftr — whether for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), electronic warfare (EW), medevac, tactical transport, or maritime patrol — continues to provide value and utilization. But the traditional path to developing “clean-sheet” aircraft is long, costly, and increasingly misaligned with today’s defense realities. With budgets under pressure and operational needs evolving faster than ever, the Department of Defense (DoD) and other agencies are seeking smarter, more agile solutions. Though conversions of civilian aircraft typically require adapting military avionics, sensors, and defensive systems, the path to integration is still usually more advantageous due to leveraging inherent civilian design capabilities, such as range, payload capacity, speed, fuel efficiency, modular interiors, or low operating costs.

Furthermore, the current administration has made it clear: efficiency and expediency must be prioritized. Programs must move from concept to deployment faster, without compromising capability. This shift calls for a fundamental rethink of how we develop and deploy aircraft, including broader thinking on how we can optimize the use of special missions aircraft.

The Case for Change

Historically, developing “clean-sheet” aircraft specifically for special missions has involved years of design, testing, and production — often resulting in delays, cost overruns, and missed operational windows. In today’s volatile geopolitical climate and rapidly changing mission requirements, that model is no longer sustainable.

Defense leaders are increasingly asking: How can we meet urgent mission needs without waiting years for new aircraft to be designed and built? How can we reduce acquisition costs while still delivering high-performance platforms according to DoD policies on Military Commercial Derivative Aircraft (MCDA)? How can we reduce long-term sustainment costs while maintaining and upgrading aircraft that will be in service for decades?

Accelerated Aircraft Completions & Conversions

Aircraft completions and conversions allow “green” aircraft (those delivered without mission-specific systems) to be transformed into fully operational platforms to suit military and non-military government needs. This approach has been used successfully in the past, and with today’s advanced technologies and integration capabilities, it’s more viable than ever.

The process of converting a green aircraft into a mission-ready platform involves many potential adaptations, including:

• Installing specialized avionics and sensor suites per
mission parameters

• Configuring interiors for medevac or tactical transport

• Adding aerostructure, landing gear, and underwing modifications for maritime, cargo and airlift roles

These modifications can be executed on a far shorter timeline than the years it typically takes to develop them from scratch, leveraging existing supply chains and proven engineering practices. The result? Faster deployment, lower cost, and greater flexibility.

Design for Excellence (DFX) and Supply Chain Optimization

To further accelerate development, adaptation and reduce cost, military aircraft programs can apply Design for Excellence (DFX) principles. DFX focuses on designing systems with manufacturability, maintainability, and scalability in mind from the outset, while aligning functional organizations like supply chain, production and engineering around a clear and concise mission.

Supply chain optimization processes and capabilities such as strategic sourcing, vendor collaboration and supply chain visibility, coupled with DFX, enables faster customization and deployment. It also reduces program risk by minimizing complexity and reducing supply disruption.

Innovation Meets Practicality

This approach isn’t just innovative — it’s practical. It aligns with DoD priorities for speed, cost efficiency, and mission readiness. It also opens the door for public-private partnerships, where civil aviation aircraft can be harnessed to meet defense needs.

By rethinking how we approach special missions aircraft development and opening up more DoD budget to potential adoption, we can deliver fixed-wing, vertical lift, unmanned/autonomous and other platforms that are not only capable but also responsive to the realities of the ever-changing geopolitical climate and evolving needs of the U.S. military.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The need for agile, cost-effective special missions aircraft has never been greater. By leveraging existing platforms, accelerating completions, and applying smart design and supply chain strategies, defense agencies can meet urgent needs, with improved affordability and without waiting years for new development.

The time is right for a resurgence of an aircraft acquisition model that has been in use for decades but perhaps never fully optimized — one built on innovation, speed, and practicality. The mission demands it. The technology enables it. And the opportunity is now.

Christopher Brumitt is Managing Director, Aerospace & Defense, at global supply chain and operations consultancy Maine Pointe. You can reach him at cbrumitt@mainepointe.com.

During 2025, there were a couple of accidents in aviation that made me think. I know I can’t change the world, but I can try.

Just to remind you about a few accidents:

The most recent major aviation accident in South Korea involved Jeju Air flight 7C2216, which crashed at Muan International Airport on December 29, 2024. The plane, a Boeing 737-800, belly-landed, overran the runway, and collided with an embankment, resulting in a fireball. Out of the 179 people on board, only two cabin crew members survived.

Air India Flight 171 was a scheduled passenger flight from Ahmedabad Airport in India to London Gatwick Airport in the United Kingdom that crashed 32 seconds after takeoff at 13:39 IST (08:09 UTC) on June 12, 2025. All but one of the 230 passengers and all 12 crew members died. An additional 19 people were killed, and 67 were seriously injured on the ground.

Germanwings Flight 9525 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Barcelona–El Prat Airport in Spain to Düsseldorf Airport in Germany. The crash was deliberately caused by the first officer, Andreas Lubitz, who had previously been treated for suicidal tendencies and had been declared unfit to work by his doctor.

In all these flights, there was something strange in how pilots handled procedures under extreme stress. In two cases, they switched off perfectly good, working engines. If those two cases were isolated, I wouldn’t even mention it — but let me remind you of another crash in Hawaii several years ago when Transair Flight 810 (a 737-200) lost one engine due to failure, and then the pilots switched off a good working engine and crashed into the sea. There was also an accident at Schiphol Airport when the pilots of a Cityhopper SAAB 2000 set a good working engine to ground idle, then tried to perform a go-around and crashed KLM cityhopper flight 433 on April 4,1994).

In all these cases, there was one common denominator: the investigators could not play back the last few critical minutes of the flight and make 100% sure what caused the crash. Black boxes, although designed to be very sophisticated, didn’t provide enough data to be certain why the accident happened. We may know how it happened, but the why is still a big unknown. Why did the pilot switch off the wrong engine in the Hawaii accident? Why did the Cityhopper pilot pull the throttle to ground idle? Why did the Air India pilot cut the fuel off just seconds after takeoff? And what was the Germanwings pilot doing in the cockpit before the crash?

The whole investigation in all these cases could have been more thorough if there had been video footage from the cockpit. But there was nothing. Nowadays, the technology is available to accomplish that task. There is absolutely no problem installing a few cameras in the cockpit and recording all the actions pilots are taking. All control panels, displays, and pilot actions could be recorded from multiple angles, and nothing would be hidden. Such an installation wouldn’t even be extremely expensive.

Just to remind you — many people use dashcams in their cars. They can record while driving, and in case of an accident, you can see exactly what happened. Such a dashcam can be purchased for less than $50 USD. It is proven that it works fine, and the footage can be used in court.

I was personally involved in several projects related to video recordings. Many years ago, KLM had problems with passengers flying to Suriname and Caribbean destinations. There were regular fights on board, and KLM decided to carry a policeman on board. But within a few months, someone decided it was too expensive to pay for police services. Therefore, they decided to install a camera by the aircraft door to record passengers entering the aircraft and show it in real time on a screen in the cabin. The goal was to create awareness among passengers that they were being recorded — and therefore would not fight. That was, of course, not a good strategy, but management bought it and decided to invest in installing the camera and interfacing it with the onboard video system.

Just a few weeks into the project, the lawyers stopped the activity because of privacy violations. KLM continued flying for another half a year with sky marshals, and then that activity was also discontinued. I never heard of onboard fights after that.

A few years later, the Russian company Transaero hired me to run a project for them. They were having problems with — guess what? Yes, passengers fighting on board. My first reaction was: don’t give them vodka during the flight. But Russians are different. They were afraid that passengers would fly with someone else, so they wanted to keep them by offering vodka. The problem was quite serious — they had fights almost every day, and they had to appear in court every week. The big question was: who delivered the first punch? Therefore, they wanted to have video recording capability on board. And that is exactly what I provided for them.

I installed a server on board capable of recording 24 hours of video from eight cameras. After 24 hours, the system would overwrite the previous recording. So, if there was a fight, after landing, the engineer could simply connect a laptop to the server and download the video. In the beginning, they had three active cameras in the cabin, and later they added two cargo cameras because, at some airports, thieves were opening suitcases and stealing the contents. The video recordings helped identify the crooks.

Eventually, I managed to install such a system in 75 aircraft (all Boeing: 747s, 777s, 767s, and 737s). Transaero went out of business after Putin invaded Crimea and Russia got sanctioned.

Coincidentally, almost 10 years later, I was leading an ARINC committee named Cabin Systems Subcommittee, which standardized such systems for the benefit of aviation. In Denver I even presented that standard — A628 Part 1 (Cabin Surveillance System) — for adoption. In my presentation, I mentioned my project with Transaero, and engineers immediately started asking about privacy. It is obviously a big concern. However, with the Russians (Transaero), privacy was never a point of discussion. Others — especially in Europe — are totally different.

That brings me back to the cockpit and the installation of video recording for monitoring pilot actions. After the crashes described earlier, discussions started about installing cameras and recording cockpit actions. It is no longer a technical discussion. Technically, everything is possible. Besides FDR (Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder), a new box could be introduced: VDR (Video Data Recorder). It wouldn’t be a system for real-time video streaming to the ground, but a much smaller and limited system that can record and store video on board. That’s exactly what we’re already doing with FDRs and CVRs. The data — and the video — should only be retrieved in the case of an accident or incident.

Such systems are already installed in some aircraft like helicopters for search and rescue, and in test and training aircraft. Agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have often demanded the installation of video recorders. From the investigators’ point of view, it’s obvious — they would have more information, clear visual evidence of the pilots’ actions, and could reach conclusions faster. This discussion has been going on for more than two decades.

But that step is a problem because pilots don’t want it. That’s because of privacy. They are afraid the videos could be leaked to the media or used in court — and what if the video is not used for safety investigations but to assign blame to the pilots? If the videos are made available to the public, they could be misinterpreted and misused. Besides, knowing that video recording is ongoing can influence a pilot’s behavior in a performative way.

It’s obviously a matter of trust. Pilot unions like ALPA, BALPA, and IFALPA are opposing cockpit video recording. They argue that video recording poses a massive privacy risk. They are also afraid that the video could be used for disciplinary purposes.

Let’s deviate a bit here: About 20 years ago, the company Spirent came up with a modification for 747 Classics. They proposed removing the P2 panel (the panel in the middle of the cockpit used for engine instruments) and installing a pallet with displays that fit into the P2 position and used the same connectors as the steam gauges. It was a more reliable system and easy to install. Atlas Air decided to install it in their aging 747 Classic fleet. Technically, it was successful — but the system reported that some pilots were exceeding EGT limits during takeoff. The result was a decrease in engine-on-wing time, which cost the company a lot of money. Now, management and pilots were in conflict. Pilots blamed engineers and computers for providing wrong information, and engineers checked and rechecked the system but found nothing wrong. The bottom line: After some months of operation, the problem disappeared — not because engineers changed the sensor limits, but because pilots started operating more carefully and avoided exceeding limitations.

I’m convinced similar situations could occur with video recordings. I can imagine that pilots would change their behavior simply because they know they’re being monitored. But that change could also have an adverse effect on their performance.

One idea is to set up a system that starts recording in case of a TCAS alert, EGPWS alert or any other warning — and record video for 2–3 minutes. But you wouldn’t know what happened before the alert — and that could be crucial.

Eventually, I am certain it will take a few more years of discussion before video recording becomes a standard cockpit feature. The bottom line is to improve safety, to conduct proper investigations of each accident and incident and to ensure such situations are not repeated. That is in the best interest of pilots, investigators, authorities and the public.

Words and phrases are so important. When used in commercial relationships or for regulatory compliance, understanding a term’s meaning is vital.

From the myriad manufacturers that contribute to the design and production of an aircraft, which one is the original equipment manufacturer or the euphemistic “OEM”?

For over forty years, the acronym “OEM” has been tossed around in aviation with various meanings, none of which carry any legal or regulatory meaning (without context) or provide for a singular definition.

I have never found the term defined in any regulatory context within my area of knowledge and it shouldn’t mean anything to a civil aviation regulator. Under the aviation safety rules, one must be a design and/or production holder with an approval (of some sort) to manufacture products or articles for sale for installation on civil aircraft. In the case of aircraft, there are many manufacturers that contribute to the design and construction of the product. Each may have commercial “rights” to aspects of the design or production, but none are “OEMs” under civil aviation regulations.

If a word or phrase is neither defined nor understood, communication is problematic. For example, the supposed controversy over using PMA parts. Many, in fact the majority, of PMAs issued by the FAA are held by “OEMs”— in this context meaning the production approval holder’s chosen supplier that may also own the “proprietary” rights to the design.

So, when an airline or leasing company states it does not “use PMA parts,” I don’t believe it. The disbelief comes from the fact that if the same company was asked if it only bought from “OEMs,” the answer would certainly be yes. How could that be? Those contradictory responses are evidence that there is a misunderstanding of the use of that acronym in the context of civil aviation.

In civil aviation there are no “OEMs”, only design and production approval holders. Commercially, the acronym has little impact without a contractual definition that both parties understand. Signing a contract to be a supplier to a production approval holder doesn’t make a designer or manufacturer an “OEM” under the civil aviation regulations either.

The answer to the core question of “What is an OEM” really is “You better find out if you see the term in a contract.” In general, using “OEM” in civil aviation is dangerous and misleading.

Sarah MacLeod is managing member of Obadal, Filler, MacLeod & Klein, P.L.C. and a founder and executive director of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association. She has advocated for individuals and companies on international aviation safety law, policy, and compliance issues since the 1980s.