Category: Issue Highlights

Outlook Brightens for MRO Titans

Low fuel prices and anticipated higher interest rates will spur MRO growth over the long term by allowing middle-aged and mature aircraft to fly longer, producing more maintenance, repair, and overhaul business for their engines, components, and airframes.

Low fuel prices have made it more attractive to fly older aircraft longer,” says Bill Dwyer, general manager, services marketing, for GE Aviation. “Industry-wide, retirements are down more than 50 percent, compared to 2013,” he says, and “most analysts predict a period of sustained low fuel prices.” He also points to the expected rise in borrowing costs, which tend to favor used aircraft. “We think these factors will continue to spur interest in extending in-service life, and that creates opportunity for everyone in the MRO space.”

Major Trends
ICF International expects the global air transport MRO market to expand from $62.1 billion in 2014 to $90 billion in 2024, or about a 3.8 percent compound annual growth rate, with Asia-Pacific and China as the drivers. China and Asia-Pacific, combined, are expected to spend more than $29 billion in 2024, compared with $16.9 billion in 2014. MRO firms will continue to expand their footprint in this area.

Meanwhile, U.S. carrier wide bodies are coming back to North America, analysts note. This reflects factors such as increasing labor rates in Asia, currency valuations, and the sophistication of U.S. carriers’ analysis of the total costs involved in outsourcing, says Jonathan Berger, vice president of ICF International.

Relatively lower costs in the U.S. as a result of changes in the dollar are important in this shift, but so is really good technology, says Wayne Plucker, director of aerospace research for Frost & Sullivan. He cites AAR, the U.S. MRO. “They understand composites [and] can work with more sophisticated engine materials, [which] tends to reshore some of that [work].” AAR also has invested in IT, allowing customers, for example, to access their asset data in real time.

A lot of North American carriers’ MRO is still done in Asia because a lot of those airlines fly there, Berger says. A key driver is, as Asian fleets continue their exponential growth, U.S. carriers will have to compete with increased organic demand for slots in Asia.

Other pressures continue to reshape the industry. There are still too many players in airframe and component maintenance, observers say, and this may drive further consolidation. In the component area airlines increasingly want MROs to provide a wide range of services at a predictable cost. Though the march of the engine makers into the aftermarket may have reached its peak, component OEMs continue to capture business, and MROs, especially the independent operators, are teaming with them.

Meanwhile the parting out of retired aircraft for reusable airframe, engine material, and components is a growing activity at major airlines, Berger says. AFI KLM Engineering & Maintenance (AFI KLM E&M) stresses its U.S. engine teardown capability through its joint venture (JV), Bonus Tech. The MRO sees growth in aircraft and engine teardown and associated parts trading services.

Delta Air Lines also has become a savvy player in the used parts arena to reduce the cost of maintaining its own mature fleet. In 2013 the carrier bought 23 MD-80s from SAS AB of Sweden. And Lufthansa Technik (LHT) in past years has purchased former Lufthansa aircraft and parted out components for internal consumption.

This trend means these airlines are buying fewer of these parts from OEMs and surplus traders and can sell excess supplies through surplus sales departments, Berger notes. The practice is pressuring the OEMs, who are now forced to find innovative ways to replace this revenue. Airlines continue to seek creative ways to reduce their operating costs, and finding alternate sources of material is a key strategic lever, he says. “It’s a really big change in the last two years.”

The top dog of the independent MROs is probably ST Engineering, the parent of ST Aerospace, Plucker says. “They don’t miss a chunk of the market,” including engines, airframe, and components. Berger places ST Aerospace with AAR and HAECO as the largest independent MROs.

The Singapore company invests in the U.S. as well. In addition to existing sites there, it plans to open a facility in Pensacola, Fla., late next year and has opened a new parting-out business in Hondo, Texas.

AAR
AAR is the largest independent MRO in North America and the third-largest airframe MRO in the world in terms of man-hours and revenues. In 2014 AAR performed about 5 million man-hours of airframe maintenance and expects to do about the same this year, says Dany Kleiman, group vice president for repair and engineering. Man-hours are up from 3 million only three to four years ago.

The company as a whole recorded net sales of $2.04 billion in FY2014, down from $2.14 billion the year before, according to its annual report. But AAR’s MRO revenues grew in 2014 and will continue to grow, Kleiman says. In 2014 AAR serviced 900 to 1,000 aircraft, mostly U.S.-registered commercial carriers.
The company has been expanding wide body capacity in the last two years, taking a lease on a facility in Lake Charles, La., and building a new facility in Rockford, Ill., which is expected to open next year. “We see that U.S. companies are more competitive today with Asia-Pacific providers, and we are looking forward to the in-shoring, instead of out-shoring, of services to U.S. carriers,” Kleiman says.

Component MRO
While ST Aerospace expects engine MRO to drive market growth, it anticipates that component MRO growth will catch up with the engine sector in the next five years. ST Aero’s maintenance by the hour (MBH) program supports nearly 900 aircraft and more than 20 operators with fleets in Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East.

AFI KLM E&M is a major player in CMRO. As far as multiproduct MRO is concerned, AFI KLM E&M ranks No.1 or No. 2 for component support, depending on the fleets, says Rob Pruim, vice president, strategy, for the business. The component MRO market is robust and growing, he says. “There is widespread availability of spare parts for some aircraft types like the A320 and A340.”

The Franco-Dutch maintenance business sees component MRO, along with engine MRO, as a path to growth. AFI KLM E&M signed a long-term contract with Royal Air Maroc in 2015 to support component repair and overhaul for 787s. It likewise inked a deal with Thai Airways International involving component support for 787s. The agreement includes support for consumables, rotables, and tooling and equipment, as well as for APUs and engine nacelles. In fact, AFI KLM E&M considers itself the current market leader for 787 component support.

Avoiding FAA Fines

When it comes to minimizing, or better yet avoiding penalties or fines from the FAA, sometimes the best way to communicate your point is to say nothing at all.

Riddle me this: What does a baseball home plate umpire have in common with your local FAA inspector?

They both have a strict set of approved written rules, yet each have the authority to call balls and strikes as they see them – even if their interpretation of the “strike zone” differs from the published rule. As an MLB batter you can either live with the calls or complain and get tossed from the game. As an aircraft technician, you try to comply with the rules the best you possibly can, but that compliance is unfortunately subject to interpretation. And quite often, while complaints about inconstancies won’t get you tossed, they can earn you a healthy fine.

Of course as a professional aircraft technician, your number one goal is to ensure safety even if that means going outside the regulation. But we’ll save that subject for another story.

Right now we want to concentrate on how you can ensure safety while avoiding any misunderstandings that can lead to FAA penalties and/or fines. To get first hand information on this difficult subject, we contacted Sarah MacLeod, executive director of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA). Unfortunately, Ms. MacLeod and her team deal with situations like this on a daily basis.

Her first tip is to know and understand the procedures and rules of compliance better than your FAA inspector.

“If you actually know the rules and apply the guidance with a focus on aviation safety, the path to compliance is seldom rocky,” she stated. “However, if a certificate holder does not know the difference between complying with a regulation and ‘best practices’ or a ‘good idea’ or ‘local inspector preference’ – bad decisions are made.”

“One bad decision is becoming non-compliant, or even worse in my mind, not knowing when you are in compliance,” Ms. MacLeod said. “Both ills can be cured by knowledge and that comes with reading and understanding the regulations and guidance materials.”

While some understanding of regulations can be gained through discussions with business peers or your FAA representative, Ms. MacLeod cautioned that this kind of education must be taken with a grain of salt.

“Don’t be fooled into thinking this is knowledge. You may only be gaining another person’s perspective or opinion,” she said. “Regulations are laws. They can be ‘interpreted’ by the agency, but it is not the final arbiter of compliance – federal courts play that role.”

“Today, you have to be every bit as smart about the rules as your FAA inspector,” stated Richard Simmons, accountable manager for TPS Aerospace. “There is a lot of interpretation in the field. If there’s a problem you have to be able to point to the written rule and show how your processes meet it.”

Ms. MacLeod said that the best first line of compliance is to write a detailed procedural manual and then train everyone in your company to follow those “rules.”

“Failure to follow written procedures – starting with the regulations, is the number one finding we have in every audit,” she explained. “We find that shops often write procedures and then continually rewrite those procedures without taking the time to train the technicians to follow those new directions.”

“The fault for creation of mismanaged policies, processes and procedures can be laid at both the industry’s and government’s doorsteps,” Ms. MacLeod said. “However the government is the one that can fine companies and individuals.”

“Paper (process documentation) and training and the most important products a company can produce. You have to create a procedural manual for your entire operation and then train to it,” Simmons said. “That is probably the number one trap a shop will fall into. They can’t or don’t want to invest the time and money to develop the procedures and provide adequate training for their people.”

Best Laid Plans…

Of course, always remember that you are dealing with the FAA – think umpire – so even following the rules to the letter doesn’t guarantee compliance. You must have documentation and more importantly know why the documentation says what it does.

“One very important point is that it doesn’t matter if the agency ‘approved’ something – it can change its mind and that ‘approval’ does not mean compliance,” Ms. MacLeod said. “I cannot tell you how many certificate holders say, ‘But the FAA approved it.’ Unfortunately, my response is always: ‘So what. The agency doesn’t have to be right, you do.’”

Reorganization Hits Thai Airways Maintenance

For Thai Airways, 2015 has been a year of recovery—a reorganization designed to get the airline out of the red and back into the black after years of mismanagement and political turmoil have steadily eroded its bottom line.

While the airline’s reorganization program hasn’t impacted its maintenance center as much as it has the airline itself, there have been changes. An immediate impact is the loss of roughly 200 maintenance workers out of a total of 4,001 employees being cut from the airline’s employment base through a voluntary early retirement program, or Mutual Separation Plan. The 200 employees leaving the technical service represented roughly five percent of the total maintenance staff of 4,191.

These employees most likely will not be coming back, allowing the airline to “stay lean,” according to Charamporn Jotikasthira, the airline’s president. The airline is expected to be back in the black during 2016, and “the crisis should be over by 2017,” said Catipod Keasmonkong, the Technical Department manager.

The airline is also downsizing its fleet by more than 24 aircraft by 2016. The airline currently has 94 aircraft in its fleet, down from 102 at the end of 2014, and anticipates being down to fewer than 90 going into 2016.

It is continuing to reduce that by eliminating several older aircraft while adding a few new aircraft. It currently has 14 aircraft on order, consisting of two 787-9 and 12 A350-900s. The A350 will begin entering the fleet in June 2016, while the 787s are scheduled for delivery in 2017.

Keasmonkong noted that along with reducing the cost of operating and maintaining the older aircraft, it will allow its maintenance services to obtain increased revenue from third-party work.

Another problem facing the Technical Department is a series of bans placed on Thai airlines based on safety concerns raised by ICAO. These were primarily placed on charter flights and tended to be related to air operator certification processes. Keasmonkong said that Thai Airways has resolved this through increased inspections to ensure compliance with the standards of certifying aviation authorities.

While the May 2014 coup in Thailand put the country under a military junta and caused initial economic and political disruption, the same government has now reported brought stability back to the business environment in Thailand. This is increasing growth in an already well-established MRO hub in Southeast Asia, with Thai Airways being one of the leading providers of aviation maintenance.

Thai Airways itself was formed in 1960 by a joint venture between Thai Airways Company, a domestic air carrier, and SAS. Technical support came from SAS. In March 1977, SAS terminated its investment in Thai Airways, and in 1985 Thai Airways Technical Department (TATD) was formed to provide maintenance support for the airline.

At that time the airline was flying the A300-B4, 737, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and 747-200. Today it has a fleet of Boeing 747-400s, 777-200s and 300s, 737-400s and 787-8s, plus the Airbus A330-300, 320-200, A340-600 and A380-800.

Keasmonkong said that the technical department is considered a profit center by the airlines, which pays for its services. However, it is all done through “internal financing.” The airline’s annual report doesn’t list its maintenance department’s revenue. But it does list costs. Maintenance and Overhaul costs for 2014 were THB 14.68 billion ($411.8 million) a 9.2 percent increase over 2013 costs of THB 13.45 billion ($377.12 million). The 2014 costs represented 6.7 percent of the total airline’s costs, compared to 6.1 percent in 2013. The 9.2 percent increase in costs was due to the estimation of return condition and overhaul expenses for expired operating lease of three 737-400s and upcoming expired leases on two 777-200 and two A330-300s.

Keasmonkong said that the older aircraft being decommissioned will done on an “as is” basis, reducing the amount needed to be spent getting them ready to return to the leasers.

The airline has maintenance centers at three airports—Suvarnabhumi International and Don Mueang International near Bangkok, and U-Tapao International at Rayong. All three provide light maintenance. Heavy C- and D-check maintenance is done at Don Mueang International and at U-Tapao.

Aviation Electronics vs. Maintenance

As aircraft become more and more high tech, the lines between an avionics technician and an aircraft mechanic are blending together. This needs to be addressed in the training curriculum for new mechanics as technology, innovation and aircraft become more electronic.

In recognizing this, the FAA has an NPRM that proposes to amend the regulations governing the curriculum and operations of FAA- certificated Aviation Maintenance Technician Schools. The NPRM states, “These amendments would modernize and reorganize the required curriculum subjects in the appendices of the current regulations. They would also remove the course content items currently located in the appendices and require that they be placed in each school’s operations specifications so they could more easily be amended when necessary. The amendments are needed because the existing curriculums are outdated, do not meet current industry needs, and can be changed only through notice and comment rulemaking. These amendments would ensure that aviation maintenance technician students receive up-to-date foundational training to meet the demanding and consistently changing needs of the aviation industry.”

Initially, the comments were to close at the end of 2015 but the deadline for comments has been extended to February 1, 2016. So there is still time to get your comments in for consideration and who better to comment than those of you in the daily fight? Please, share your knowledge and expertise by commenting on this proposed rule change and don’t forget to thank Aviation Technical Education Council (ATEC), Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), Airlines for America (A4A), Aviation Suppliers Association (ASA), Helicopter Association International (HAI), Modification And Replacement Parts Association (MARPA), National Air Carrier Association (NACA) and other industry groups for petitioning to get that comment period extended.

Here at Aviation Maintenance, we are embracing these realities as well. You may have noticed over the course of the last year that we added a new section for avionics and aircraft electronics news. We are also publishing an aviation electronics eNewsletter in addition to our regular Aviation Maintenance eNews.

Furthermore, our parent company, Aerospace and Security Media, launched an aviation electronics event held in Munich, Germany last year. The event was a success and is being held again in Munich on April 20-21, 2016. Refer to pages 18-23 in this issue for the conference agenda, training and speaker information. More information and registration can be found here http://www.ae-expo.eu/. Please consider attending to keep your knowledge of the future of avionics up to date. We believe this is the future and the blending of maintenance and electronics will only surge ahead.

Keep on Truckin’

by Dale Smith

Trcuking251While mobile AOG capabilities were once a “nice-to-have” service, today business aircraft OEMs are finding that they’re now a “must-have” in order to keep their customers happy and their brand growing.

If you want to talk about one area of business aviation that has really changed – and fast – it’s been in the growth of mobile AOG services. Just ask Mitch Choquette, VP of Customer Support for Gulfstream Aerospace. Choquette has not only seen this segment of the support industry make gigantic strides over the past couple of decades, he’s been one of its leaders.

“If you go back to the early-90’s, any road type support was handled from the closest service center. You either got a car or on an airliner with some parts and tools and went to try and fix an airplane,” he said. “When I first started here that’s how it was done. There were no specific tools or procedures to help you do this.”

As the owners and operators of their aircraft increasingly found themselves traveling to airports that were not near established company service centers, OEMs quickly realized that this “wild west” approach to remote AOG repairs just wouldn’t cut it any longer.

To keep sales up, customers needed to know that should they have a problem, there was at the very least a structured process for getting them the help they needed to get back in the air.

While every business aircraft manufacturers’ goal is pretty much the same, each has taken a slightly different course to provide these valuable services to their owner/operators. Aviation Maintenance contacted a few of them to see how their mobile maintenance program started and how it is progressing.

Bombardier Business Aircraft

“When you’re in the customer service business you live and die with every AOG situation,” stated Stan Younger, VP, Service Centres for Bombardier Business Aircraft. “Andy (Nureddin) and I read the AOG board every day to see who is handling what and what resources they need.”

Younger said that Bombardier introduced its first seven dedicated AOG mobile trucks back in 2012. “We put them in areas were we have a density of owner/operators as well as proximity to city pairs to give us the best possible coverage,” he said. “We wanted to help our customers be more successful with our products.”

Since then, the company has added six more, custom-built AOG trucks and a dedicated Lear 45 support aircraft.

“You never like an AOG, and you never want your customers to have an AOG, but you really want to be there when they do because you want to be able to take control of the problem and serve them without having to deal with a third-party – someone who doesn’t have the expertise in your products and ideas on how to best deal with the customer,” he said.

Younger also explained that while AOG support was their primary mission the company has extended its mobile services beyond the boundaries of those traditional services.

“We can help our customers in two ways,” he said. “Of course, we can help with AOG events, but we can also visit their facilities to help with some routine maintenance tasks. The added benefit of offering the on-site service is it goes a long way towards strengthening customer relationships.”

“You’d be surprised at how much our customers talk to each other,” Younger added. “Our team will be working on one customer’s aircraft and another nearby customer will call and ask to ‘borrow’ them.”

As for the future, Andy Nureddin, VP and GM for Customer Services said that their near-term goal is to fully integrate the AOG trucks and aircraft within the company’s Customer Response Center’s activities.

Saving the Bottom Line: DER Repair Alternatives

by Charlotte Adams

SavingBottomLine251Operators have an array of choices when it comes to deciding what to do about worn or damaged parts. Among the options are buying a new part from an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), having the part repaired by an OEM-affiliated repair station, buying a new Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) component from a non-OEM source, and obtaining a designated engineering representative (DER)-approved repair. The choice depends on factors such as the age of the aircraft, the part’s warranty status, the cost of the various options, and the likely turnaround times for part delivery or repair approval. DER repair suppliers include MROs, PMA parts suppliers, and OEMs at various levels of the food chain.

If a part can be repaired, the DER route may be the most cost-effective way to go, particularly if the airplane is out of warranty and the part is complex, costly, and difficult to obtain in a timely manner. A DER repair is a repair process and configuration that has met all the specifications for development, performance, reliability, and safety, and has been validated and certified by an FAA-authorized DER, explains John McKirdy, vice president, commercial aerospace global accounts, for Chromalloy, a supplier of new parts and DER repairs for aircraft engine components. Within the ranks of DERs the repair specification-DERs (RS-DERs) provide additional flexibility, as they can both evaluate how to do a repair and approve the repair.

The FAA has approved only a small number of independent RS-DERs (between 32 and 70), says Dominick DaCosta, chief operating officer of the Delegated Engineering Service Group, an independent DER consultant firm. The number depends on how they are counted. For example, one DER can havemore than one RS-DER delegation disciplines such as, Chart A [Structures], Chart B [Powerplant], Chart C1 [Mech Systems], and Chart E, [Engines], making the count appear somewhat higher if those individuals are counted more than once. These private individuals designated by the FAA are in essence review agents for the agency, he says. The very restricted number of RS-DERs is unfortunate because these designees “are really more needed than anything else we’ve got because so many field approvals could be subject to RS-DER work,” says Jason Dickstein, president of the Washington Aviation Group law firm.

RS-DERs focus on major repairs, as minor repairs of very limited scope can be performed by a repair station in coordination with its local FAA Flight Standards office. But the RS-DER has to run any major repair to an engine, wing, or landing gear through the FAA, says Sarah MacLeod, executive director of the Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA). This is explained in the FAA’s “DER Handbook,” Order 8110.37E, DaCosta says. Normally, the RS-DER must coordinate with the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) that oversees the applicant, DaCosta says, referring to Section 4-13 (e) of this Order. So even if a project falls within the RS-DER’s authority, the FSDO who oversees the applicant repair facility must be aware of and be able to monitor that applicant’s new activities.

Aviation Fall Protection Trends

New developments are helping stop the sudden stop.

By Mark Robins

Overhead Protection

FallProtection251At many hangar facilities, floor space is limited and the need to minimize equipment in the work area is a significant concern. More and more, organizations are minimizing floor-supported fall protection and replacing it with overhead fall protection supported by the hangar roof structure.

There are many different types of overhead fall protection products available to suit various applications. “Most systems are mounted in fixed positions over the wings and fuselage areas to cover aircraft of similar size. There are articulating systems designed to accommodate aircraft of different sizes and parking configurations,” says Richard Gass, director of engineering, Fall Protection Systems Corp., Florissant, Mo. “When working at elevated heights, changing heights or working on contoured horizontal surfaces can be hazardous when using platforms or lifts. They simply cannot provide protection in every situation. Overhead fall protection when designed properly, can protect individuals starting at floor elevation.”

There are new portable systems entering the market which Gass believes can provide a quick and easy option to provide coverage in a localized overhead working surface. They can be easily moved from location to location, in many cases without assembly or disassembly. They can be used for indoor and outdoor applications, providing an affordable means to address a hazardous condition. Gass recommends asking for references and examples of fall protection systems to verify performance.

User Friendly and Non-Intrusive

New fall protection system designs are easier and more comfortable to use in aviation maintenance. Because of this, fall protection is becoming more readily accepted, and easier to implement and monitor within a company’s culture.

Over the last few years, there have been several new harness designs on the market. “Many of these harnesses are lighter with additional padding and webbing to make the units much more comfortable to wear,” Gass says. “Many of the harnesses are available in different sizes and designed for many types of work environments. Also, taglines mounted in convenient locations allow the safety hook to be attached on the ground, ensuring that users are protected before moving into an elevated position. When possible, avoid placing users in an elevated position and then hooking up to the fall protection system; hooking up can sometimes place a person in an awkward position.”

Joe Yeatman, product manager of systems and anchors at Capital Safety, Bloomington, Minn. believes advances in fall protection were required in order to meet the stringent operational demands of the manufacturers, air carriers and MROs, as well as to match the technological progress of the aviation industry.

He says some of these advances include:
• Harnesses that are lighter weight and padded for comfort, equipped with locking chest and leg straps to maintain adjustment
• Trauma straps for increased suspension tolerance should an individual experience a fall arrest
• Different sizes for different body types
• Harnesses by type of work performed: non-conducting harnesses for electrical work, confined space harnesses, Kevlar harnesses made for welding and general industry harnesses of various types

“Most equipment is designed for simple and failsafe operation,” Yeatman says. “Most modern fall protection systems take human factors into consideration, and are designed, engineered and manufactured utilizing strict quality control standards. Capital Safety strives to reduce equipment complexity and help reduce errors while using the equipment. Being user friendly means more time for productivity.”

State-Level Proprietary Rights Do Not Trump Aviation Safety

by Jason Dickstein, MARPA

In the last issue of Aviation Maintenance, we addressed the rights that repair stations and operators have with respect to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs). In this issue we examine — and debunk — one of the most popular arguments opposing the distribution of ICAs.

Some design approval holders have claimed that their ICAs are ”proprietary data” and therefore do not have to be shared. By proprietary data, they typically mean that the data are trade secrets. While this claim sounds interesting, closer scrutiny shows that this claim is often ineffective with respect to ICAs.

As a reminder of last issue’s discussion, we established that the FAA has rules that require design approval applicants to create ICAs. Those rules establish minimum standards for what needs to be in the ICAs. And those ICAs are required to be shared with certain parties, like properly rated repair stations. For more details on what all of this means, please examine last issue’s article.

What is important for this month is that every product has certain minimum required information that is required to be included in the ICAs. That is the information to which properly rated repair stations are entitled.

For example, engines ICAs are required to include “Troubleshooting information describing probable malfunctions, how to recognize those malfunctions, and the remedial action for those malfunctions.” Therefore procedures related to remedial action for probably malfunctions are required to be published in engine ICAs.

We’ve seen ICAs that published instructions that insist that products must be returned to an OEM repair station for remedial action. This sort of limit has been deemed as unacceptable by the FAA in FAA policy guidance.

One justification that we’ve heard for the refusal to provide the regulatorily-required instructions is that the instructions are trade secrets. This is an inadequate excuse for failure to comply with the regulations.

In order for information to be a trade secret, it must be valuable and it must be kept secret. If a federal law requires the disclosure of a trade secret, then it is axiomatic that the trade secret loses its secrecy. Case law makes it clear that a law or regulation may require the disclosure of a trade secret to “promote some public interest,” and where the law does this, the information is no longer a secret.

My 20 Years of NBAA

I have been going to the NBAA Conference for 20 years. It almost sounds like the start of a joke to say, “I remember my first NBAA…” but the truth is, I do remember it vividly.

It was 1995 and I was working for a thriving business jet manufacturer. The company set up a corporate shuttle with their own flight department for employees to catch a ride to the event. Not everyone in the company got to go, but I was among the lucky. Flying to NBAA in a corporate jet for this annual meeting of the business jet world was a highlight. It might have been one of the last years they extended that opportunity to employees beyond the executive level.

That was what it was all about. Flying with colleagues in a business jet to attend a gathering of the best and brightest of the business jet manufacturing, support equipment, services and aviators in this sector of aviation. I remember walking the halls wide-eyed at all there was to see and later heading over to the static display like the proverbial kid in a candy shop. I was awestruck.

The next year was even better. Although the company didn’t whip up a mini-airline shuttle that year, I got an even more interesting opportunity. I was involved in customer deliveries for new aircraft. Part of my work included a customer walk-around, taking the customer on an acceptance flight to check out all the systems and verify that all was in proper working order, as well as conducting the signing event to transfer ownership.

That year, one customer’s aircraft acceptance was scheduled to take place around the time of NBAA. The customer, based in California, called and asked if we would mind doing the customer acceptance and delivery in Vegas, to coincide with the show since they were planning to attend. Could we meet them there with the aircraft, he asked. Much to my delight my superiors agreed and I flew the aircraft to Las Vegas, met the customer and conducted all our business there – acceptance flight, signing etc. That year I remember staying in the MGM Grand hotel, which had only just opened.

When I moved on to work for another aircraft manufacturer, we often used the opportunity to conduct aircraft specification meetings with clients like CEOs, high wealth individuals, celebrities, future ambassadors and the like. I imagined that the coordination and secrecy we upheld was tantamount to that of the Secret Service doing advance work for a presidential visit. Imagine the cell phones of the 90s, walkie-talkies, limos and back entrances. I’m not sure how we got it all done without smart phones!

SMS for MROs

By Dale Smith

SMS251Safety management systems are rapidly becoming differentiators for today’s leading MROs. Starting with the right plan and culture are critical to making your SMS implementation a success.

The fact is there are very few industries that are as unforgiving of errors as aviation maintenance. Unfortunately for us, mistakes are just as much a part of the human condition as breathing. So how can mistakes be found and fixed before they become headlines?

Well, the one methodology that is catching on in the MRO industry is to implement a Safety Management System (SMS). While that seems simple enough, there’s really a lot to it – especially if you want to do it right.

First off you have to define what an SMS is. The typical definition for an SMS in aviation maintenance is a system of steps or processes that help identify problems or errors that happen while working on an aircraft. But, when you talk to the SMS experts, that definition only puts a small piece of the safety puzzle in place.

“Initially many organizations think that an SMS program is just about the technicians on the shop floor. It’s not. The important thing is that an safety management system is for everyone in the company,” Don Baldwin, president, Baldwin Safety & Compliance said. “Meaning that in the typical MRO setting you might have elements of the program that are for the technicians and others for the supervisors, parts people, line service technicians – even the front office people. To be successful, it has to look at every person in the company and what they do.”

“For example, say a secretary comes into the hangar and sees something that can be dangerous – a cable on the floor or something – everybody in the hangar is used to it being that way so they don’t even see it,” he said. “The problem is invisible to them. Outsiders will see that immediately and can question it. SMS gives them the tool to do that in the right way.”

Baldwin said that that having everyone in the company involved in identifying potential safety issues is critical to getting the information you need to make it all work. “Where we continually see difficulties and disconnects in companies is when the program is just dropped on a technician, or anyone for that matter, with no up front training or guidance,” he said. “They’re just handed the forms and told to fill them out if they see any issues.”

“Providing the right training to everyone in the company is critical to the program’s initial implementation and ultimate success,” explained Theresa McCormick, president, ATC Vantage. “An SMS program is only as good as the information you get from your employees so there will be a variety of reports: There will be mandatory reports, voluntary reports, and anonymous reports. The voluntary and anonymous reports are the hardest to get employees to use properly.”