Air Carrier Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) Validate Effectiveness of Maintenance Program

Objectives Determine how to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program Identify effectiveness processes within the air carrier’s maintenance program Describe the carrier’s procedures in its CASS for validating effectiveness of its maintenance program

Overview Surveillance Analysis Select data sets Collect data Purpose Schedule

Primary Goals of a Maintenance Program All maintenance performed by the air carrier or by other persons is performed according to the air carrier manual. Competent personnel and adequate facilities and equipment are provided for the proper performance of maintenance. Each airplane released to service is airworthy and has been properly maintained for operations in air transportation.

Verify Effectiveness of the Maintenance Program

Data Sets Selection What operational data to collect Who will collect it How to collect it When to collect it What to do with it (after it is collected)

Operational Data Definition Generated as the result of flight operations Helps determine if the maintenance program is producing the desired results

Collecting Data Assessing effectiveness of MP: Collection of operational data Measures the output of inspection and maintenance programs

Data Collection Process Data Collection Systems Collect Store Manage Retrieve

Collecting Operational Data What operational data to collect Defined by carrier Meets CASS requirements Can be divided into Routine or Nonroutine

Collecting Operational Data Who will Collect How to Collect Defined procedures Quality data Periodic audits Documented When to Collect Frequency of collection Periodic review of usefulness of data

Red Rock Airline Data Sources

Common Misconceptions No reliability program, no requirement to collect data. Manufacturers collected data, so “I don’t need to.” If an organization has a reliability program and an audit program, it automatically has a CASS. Integration between reliability program and CASS is not necessary. “I’m a small operator with one aircraft that flies 10 hours per month. I know what’s going on.  I don’t need CASS.”

Analysis

Purpose of Analysis Understand potential significance and relationship of all data sets Identify causal factors Analysis should include: Consideration of human factors May include expert input: Technical Engineering Reliability

Analysis Schedule The air carrier needs to clearly define the frequency at which data analysis will occur based on the type of operational data.

Red Rock Airline Data Analysis

Focus of Analysis Hazard identification Adverse indicators Risk analysis Risk assessment

Inspector Oversight Review policies, procedures, instructions, and information Determine desired outcome Review data

Other Things to Consider Analysis of operational data within alerting systems or warning systems when exceeding certain parameters. Do not rely completely on these automated systems in favor of good judgment on the part of the analyst. The FAA’s expectation of a CASS in this regard is that the air carrier has a complete, written procedure to review and analyze the operational data collected and to determine when corrective action is necessary. Analysis of the operational data will produce findings. Now a decision must be made as to whether or not, or how, to address each finding. Analysis of operational data within alerting/warning systems Do not rely completely on these automated systems (use good judgment) The FAA’s expectation of a CASS: Complete, written procedure to review and analyze the operational data and to determine when corrective action is necessary Analysis produces findings Make a decision as to whether or not, or how, to address each finding

Scenario As previously discussed: Red Rock Airline is a large U.S. Part 121 domestic/flag air carrier Outsources 70 percent of its aircraft maintenance Aircraft experienced two “EFIS comparator monitor” caution messages The crew followed standard procedures

Red Rock Airline “Incident” 14 May 2009 “EFIS comparator monitor” caution message Aircraft Operating Manual procedure was followed by the crew Alternate compass swing was accomplished Found within limits Aircraft was scheduled for a full compass swing Within 700 flight hours, or Before two “A” checks were completed

Red Rock Airline “Action” 20 May 2009 Aircraft was scheduled for a full compass swing to comply with the requirements During the inspection: Standby Magnetic Compass and First Officer’s Flux Valve were out of tolerance Both parts were removed and replaced Operational checks were accomplished

Red Rock Airline “2nd Incident” 3 June 2009 While in-flight to Denver, the same aircraft experienced an “EFIS comparator monitor” caution message Crew followed the Aircraft Operating Manual procedure

Red Rock Airline “2nd Action” 3 June 2009 Aircraft was ferried to Colorado Springs, Colorado System was troubleshot and magnetized areas were found on the left wing near the flux valve The following was accomplished, and the aircraft was returned to service: Eleven (11) magnetized screws were removed The area in question was demagnetized The #1 Remote Compensating Unit was removed and replaced A full compass swing was accomplished The most recent audit of this contract maintenance provider indicated no findings for accomplishment of maintenance. The audit schedule shows the next audit is on a one-year cycle.

Red Rock Airline Operational Data 06/2009

Practice Exercise

Practice Exercise

Summary Surveillance Analysis Select data sets Collect data Purpose Schedule

Objectives Determine how to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance program (MP) within CASS Identify the different types of data driving the effectiveness portion of CASS Identify effectiveness processes within the air carrier’s maintenance program

QUESTIONS?