aero - boeing · 2 aero no. 19, july 2002 first, we have created four vice-president-level...

B O E I N G 19A E R O

N o .

Aero is printed on recycled, recyclable paper.

Copyright © 2002 The Boeing Company

Aero magazine is published quarterly by Boeing Commercial Airplanes and is distributed at no cost to operatorsof Boeing commercial airplanes. Aero provides operators with supplemental technical information to promotecontinuous safety and efficiency in their daily fleet operations. ■ The Boeing Company supports operators dur-ing the life of each Boeing commercial airplane. Support includes stationing Field Service representatives inmore than 60 countries, furnishing spare parts and engineering support, training flight crews and maintenancepersonnel, and providing operations and maintenance publications. ■ Boeing continuously communicates with operators through such vehicles as technical meetings, service letters, and service bulletins. This assistsoperators in addressing regulatory requirements and Air Transport Association specifications.

Information published in Aero magazine is intended to be accurate and authoritative. However, no material should be considered FAA approved unless specifically stated. Airline personnel areadvised that their company’s policy may differ from or conflict with information in this publication. Customer airlines may republish articles from Aero without permission if for distribution onlywithin their own organizations. They thereby assume responsibility for the current accuracy of the republished material. All others must obtain written permission from Boeing before reprint-ing any Aero article. ■ Aero is not available by subscription. ■ Please address communications to Aero Magazine, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2M-89, Seattle, Washington,98124-2207, USA ■ E-mail: [email protected]

Editorial BoardRichard Breuhaus, John Cashman, Michael DiDonato, Dick Elliott, Chris Finnegan, Jeff Hawk, Al John, Bob Kelley-Wickemeyer, Elizabeth Lund, Jay Maloney, Tom Melody, John Mowery, Jerome Schmelzer, William Siegele, Roger Stropes, Bill Williams

Technical Review CommitteeFrank Billand, Richard Breuhaus, Roy Bruno, John Creighton, Edward Dobkoski, Dick Elliott, Giday Girmay, Bruce Groenewegen, Al John, Warren Lamb, Bob Manelski, Tom Melody, Doug Mohl, Norm Pauk, Gary Prescott,Jerome Schmelzer, William Siegele, William Tsai, Joan Walsh, Todd Zarfos

Douglas DC-3

Publisher Brian Ames

Editor-in-chief Jill Langer

Art director/designer Faye Lomax

Copy/quality editor Julie O’Donnell

Production editor Daniel Sheldon

Distribution managerJanet Foster

IllustratorsScott HeinrichsJenifer IbukiRichard JacksonGail JohnsonDebra Oppie

Photographers Greg Thon

Printer Graphic Arts Center

AERO ONLINE w w w . b o e i n g . c o m / a e r o m a g a z i n e

MIKE BAIRTo better serve airlines, BoeingCommercial Aviation Services creates four vice-president-level positions in the area of customer support.

APPROACH AND LANDING ACCIDENTSA CD-ROM containing quantitative data, conclusions, recommendations,and training materials is designed to helpairlines reduce approach and landing accidents worldwide.

AGING SYSTEMSAlthough industry fact-finding efforts to date have found no endemic safety issuesrelated to aging aircraft, recommendationsare being made to enhance the design and maintenance of airplane electrical systems and associated documentationand training.

717 MAINTENANCE COSTSAirline experience to date indicates that the newest Boeing twinjet is exceedingits economic performance targets in terms of low maintenance costs andhigh dispatch reliability.

Boeing 717

Issue No.19JULY 2002Contents

18MAINTENANCE

08SAFETY

03

PERSPECTIVE 02

FLIGHT OPERATIONS

COVER

2 AERO No. 19, July 2002

First, we have created four vice-president-level

positions in the area of customer support. These

leaders will serve foremost to build and sustain

our priceless relationships with you. Their most

important roles are to understand what you

need and then to facilitate your success. These

new vice presidents are

■ Bruce Dennis, Asia-Pacific.

■ Daniel da Silva, Europe.

■ Tom Basacchi, the Americas.

■ Marty Bentrott, Middle East, Africa, Russia, and South Asia-Pacific.

The vice presidents will work closely with you and with the new groups that now composeBoeing Commercial Aviation Services. We haveset up these groups to support you in the areasof flight operations, maintenance operations,spares, training, and technical services andmodifications. These groups are the outcome of consolidating Boeing services that are similar or complementary to package themtogether for you. For example, Maintenance

Services includes maintenance information,engineering, and planning; airplane-on-groundsupport; recovery and modification; componentmaintenance; and subsidiaries ContinentalGraphics Corp. and AeroInfo Systems, Inc.Technical Services and Modifications involvesservice engineering, interiors and in-flight entertainment, avionics, and passenger-to-freighter modifications. Flight Services encompasses crew information services, flight operations engineering, airport support,disruption management, airframe systems andperformance, and the subsidiaries JeppesenSanderson, Inc., and SBS International.

These changes in Boeing Commercial Aviation Services reflect our commitment to you. We believe that simplifying our supportstructure will make it possible for us to be even more helpful. And that’s what defines success for us — helping you be successful.Please let us know whether or not we are succeeding!

Our goal at Boeing Commercial

Airplanes is to assist you, our

valued airline customer, in building,

sustaining, and improving a safe,

secure, and efficient transportation

system. To that end, we have made several changes at Commercial Aviation

Services based on what many of you told us during recent visits.

MIKE BAIR

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

COMMERCIAL AVIATION SERVICES BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

PERSPECTIVE

3AERO

Data from numerous safety studies indicate that approach and landing accidents account for a significant proportion of air transport accidents.The aviation industry is committed to reducing the number of these accidents. One effort has led to the creation of a toolkit containing industry data and recommendations for use by airlines worldwide.

F L I G H T O P E R A T I O N SDAVID CARBAUGH

CHIEF PILOT

FLIGHT OPERATIONS SAFETY

BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

TOOLS FOR THE

REDUCTIONOF

APPROACH AND LANDING ACCIDENTSNo. 19, July 2002 3AERO


■ ALAR Task Force briefing notes.Thirty-four briefing notes cover various topics on preventing ALAs,including ALAs involving CFIT.Each briefing note contains statis-tical data, a discussion section,a summary, and lists of referencesand related readings. The briefingnotes are organized into eight broad subject areas: altimeter andaltitude, approach hazards, approach techniques, crew coordination,descent and approach, the go-around,landing techniques, and standardoperating procedures (SOP).

■ ALAR Task Force conclusions and recommendations. The ALARTask Force’s eight data-driven conclusions about ALAs (table 1)and 50 strategies for reducing ALAs are explained in detail.

■ ALAR Task Force final report.This authoritative reference document on CFIT and ALAR,“Killers in Aviation,” replaces qualitative ideas with quantitativefacts. For example, it was widelybelieved in the aviation industry that non-passenger-carrying airplanes have higher ALA rates.The task force quantified this beliefby determining that the ALA rate for ferry, freight, and positioningflights is eight times greater than that for passenger flights.

■ Approach and landing risk-awareness tool. This supplement to the normal approach briefingincreases flight crew awareness ofhazards and describes the elementsof a stabilized approach.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOOLKIT

During the early 1990s, the FlightSafety Foundation launched an effort toreduce commercial airplane accidentscaused by controlled flight into terrain(CFIT). A second phase of this effortbegan in 1996 with the creation of atask force to focus on reducing ALAs.

The ALAR Task Force was com-posed of four working groups: AirTraffic Control Training and Procedures/Airport Facilities, Aircraft Equipment,Data Acquisition and Analysis, andOperations and Training. Membershipwas international in scope and rep-resented airframe manufacturers, air-lines, industry associations, regulators,and suppliers.

These working groups collected data and recommended actions and appropriate training to help preventALAs. The results of these efforts were compiled into the ALAR Tool Kit.

CONTENT OF THE TOOLKIT

The ALAR Tool Kit presents a widerange of information to ensure that allsegments of the aviation industry find itapplicable and useful. The kit containsthe following information:

2

1According to the Flight SafetyFoundation, approximately 56 percent of commercial jet airplane accidents occur duringthe approach and landing phases of flight and account for 44 percent of all fatalitiesworldwide. In contrast, the dura-tion of the approach and landingphases typically is 16 percent of the total flight time.

The prevention of approachand landing accidents (ALA) is one of the top priorities of theaviation industry. One effort,spearheaded by the Flight SafetyFoundation, is the Approach-and-Landing Accident Reduction(ALAR) Tool Kit, a CD-ROMcontaining quantitative data,conclusions, recommendations,and training materials.

This article discusses the following:

1. Development of the toolkit.

2. Content of the toolkit.

3. Implementation of the toolkit.

No. 19, July 2002 5AERO

■ Approach and landing risk-reduction guide. These guidelinespresent industry best practices to help chief pilots, flight-trainingmanagers, and dispatchers stra-tegically evaluate their training,SOPs, and airplane equipment.

■ SOP template. Airlines can use this tool to check their proceduresand training manuals. Adapted from the U.S. Federal AviationAdministration Advisory CircularAC 120-71, Standard OperatingProcedures for Flight DeckCrewmembers, the SOP templateprovides a comparison of the operations procedures and trainingmanuals of several airlines and liststhe areas for which most airlineshave written procedures.

■ CFIT checklist. Guidelines forassessing the relative risk of CFITfor various operations are presentedin Arabic, Chinese, English, French,Russian, and Spanish.

■ CFIT alert. Procedures are outlinedfor immediate flight crew responseto an alert from a ground proximitywarning system or a terrain aware-ness and warning system.

■ Flight operations and training. The ALAR Task Force’s eight conclusions (table 1) and 50 recom-mendations for improved approachand landing safety are provided as a Microsoft® PowerPoint® pre-sentation. The presentation containsexplanatory notes, data, procedures,and recommendations for airplaneoperators and flight crews.

■ Equipment for airplane and air traffic control. A PowerPoint presentation (with explanatorynotes) describes the ALAR TaskForce’s analysis of airplane andair traffic control (ATC) equipment and methods for optimal use.

■ ATC communications.A PowerPoint presentation (withexplanatory notes) is designed to help improve communicationbetween flight crews and air trafficcontrollers and increase their understanding of each other’srespective operating environments.

■ Flight crew guide to preventingCFIT. This PowerPoint presentation is designed to inform flight crews of CFIT hazards and preventionmethods. The presentation is pro-vided because most CFIT accidentsoccur when the airplane is lined upon the runway centerline, and two-thirds occur within 8 nmi from therunway threshold.

■ ALA data overview. A PowerPointpresentation (with explanatorynotes) highlights data from ALARTask Force findings, conclusions,and recommendations. The data arebased on high-level analyses of 287fatal ALAs between 1980 and 1996,detailed studies of 76 ALAs between1984 and 1997, and the assessmentof human factors for 3,300 flights.

■ ALA video. A 19-min video,An ALA: It Could Happen to You,presents specific data, findings,and recommendations related to the reduction of ALAs. The video

The ALAR Task Force developed 50 strategies, or recommendations, based onthe following eight data-driven conclusions:

■ Establishing and adhering to adequate SOPs and flight crew decision-makingprocesses improve approach and landing safety.

■ Failing to recognize the need for a missed approach and failing to execute a missed approach are major causes of ALAs.

■ Executing unstabilized approaches causes ALAs.

■ Improving communication between controllers and flight crews increases their mutual understanding of each other’s operational environment andresults in improved approach and landing safety.

■ Conducting operations in low light or poor visibility; on wet runways or runways contaminated by standing water, snow, slush, or ice; or with the presence of visual or physiological illusions increases the risk of ALAs.

■ Using the radio altimeter effectively helps prevent ALAs.

■ Collecting and analyzing in-flight data (e.g., through flight operational qualityassurance programs) can identify trends that can be used to improveapproach and landing safety.

■ Sharing aviation information globally decreases the risk of ALAs.

ALAR TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS

TABLE

1


highlights four strategies that mostlikely would have prevented manyALAs: initiating a go-around, adher-ing to SOPs, conducting an approach briefing, and performing a pull-upmaneuver.

■ CFIT video. A 32-min video of CFITstatistics, CFIT Awareness andPrevention, presents analyses of threerepresentative CFIT accidents andhow they might have been avoided.

■ Links to aviation statistics on the Internet. The kit provides theaddresses of 16 international web sites, some of which provide data specific to CFIT and ALAs. All contain statistical data on airplaneaccidents in general.

■ Additional items. A section of miscellaneous information listsALAR Task Force members, selectFlight Safety Foundation publica-tions, and available informationalposters about reducing ALAs.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THETOOLKIT

The Flight Safety Foundation hasorganized the CFIT/ALAR ActionGroup (CAAG) to direct the implemen-tation of the ALAR Tool Kit through-out the aviation industry. The group hasassigned regional team leaders to adaptthe toolkit to their respective regions of the world through language trans-lations, workshops, and regulations.Regional team leaders have been estab-lished in Africa, Australia, Central andSouth America, Iceland, Indonesia,Malaysia, the Middle East, Myanmar,South Africa, South Asia, SoutheastAsia, and Thailand.

In North America, the ALAR Tool Kit is being implemented by the Commercial Aviation Safety Team(CAST), which is a joint effort of government organizations, industryassociations, and individual aerospacecompanies, including Boeing. CASTwas formed in June 1998 to signifi-cantly reduce the rate of fatal com-mercial aviation accidents. In Europe,a similar team — the Joint AviationAuthorities Safety Strategy Initiative —is leading implementation efforts.

Boeing has distributed the ALARTool Kit to all its airplane customers.Boeing also is actively involved in the CAAG and in assisting regionalteam leaders.

3

Editor’s note: For information on how to obtain an ALAR Tool Kit,contact the Flight Safety Foundationat the following address.

Flight Safety Foundation 601 Madison St., Suite 300Alexandria, VA 22314-1756 USA

Telephone: 703-739-6700 Fax: 703-739-6708 Web site: http://www.flightsafety.org

7AERONo. 19, July 2002

The aviation industry can reducethe ALA rate by increasing aware-ness of ALA hazards and methodsof prevention. The ALAR Tool Kit,which contains quantitative data,conclusions, recommendations,and training materials, is a valuable resource in this effort.Implementation of the toolkit isunder way worldwide.

SUMMARY

Aging Transport

The U.S. Federal AviationAdministration andindustry representativesare working together todetermine how existingmaintenance practicesmay be improved to helpensure the continued airworthiness of olderairplanes. Although fact-finding efforts to datehave found no endemicsafety issues, recom-mendations are beingmade to enhance thedesign and maintenanceof airplane electrical systems and associateddocumentation andtraining.

UPDATE:

S A F E T Y

DONALD ANDERSEN

MANAGER

REGULATORY AND INDUSTRY LIAISON


PAUL LAPWOOD

INSTRUCTOR

MAINTENANCE

FLIGHTSAFETY BOEING TRAINING INTERNATIONAL

GIL PALAFOX

MANAGER

MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING



Systems Investigation


Although none of the teams identifiedany issue related to the immediate safety of the aging fleet, they did suggest enhancements to existingdesign, maintenance, and operationalprocedures for the continued air-worthiness of all airplanes.

Fleet condition.One team reviewed the condition of the aging fleet by conducting a non-intrusive evaluation of the wiring on 81 in-service airplanes and a detailed,intrusive inspection of the wiringremoved from six recently retired airline airplanes.

The team found that wiring degra-dation primarily is not related to the age of the airplane (i.e., the time since manufacture), the environment in which the airplane operates, or the typeof wiring. Rather, wiring degradation is influenced significantly by the main-tenance and modification performedthroughout the life of the airplane. Theteam also determined that a generalvisual inspection of the wiring installedon airplanes, which typically is con-ducted from a distance of a few feet,cannot adequately assess the condition

ATSRAC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The initial ATSRAC investigation ofaging airplane wiring studied five factors: fleet condition, fleet service history, maintenance criteria, standardpractices for wiring, and inspection and repair training. A team of ATSRACmembers and industry representativeswas assigned to evaluate each parame-ter. The teams conducted analyses,made conclusions, and recommendedfollow-up actions, which the ATSRACthen reviewed, approved, and provided to the FAA.

1

As part of its effort to ensure the continued airworthiness ofaging airplanes (i.e., airplanesbuilt to type designs that aremore than 20 years old), the U.S.Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) formed a fact-findingcommittee in 1998 to evaluatethe airplane systems of the agingfleet and propose enhancementsto current procedures. The AgingTransport Systems RulemakingAdvisory Committee (ATSRAC),which is composed of represen-tatives from various segments ofthe aviation industry, is focusingits investigation on airplanewiring. (See “Aging AirplaneSystems Investigation,”Aero no. 7, July 1999.) The committee completed its initialtasks in January 2001 and is continuing with plans to imple-ment its recommendations.

This article discusses

1. ATSRAC findings and recommendations.

2. Implementation of ATSRAC recommendations.

3. FAA actions.

4. Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems.

5. Boeing support.


737

747

DC-8

DC-9

DC-10

737-24-1144

747-24A2118

747-25A2407

747-35A2035

747-38A2073

DC8-24A068

DC8-24073

DC8-30A032

DC8-33A053

DC9-24A072

DC9-24A115

DC9-24A135

DC9-24A160

DC9-27A147

DC9-33A037

DC9-33A058

DC9-33A062

DC9-33A081

DC9-33A111

DC9-74A001 DC9-72A002

DC9-34A075

DC10-76A048 DC10-76A049

DC10-24A130

DC10-24A137

DC10-24A174

DC10-24A147

DC10-24A149

AD 2001-24-33

AD 2001-24-31

AD 2001-24-32

AD 2001-24-29

AD 2001-24-30

AD 2001-08-20

AD 2001-24-34

AD 2001-08-17

AD 2001-08-18

AD 2001-24-14

AD 2001-24-16

AD 2001-24-19

AD 2001-24-24

AD 2001-13-26

AD 2001-24-13

AD 2001-24-15

AD 2001-24-18

AD 2001-24-17

AD 99-04-10

AD 2000-02-23

AD 2001-13-27

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2001-NM-99-AD

AD 2001-24-20

AD 2001-24-22

AD 2001-24-23

AD 2001-24-25

AD 2001-24-21

Boeing service bulletin

Electrical Power – Auxiliary Power Unit Generator Feeder Wire Bundle – Inspection

Electrical Power – Main 115 Volt AC Power Distribution – Wire Inspection and Protective Sleeving Installation

Equipment/Furnishings – Flight Compartment – Flight Engineer’s Panel – Wire Bundle Clamping Modification

Passenger Oxygen System – Passenger Service Unit Hose/Wire Bundle Inspection

Equipment/Furnishings – Electrical/Electronic Equipment Center – Water Dripshield Modification

Electrical Power – Aircraft Wiring & Connectors General – Replace Toilet Flushing Circuit Breakers

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Modify Nacelle/Pylon Generator Power Feeder Cable Support Clamp Installation

Ice and Rain Protection – Windshield Heating and Control System – Inspect/Replace Clearview Window Wiring Conduit

Lights – Main Cabin Illumination – Install Protective Insulation on Terminals of Cabin Lighting Switches

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Inspect Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) Power Feeder Cables and Revise Bus Terminals

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Inspect Electrical Wiring for Chafing/Damage and Install Grommet on Conduit in Forward Electrical Power Center

Electrical Power – External Power – Inspect/Replace External Power Ground Stud and Install Nameplate

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Revise Power Feeder Cable Support Installation and Inspect for Wire Damage

Flight Controls – Spoiler Control and Indication – Modify Spoiler Control System

Lights – Passenger Compartment Lights – Rework Reflector Assemblies and Install Insulation Blanket Supports

Lights – Passenger Compartment Lights – Inspect/Revise Wire Routing of Attendants’ Aft Cabin Work Lights

Lights – Passenger Compartment Lights – Revise Cabin Sidewall Lights Circuitry

Lights – Cargo and Service Compartment Lights – Modify Cargo Compartment Light Switch

Lights – Passenger Compartment Lights – Replace Upper and Lower Cabin Sidewall Fluorescent Light Ballasts

Ignition – Switching – Inspect/Replace Rotary Ignition Switch Engine Ignition – Ignition Switching – Inspect/Replace Rotary Ignition Switch

Navigation – Attitude and Direction – Replace Navigation Transfer Circuit Breaker

Engine Controls – Engine Power Control – Modify Throttle Control Module Engine Controls – Engine Power Control – Inspect/Repair Throttle Control Module Wiring

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Inspect Circuit Breakers on Flight Engineer’s Equipment Panel for Proper Wire Connections

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Inspect/Modify/Repair/Replace APU Power Feeder Cable and Clamp Installation

Electrical Power – DC Generation – Relocate Battery 1 Ground Stud Bracket Assembly

Electrical Power – Electrical Load Distribution – Inspect/Install Spiral Wrap on External Ground Power Feeder Cable Assemblies in Forward Lower Cargo Compartment

Electrical Power – AC Generation & Control – Inspect Wire Bundle and Modify Wire Bundle Support Clamp Installation at Flight Engineer’s Station

Airplanemodel Number Title

FAA AD

DIRECTIVES RESULTING FROM SERVICE DOCUMENT REVIEW

TABLE

1


of the wiring. Specific recommenda-tions included an increased emphasis on the periodic removal of accumulatedcontaminants and clarification of therequirements regarding the spatial separation of wiring for critical airplane systems.

Fleet service history.A second team reviewed all existingservice information applicable to theolder airplanes under study. Of the thousands of wiring-related service documents (e.g., service bulletins,service letters, all-operator letters,in-service activity reports) reviewed,29 service bulletins contained airplanemodifications important enough to justify upgrading the service bulletins to alert status. (Boeing releases alert service bulletins to address issues ofsafety over the life of the fleet.) TheFAA has released 26 airworthinessdirectives (AD) and proposed one AD that mandate incorporation of themodifications (table 1).

Maintenance criteria.A third team evaluated the recom-mended scheduled maintenance activitiesfor older airplanes. Most modern

manufacturers adopt a common document format and include thesame types of information in newdocuments so that technicians andengineers can easily use documentsfrom different manufacturers. Theteam also recommended that existingdocuments be updated to reflect therevised format and content.

Inspection and repair training.The fifth team reviewed available programs for training personnel with access to wiring and electrical systems.The team found a need for a trainingprogram specific to wiring to ensurethat all aviation personnel who are incontact with the airplane are aware of the importance of airplane wiring.The team recommended a training curriculum that is standardized, withcontent customized to operators’specific airplane models.

IMPLEMENTATION OF ATSRACRECOMMENDATIONS

The teams recommended enhance-ments to maintenance programs, train-ing programs, airplane documentation,and future airplane design. However,the level of detail and the methods of

commercial airplanes are delivered with a recommended maintenance planbased on an airplane zonal analysisusing the Maintenance Steering GroupLevel 3 (MSG-3) evaluation process.However, the MSG-3 and previous evaluation processes did not considerthe airplane wiring as a specific system.The typical result was that airplanewiring was examined visually when a maintenance technician was in thegeneral area for other reasons.

The team concluded that an enhancedmaintenance analysis process was needed to specifically evaluate airplanewiring. This enhanced zonal analysisprocedure (EZAP) can be accomplishedon all airplanes regardless of whetherthey have been evaluated previouslyusing the MSG-3 process. (See“Enhanced Zonal Analysis Procedure”on p. 16.)

Standard practices for wiring.Another team evaluated the documen-tation concerning wiring repair andmaintenance and determined that theinformation used to inspect, repair,and replace airplane wiring could beimproved and made easier to use. Theteam recommended that all airplane

2

13AERO

FAA ACTIONS

The FAA already has taken regulatoryaction to increase the margin of safety of older airplane models. These actionsinclude issuing ADs regarding airplanemodifications (table 1), developing atraining program about airplane wiringsystems, forming a policy statement on thecertification of wiring systems, releas-ing bulletins on operation specifications and the principal maintenance inspector handbook, and improving rules and com-munication with worldwide regulatoryauthorities on service difficulty reports.

The FAA’s long-term plans are to

■ Implement the remaining fourATSRAC tasks.

■ Change maintenance and trainingrequirements under Part 121 of theFederal Aviation Regulations (FAR).

■ Release related ACs and operationspecifications.

■ Enhance airplane design require-ments as appropriate.

■ Issue requirements and guidelines for the installation of arc-fault circuitbreakers that are under development.

implementing these enhancements needed further development.

In January 2001, the FAA recharteredthe ATSRAC to provide more details on the recommendations and developimplementation plans. Specifically, theFAA asked the ATSRAC to accomplishfour tasks by January 2003:

■ Review and consolidate the federalregulations used to certify airplanewiring systems.

■ Standardize the format and content ofwiring standard-practices documents.

■ Develop the content and imple-mentation plan for an industrywide common training program.

■ Develop an enhanced zonal maintenance plan.

To accomplish these tasks, theATSRAC formed four new teams, eachcochaired by industry representativesunder the authority of the FAA and the European Joint Aviation Authorities. In addition to completing its specifiedtask, each team was asked to produceguidance material in the form of draft advisory circulars (AC) and recommendspecific terminology for use in futureregulatory mandates.

■ Establish wire performance requirements.

■ Develop an automated system forreporting service difficulties.

■ Conduct ongoing research and development of maintenance equipment used in the assessment of airplane wiring.

Institutionalizing the ATSRAC re-sults and recommendations will requireall holders of type certificates and supplemental type certificates to changeexisting instructions for continuedairworthiness. These requirements areexpected to apply to all FAR Part 91,121, 125, 129, and possibly 135 opera-tors. In addition, changes to Part 25 will combine existing wiring designand certification requirements andinclude any new requirements iden-tified by the ATSRAC. These changeswill apply to all new type certificateand supplemental type certificate applications.

The FAA plans to release a specialfederal aviation regulation (SFAR),based on ATSRAC recommendations,which will mandate the incorporation of an EZAP to enhance airplane main-tenance programs. In addition, the FAA

No. 19, July 2002

3


plans to update sections of the FARs for private, charter, and domestic com-mercial operators and foreign commer-cial operators operating in the UnitedStates. These operators will be requiredto update their maintenance and trainingdocumentation to include the notedenhancements. In addition to the SFARand changes to FAR Parts 91, 121,125, and 129, related ACs will provide guidance on an acceptable means ofcompliance.

The FAA expects to begin developingthe SFAR changes, the FAR changes,and the accompanying ACs and otherguidance material during fourth-quarter2002. The ATSRAC will review thesematerials before they are placed on thepublic docket to help ensure that man-dated actions are readily implemented in the fleet. All changes are subject to public review under the Notice ofProposed Rulemaking procedures.Regulation changes, AC releases, and the issuance of operations specificationsare expected to continue through 2004.

ENHANCED AIRWORTHINESS PROGRAM FOR AIRPLANE SYSTEMS

The ATSRAC efforts are part of an overarching plan developed by the FAA known as the EnhancedAirworthiness Program for AirplaneSystems (EAPAS). The EAPAS outlinesthe results and recommendations of theATSRAC and other fact-finding groupsand explains how this knowledge will be applied throughout the aviationindustry. Although the program has been designed to encourage voluntarycompliance, the FAA’s objective of institutionalizing an enhanced andacceptable level of safety requires theuse of mandatory requirements. TheEAPAS organizes this information and initiates both short-term and long-termimplementation actions to enhance thesafety of the entire domestic fleet. Forthis reason, the EAPAS omits specificreference to older airplanes. The pro-gram is intended to focus on all airplanesystems, with mechanical systems toundergo detailed evaluation after wiring.

BOEING SUPPORT

Boeing supports the ATSRAC andEAPAS through active participation and the development of both guidancematerial and programs to comply withexpected regulatory mandates.

■ Boeing has developed the EZAPbased on the MSG-3 process for older Boeing airplane models. Boeing has applied the EZAP to the 727 and plans to apply it to all in- and out-of-production airplanes.

■ FlightSafety Boeing TrainingInternational has developed a wiringtraining course to meet the expectedFAR requirements. The programenables the operator or repair station to tailor the curriculum to the technical expertise of the studentand to the specific airplane model. (See “Airplane Wiring SystemsTraining” on p. 16.)

■ Boeing is revising the BoeingStandard Wiring Practices Manualto add new procedures for cleaninginstalled wiring, performing a detailed wiring inspection, and protecting wiring during related and unrelated maintenance.

■ In addition to the requirements out-lined in the regulatory mandate andthe guidance provided by the ACs,Boeing will be available to assistoperators in the development andimplementation of their enhancedcontinued airworthiness programs.For example, Boeing will release supplemental guidance material that, although not expected to be regulatory agency approved, will provide information on existing maintenance, training, and inspec-tion programs that are known to have complied with the SFAR. Thisguidance material also will describeregulatory programs or material not typically distributed worldwide.Operators can use this information to develop their programs.

5

4


The FAA asked industry representatives to review the systems installed on the aging airplane fleet anddetermine whether changes to existing processesand designs were needed to offset the effects ofaging. Investigation of airplane wiring systems indicated that, although no endemic issues related tothe immediate safety of the airplanes were identified,safety enhancements could be implemented. Theseenhancements relate to the design and maintenanceof airplane electrical systems and associated docu-mentation and training.

The FAA has developed a program, the EAPAS, to promote voluntary incorporation of these enhance-ments, charter related reporting and research projects, and provide guidance on the expeditedincorporation of the anticipated changes to relatedfederal regulations.

Boeing is actively participating in the EAPAS and is providing the industry with information andentire programs that are expected to comply withthe forthcoming changes. In addition, Boeing will assist operators in their efforts to incorporatethese changes into their current maintenance andtraining programs.

SUMMARY

he enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP) is a method of analyzing airplane zones, with anemphasis on wiring systems. Developedby an industry team chartered by theAging Transport Systems RulemakingAdvisory Committee, the EZAP consists of four basic steps:

1. For a given airplane zone, the analyst identifies all systems (including wiring systems), struc-tures, components, and any present or possible combustible materials (e.g., fuel vapors, dust or lint particles, contamination).

2. The analyst determines whether the zone contains both wiring andcombustible materials.

3. If the zone contains both wiring andcombustible materials, the analystwill determine whether it is possibleto define an applicable and effectivetask with an appropriate maintenanceinterval to remove or minimize thebuildup of combustible materials in the zone (e.g., a cleaning task toremove the dust or lint particles).

4. If the zone contains both wiring andcombustible materials, the analystalso will determine whether it is possible to define an applicable andeffective task for inspecting the zone. To accomplish this, the analystmust determine the appropriate levelof inspection (e.g., a general visualinspection [GVI] of the entire zone,a GVI of specific wiring within the zone, or a detailed inspection of specific wiring in the zone) and asso-ciated maintenance intervals. Factorsto consider when determining the level of inspection and maintenanceintervals include the types of wire inthe zones, the size and density of


the zone, the potential effects of a fire within a zone, environmentaleffects, and the likelihood of accidental damage.

For effective application of the EZAP,it is highly recommended that the an-alyst have direct access to the airplane.This allows the analyst to determinewhat is installed in the zone and under-stand other key features of the zone (e.g., size, density, environmental effects).

The EZAP is well suited to mainte-nance programs with a dedicated zonalinspection program because any GVIs ofan entire zone resulting from the EZAPmay be consolidated into an existingzonal task. For maintenance programswithout a dedicated zonal inspection program, the EZAP may result in additional tasks in the systems andpower plant maintenance program.

Boeing has applied the EZAP as part of an effort to update the 727 maintenance program to the latestMaintenance Steering Group Level 3standards. Boeing will continue to use the EZAP on all in- and out-of-production airplanes. Any resultingenhanced wiring inspections will be referenced in revisions to associatedmaintenance planning documents.

For further details of the EZAP, pleaserefer to the following documentation:

■ Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee, Task 3, Final Report,http://www.mitrecaasd.org/atsrac/final_reports/Task_3_Final.pdf.

■ Operator/Manufacturer ScheduledMaintenance Development, Revision2001, Air Transport Association(ATA) Maintenance Steering GroupLevel 3, ATA of America, 1301Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1100,Washington, DC 20004-1707, USA.

ENHANCED ZONAL ANALYSISPROCEDURE

AIRPLANE WIRING SYSTEMSTRAINING

In a report to the U.S. FederalAviation Administration (FAA) inJanuary 2001, the Aging TransportSystem Rulemaking AdvisoryCommittee recommended that wiringtraining be a significant component

T


of future maintenance procedures forairplane wiring systems. FlightSafetyBoeing Training International (FSBTI)offers an FAA-approved training coursein Boeing airplane wiring systems that is tailored to airplane and avionic tech-nicians, engineering staff, and other personnel with access to the airplane.

The course, Airplane Wiring Systems,incorporates lecture, discussion, anddemonstration to teach students how to

inspect the condition of the airplanewiring properly, use the BoeingStandard Wiring Practices Manual,implement standard wire and connec-tor repairs, understand and apply the processes and procedures in the WiringDiagrams Manual, and apply standardwire system troubleshooting proce-dures. The seven-module curriculummeets Air Transport Association LevelIV standards for the development of

training materials to be used by airlinesin training airplane maintenance personnel.

For further information, contact FSBTI by e-mail at [email protected] or by mail at P.O. Box 34787,Seattle, WA 98124-1787, USA. Courseschedules, locations, and dates are available on the FlightSafety Boeing web site on the World Wide Web athttp://www.fsbti.com.

18 No. 19, July 2002 AERO

Low airplane maintenance costs and highdispatch reliability are key to the financialsuccess of any airline. Both these perfor-mance measures are central to the design of the 717-200, the newest Boeing twinjet airplane for the short-haul, high-frequency,100-passenger market. Airline experience to date indicates that the 717 is exceedingits economic performance targets.

LOW MAINTENANCE COSTS AND

RANDY HEISEY

REGIONAL DIRECTOR

MARKETING–AIRLINE ECONOMICS


M A I N T E N A N C E

717-200:

HIGH DISPATCH RELIABILITY


INDUSTRY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE COSTS

The air transportation industry describes airplane maintenance costs as the expenditures required to restoreor maintain the systems, components,and structures of an airplane in an air-worthy condition. These costs includeexpenses for direct airframe and enginemaintenance and maintenance overhead.

1

In the competitive airline industry, low direct operating costs(DOC) are key to airline profitabil-ity. The five elements of DOC areownership costs, flight and cabincrew costs, fuel costs, maintenancecosts, and other costs (fig. 1).Maintenance costs are a signifi-cant part of DOC. In fact, theworld’s airlines spend more than$40 billion on airplane main-tenance each year. Depending on airplane age, type, and range,maintenance costs typically represent 10 to 20 percent of DOC. Understanding how the717-200 provides operators withlow maintenance costs and high

dispatch reliability requires a discus-sion of the following:

1. Industry definition of maintenance costs.

2. Airplane maintainability and reliability by design.

3. In-service support.

4. 717 operator experience to date.

Direct airframe and engine maintenance costs are the costs ofthe labor and materials required toperform servicing, repair, modifica-tion, restoration, inspection, test,and troubleshooting tasks duringon-airplane and shop maintenanceactivities. Maintenance overheadcosts are unallocated labor costs andthe expenses for maintenance super-vision, training, and planning; equip-ment rental; and utilities. Overheadcosts do not include capital expenses for facilities, spares, test equipment,maintenance tooling, and ground-support equipment.

To help operators and manufac-turers understand the relative main-tenance costs of airplane features and the factors that influence thosecosts, the total cost of maintaining a specific airplane model can be subdivided several ways. One method


4.5%

5%

7.2%

Direct engine**

Maintenance overhead

Maintenance10% to 20%of DOC*

Ownership

Flight andcabin crew

Fuel

Other

Direct airframe**

*Varies by airplane type and range

**Part of contracted maintenance

AIRPLANE DIRECT OPERATING COSTS

FIGURE

1

is to divide maintenance costs according to airplane systems,as defined by Air TransportAssociation (ATA) chapters (fig. 2). Cost data at the ATAchapter level are used to analyzethe effects of design choices and project maintenance costsfor new and derivative airplanes.

Another approach is di-viding total direct airplanemaintenance costs according toroutine and nonroutine activity(fig. 3). Routine maintenancecomprises scheduled tasks outlined in airline maintenanceprograms. Nonroutine main-tenance involves unscheduledon-airplane repairs and theremoval and restoration ofcomponents. Nonroutine laborand material costs are the primary causes of increasingmaintenance costs as an airplane ages. Operators and manufacturers strive to reducenonroutine maintenance because of its effect on schedule reliability and airplane downtime.

TOTAL DIRECT AIRPLANE MAINTE-NANCE COSTS BY ATA CHAPTERS

FIGURE

2

Auxiliary power unitEquipment and furnishingsStructure

Landing gear

Systems

Engines

Repr

esen

ts to

tal

Routine

Nonroutine

Repr

esen

ts to

tal

TOTAL DIRECT AIRPLANE MAINTENANCECOSTS BY ROUTINE/NONROUTINE ACTIVITY

FIGURE

3

AIRPLANE MAINTAINABILITY AND RELIABILITY BY DESIGN

During design of the 717, Boeingfocused on the interrelated aspects ofmaintainability and reliability. Thedesign team sought to reduce partcounts, reduce the number of mainte-nance and inspection tasks, minimizedowntime, increase ease of access,increase commonality of componentsand procedures among 717 systems,consider human factors related to maintenance tasks, and improve fault-isolation capability.

The design team implemented the following key steps to ensure continuous focus on its design goals:

■ Establishment of maintenance costand reliability baselines and targets.

■ Involvement of airline advisorygroups (AAG).

■ Assignment of a chief mechanic.

■ Continuous focus on maintainabilityand reliability targets.

Establishment of maintenance cost and reliability baselines and targets.Because dispatch reliability and main-tenance costs are directly related andcan be improved through increased component and system reliability,the 717 design team reviewed the dispatch reliability of another Douglas-designed twinjet airplane, the MD-80,whose design was based on that of theDC-9. The MD-80 fleet represented amature airplane program from which to draw reliable data. With 1.5 million dispatches annually, the MD-80 fleethad a 98.9 percent dispatch reliability at the time that the 717 was designed.Using this information, the 717 design team established targets of a 0.2 percent improvement in dispatchreliability (99.1 percent, later revised to 99.17 percent) and a related 20 percent reduction in maintenancecosts. Engine manufacturer Rolls-Roycealso adopted these reliability and maintainability goals for the 717 powerplant, the BR715.

Involvement of AAGs.Unlike AAG participation in earlier airplane programs, the 717 AAGs notonly reviewed airplane designs but alsomade design recommendations duringthe airplane design phases. The mostimportant considerations were airplanemaintainability, reliability, and main-tenance costs. AAG meetings focusedon numerous improvements to flightdeck, interior, and airplane systemdesigns, many of which were expectedor had been shown to reduce mainte-nance costs and improve reliability inservice. For example, the wheel brakemounting was redesigned to signifi-cantly reduce removal and installationtime. A new design for the potablewater system incorporates integrallyheated hoses that eliminate cold-weather cracking and resultant leaks inthe cargo compartment. A new, sealedflap-position transmitter on the wingprotects electrical contacts from ex-posure to the corrosive environment.

Assignment of a chief mechanic.A chief mechanic was assigned to the717 design team to serve as an airlineadvocate during the design process,specifically in the areas of mainte-nance and operations. As a peer of thechief engineer on the design team,the chief mechanic ensured that alldesign decisions considered mainte-nance costs, dispatch reliability, and the perspective of airline mechanics,and he was able to increase the team’sawareness of fleet problems experi-enced on previous Douglas-designedtwinjet airplanes. The chief mechanicalso monitored changes made duringthe design process to ensure that theyhad a neutral or positive effect on dis-patch reliability, focusing on the master minimum equipment list and the con-figuration deviation list.

Continuous focus on maintainabilityand reliability targets.To help ensure that established goalswould be met, the design team focusedon airplane design, system design,power plant design, and scheduled

No. 19, July 2002 22 AERO

2 maintenance program development.

Airplane design. The first step in the airframe design process was toexamine the causes of nonroutinemaintenance on previous Douglas-designed twinjet airplanes. MD-80 dispatch delays were attributed to1,699 components (i.e., 1,699 six-digitATA chapter classifications). Of these,116 components caused 50 percent of the delays, and their improvementwas given the highest priority by the717 design team.

The team also focused on retain-ing airplane design elements that had proved successful on previousDouglas-designed twinjet airplanes,including the 100,000-cycle airframestructural design and the simple,reliable, low-maintenance primaryflight control system. Figure 4 showssome of the significant 717 airplanedesign improvements made to lowermaintenance costs and improve reliability.

System design. System designs on 717 predecessors were revised toimprove component-level design andease of maintenance on the 717:

■ The environmental control systemuses three-wheel air-cycle machines,which eliminate the need for air-cycle machine ground cooling fansand reduce scheduled maintenance.The system has 27 percent fewerline-replacable units (LRU) than the DC-9 and MD-80 design.

■ The integrated electrical systemreduced the number of major components from 60 to 9, whicheliminated 150 wires compared withthe DC-9 and MD-80 design. The717 system features an integrateddrive generator, no-break powertransfer, and interchangeable powerconversion distribution units.

■ The airplane interior features re-movable window escutcheons thatpermit inner and outer windowpanereplacement without the removal of seats or sidewall panels.


■ Electrically controlled aileron trim,rudder trim, and spoilers simplifiedthe flight deck pedestal, or aisle stand,and eliminated many cables comparedwith the DC-9 and MD-80 design.

■ The in-line (i.e., straight-shaft),engine-driven hydraulic pumps havehigher reliability than the bent-axis(i.e., articulated-shaft) pumps on ear-lier airplanes. The flareless fittings in the hydraulic lines significantlyimprove reliability because they areless prone to cracking and leakage.

■ The integrated flight deck has state-of-the-art displays, communicationand navigation equipment, and digitalflight guidance system, which cumu-latively reduce the number of flightdeck LRUs by 57 percent, comparedwith the DC-9 and MD-80 design.

■ The landing gear system incorporatessteel brakes that are attached with 10 pins rather than traditional fasten-ers, which reduces installation timeby 60 percent, compared with theDC-9 and MD-80 design.

■ The vacuum waste system, whichfeatures modular lavatories, permits

single-point aft servicing and is designed for corrosion prevention.

■ Built-in test equipment is an integralelement of many 717 digital com-ponents, reducing troubleshootingand inspection times. In addition, theintegrated centralized fault displaysystem (CFDS) receives inputs frommore than 30 LRUs and presentsinformation on the flight deck multi-function control and display unitsfor ease of line maintenance.

■ The auxiliary power unit, based on a proven design, requires no special-ized ground-support equipment fortransport.

■ The 717 structures are based on theproven design of its predecessors,with improved corrosion protectionand appropriate material choices.

Power plant design. Rolls-Roycefocused on power plant maintainability,low maintenance costs, and high reliability throughout the design of the BR715 engine.

■ The wide-chord fan is highly resistant to damage from foreignobject debris.

■ The engine modules are prebalanced,which allows for quick replacement.

■ The use of digital and hardwaremockups early in the design processhelped ensure LRU accessibility.

■ The use of lock wire on engine LRU installations was minimized.

■ With the exception of integrateddrive generator servicing, only standard hand tools are required toperform engine maintenance.

■ Repair of the all-aluminum cowlingrequires no specialized materials orskills. To expedite line maintenancetasks, the cowling is designed for use as a mechanics’ stand and can support two mechanics and a toolbox(fig. 5, p. 24).

■ The majority of the LRUs are located on the bottom of the enginefor ease of access.

■ To prevent contamination, the pneumatic elements are located onthe top of the engine, away from fluids on the bottom.

EXAMPLES OF 717 DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS

FIGURE

4


■ The fan blades have been designed to allow on-wing replacement within60 min.

■ The full-authority digital electroniccontrol isolates and annunciatesfaults and interfaces with the CFDS.Unambiguous NO DISPATCH and TIME-LIMITED DISPATCHmessages are displayed to the flightcrew on the engine alerts display.

■ The latest generation engine vibra-tion system permits data samplingfor use in balancing blades.

■ Extending replacement intervals for life-limited parts (LLP) reducesthe materials costs of engine main-tenance. LLPs on the BR715 enginehave target cycle limits of 25,000,30,000, and 50,000 cycles, com-pared with 19,000 cycles for LLPson the DC-9 Pratt & Whitney (PW)JT8D-15/-17 engine and 20,000 and 25,000 cycles for LLPs on theMD-80 PW JT8D-219 engine.

Scheduled maintenance programdevelopment. The scheduled mainte-nance program for the 717 significantlyreduces maintenance labor-hourrequirements (figs. 6 and 7), therebylowering total maintenance costs. The labor-hour reduction results fromimproved scheduled maintenance programs and new design initiatives.

The 717 scheduled maintenance programs were developed using a pro-cess established by the MaintenanceSteering Group (MSG), a committee of airframe manufacturers, airlines, andU.S. Federal Aviation Administration representatives. Through the MSG Level 3, Revision 2 (MSG-3 Rev. 2)process, maintenance programs are developed using a top-down, systems-level approach, rather than the bottom-up,component-level approach used in thedevelopment of MSG-2 maintenance programs. Only tasks deemed applicableand effective are included in the maintenance programs, which reducesscheduled maintenance activities byextending maintenance intervals and eliminating some tasks required by earlier

maintenance programs. (This processalso was used during development ofthe 777 and 737-600/-700/-800/-900maintenance programs.) In addition,the MSG-3 Rev. 2 process integratesaging airplane maintenance programs,such as the Corrosion Prevention andControl program, which eliminatessome duplication of tasks (e.g., entryand access tasks).

The time needed to conduct scheduledmaintenance tasks also was reduced onthe 717 compared with its predecessorsthrough several design features:

BMW ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINE COWLING FOR THE 717

FIGURE

5

717 cowling isdesigned for use asa mechanic’s standto expedite line-maintenance tasks.

■ A single point of entry for maintenance inspections.

■ Time-saving CFDS inspection procedures (e.g., checking the proper rigging of all 14 landing gear,4 slat, and 8 door proximity sensorsis accomplished from the flight deck in moments, rather thaninspecting each at its location).

■ Single-switch activation and reset of all cabin reading and call lightsduring service inspections.


0

20

40

60

80

100

Under 15 min Under 30 min Under 60 min

Perc

ent r

epla

cem

ent o

f LRU

s 100%

74%

40%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Under 15 min Under 30 min Under 60 min

Perc

ent r

epla

cem

ent o

f LRU

s

10%

53%

100%

Figure 8 illustrates the time-savingimprovements in the 717 scheduledmaintenance programs. The conversionof an MD-80 maintenance program to theMSG-3 approach results in a 35 percentreduction in cumulative MD-80 sched-uled maintenance labor-hours during a10-year period. In addition, because of

2,500

015 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

Cum

ulat

ive

labo

r-hou

rs

Months

MD-80 MSG-3 cumulative labor-hours717 cumulative labor-hours

MD-80 MSG-2 cumulative labor-hours

35%

45%

AIRPLANE SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS —LABOR-HOURS PROJECTED FOR A 10-YEAR PERIOD

FIGURE

8

airplane design improvements, the 717requires 45 percent fewer cumulativelabor-hours than does an MD-80 on an MSG-3 maintenance program.

The scheduled maintenance of the717 power plant is similarly efficient.The BR715 engine features an on-condition maintenance program rather

than a scheduled engine overhaul program, thereby allowing extendedintervals between shop visits. Enginecondition analysis includes monitoringof exhaust gas temperature, engine vibration, and spectrometric oil analysis program parameters. Internalengine borescope inspections can be

REPLACEMENT OF CORE LRUS

FIGURE

7REPLACEMENT OF LRUS ON BYPASS DUCT

FIGURE

6


accomplished quickly through numer-ous access ports.

IN-SERVICE SUPPORT

By providing in-service support, Boeinghelps 717 operators to attain low main-tenance costs. Support programs for allBoeing commercial airplanes include on-site service representatives, a business-to-business web portal, andmaintenance services. Boeing also offersservices that support operators’ airplanemaintenance programs, including engi-neering support; program management;quality support; recovery and modifi-cation; repair, overhaul, and exchange;and worldwide spares distribution.

In addition to the standard servicesavailable to all Boeing operators, Boeingoffers an integrated services program for 717 customers in Europe. CustomerOperation Support (COS) supports 717 customers’ daily operations with apool of high-value rotable spare parts,inventory management, and the repairand overhaul of the COS program parts.

Rolls-Royce supports the BR715 powerplant at its Dahlewitz, Germany, facility,which is the coordination point for allin-service issues and spare parts provi-sioning. The engine manufacturer’s fieldservice representatives coordinate withthe Dahlewitz team.

717 OPERATOR EXPERIENCE TO DATE

To date, 717 operators are experiencing dispatch reliability and maintenance costs that meet or better program targets.

Dispatch reliability.According to statistics reported toBoeing, 717 fleet dispatch reliability is exceeding the final design target of99.17 percent for on-time departures(fig. 9). Dispatch reliability has exceeded99.2 percent, and several operators are experiencing reliability greater than 99.5 percent. One operator isexperiencing a 717 dispatch reliability1.37 percent greater than that of its DC-9s. Another operator reported its717 dispatch reliability was 1.10 percent

Disp

atch

relia

bilit

y, %

98.00

Apr 01 May 01 Jun 01 Jul 01 Aug 01 Sep 01 Oct 01 Nov 01 Dec 01 Jan 02 Feb 02 Mar 02

98.50

99.00

99.50

100.00Fleet monthly values

Fleet 3-month moving average

717 DISPATCH RELIABILITY — BASED ON DELAYS OF MORE THAN 15 MIN AND FLIGHT CANCELLATIONS

FIGURE

9

4

greater than that of its MD-80s duringthe latest six months.

Maintenance costs.

Early data indicate that operators withboth 717s and DC-9s are experien-cing significantly lower maintenancecosts on their 717s (fig. 10). Becausereported maintenance costs for first-year operations are excludedfrom any maintenance cost analysis,maintenance data reported to theU.S. Department of Transportation arejust becoming statistically significant.(The inclusion of first-year data skewsreported costs because of the variableeffect of airplane newness on mainte-nance activity.)

In addition, reports from one 717operator, who also operates DC-9s,indicate that in-service experience isexceeding Boeing forecasts:

■ The operator’s 717 in-service checksrequire significantly fewer labor-hours than for its DC-9 fleet. Duringa period of 550 flight-hours, the

3


Engine contractEngine materialEngine laborAirframe contractAirframe materialAirframe labor

700

600

500

400

300

200

U.S.

dol

lars

per

flig

ht-h

our (

2001

dat

a)

100

0717 DC-9

Note: Values shown are based on a weighted fleet average.

Reported direct maintenance costs from operators of both 717s and DC-9s based on U.S. Department of Transportation (Form 41) data.

cumulative total of labor-hours for717 in-service checks is 200 lessthan that of the DC-9.

■ Out-of-service time for the opera-tor’s 717s is 80 percent less than forits DC-9s. Extensive maintenanceinspections performed on a periodicbasis (e.g., C-checks) average 3 days for the 717 compared with 21 days for the DC-9.

■ The operator’s intervals between 717C-checks are more than 8 percentlonger than those of its DC-9s.

■ C-check costs for the operator’s717s are only 10 percent of those for its DC-9s.

■ Regulatory authorities extendedthe operator’s check intervalsbased on the operator’s in-serviceexperience with the 717. The A-check interval increased from450 flight-hours to 500 flight-hours, and the C-check intervalincreased from 3,600 flight-hours(15 months) to 4,500 flight-hours (18 months).

■ The operator’s BR715 power plant sustains far less damage from foreign object debris than the PW JT8D on its DC-9s.

Another 717 operator has foundthat the 717 allows it to reduce maintenance costs several ways.

For example, the operator uses reduced engine power settings on takeoff (i.e., derate) to extend enginelife considerably, thereby loweringengine maintenance costs.

In addition, the digital technologyallows the operator to know how each system and each component within a system are operating. As aresult, the operator anticipates prob-lems before they occur and replacesunits before functionality or perfor-mance is degraded. This proactivemaintenance capability increases reliability and lowers the cost of linemaintenance staffing and inventoryrequirements associated with unexpected part failures.

DIRECT MAINTENANCE COSTS — U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FIGURE

10


Maintenance costs for the 717 are the lowest of any 90- to 120-seat airplane operating today. Lower costswere achieved through a concentrated focus during airplane design on maintainability and reliability andthrough in-service support following airplane delivery.

The 717 design team focused on the correlationbetween airplane dispatch reliability and nonroutinemaintenance costs, which led to many system improve-ments and also validated the incorporation of the bestfeatures of 717 predecessors. Specific considerationsduring airplane design included airplane accessibilityand ease of troubleshooting, inspection, and repair.

The 717 scheduled maintenance program was de-veloped using the MSG-3 Rev. 2 maintenance process,which minimized tasks and maximized the intervalsbetween inspections.

Boeing in-service support helps ensure that airlinesminimize 717 maintenance costs while maximizing reliability. To date, 717 operators report that they areexperiencing high airplane dispatch reliability and relatively low maintenance costs.

SUMMARY


Basic gross weight High gross weight

PassengersTwo-class configuration 106 106

Cargo 935 ft3 (26.5 m3) 730 ft3 (20.7 m3)

Engine Rolls-Royce BR715-A1-30 Rolls-Royce BR715-C1-30Maximum thrust 18,500 lb 21,000 lb

Maximum fuel capacity 24,609 US lb (11,162 kg) 29,500 US lb (13,381 kg)

Maximum takeoff weight 110,000 lb (49,845 kg) 121,000 lb (54,885 kg)

Maximum range 1,430 nmi (2,645 km) 2,060 nmi (3,815 km)

Cruise speed at 34,200 ft 0.77 Mach (504 mi/h) 0.77 Mach (504 mi/h)

Basic dimensionsWingspan 93 ft 3 in (28.45 m) 93 ft 3 in (28.45 m)Overall length 124 ft (37.81 m) 124 ft (37.81 m)Tail height 29 ft 1 in (8.92 m) 29 ft 1 in (8.92 m)

717-200 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS


717-200The 717-200 is designed spe-

cifically for the short-haul, high-

frequency, 100-passenger airline

market. It uses today’s technology

to lower operating costs and offers

reduced noise and emissions.

The two-crew flight deck on the 717

incorporates modern and proven

avionics technology. The flight deck

is configured around six LCD units

and advanced computer systems

similar to those in other new

Boeing jetliners. Two advanced

Rolls-Royce BR715 engines

power the 717, offering lower fuel

consumption and lower noise and

emissions than comparable air-

planes. The 717 has more total

customer commitments than any

other airplane in its class, with

more than 90 airplanes currently

in revenue service.

FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES

If your Boeing Field Service representative cannot be reached,support is available at thefollowing numbers 24 hours a day:

Director D. Wall 305-864-8330Atlanta (CQT) W. Ellis 404-530-8674Atlanta (DAL) F. Piasecki 404-714-3129Bogota M. Dickinson 57-1-413-8218/8128Buenos Aires (ARG) M. Snover 54-11-4778-3250Charlotte R. Toews 704-359-2049Mexico City (AMX) M. Vanover 525-133-5288/5289Mexico City (CMA) H. Levanen 525-762-0167Miami R. Larson 786-265-8288New York M. Murbach 718-995-9707Orlando D. Pemble 407-251-5906Panama City S. Frimer 507-238-4296 x4366Pittsburgh R. Lehnherr 412-472-7277/7279Port of Spain L. Richardson 868-669-0491Raleigh-Durham L. Anglin 919-840-5703Rio de Janeiro J. Bartashy 55-21-393-8343Santiago R. Farnsworth 56-2-601-0171Sao Paulo J. Bradley 55-11-532-4852/4028

Director G. Norden 415-864-7970Calgary J. Fitzhum 403-221-4858Honolulu (ALO) A. McEntire 808-836-7472Honolulu (HWI) R. Owens 808-838-0132Indianapolis (AAT) T. Bryan 317-282-5700Indianapolis (UAL) R. Webb 317-757-2299Las Vegas S. Gorski 702-944-2908Long Beach D. Miles 562-528-7248Minneapolis C. Barrea 612-726-2691Montreal T. Morris 514-422-6100/6839/6840Oakland K. Standerfer 510-562-8407Phoenix S. Stillwell 480-693-7074/7075/7179San Francisco J. Russell 650-877-0181Santa Barbara (BBJ) S. Lenicka 805-886-9833Seattle/Tacoma D. Inderbitzen 206-431-3763/3764/7273Vancouver D. Bays 604-270-5351/276-3739

Director D. Krug 817-358-0081Chicago (AAL) L. Kuhn 773-686-7433Columbus (BBJ) D. Kopf 614-239-2461Dallas (AAL) C. Fox 972-425-6206Dallas (DAL) D. Root 972-615-4539Dallas (Love Field) R. Peterson 214-792-5862/5887/5911Fort Worth C. Paramore 817-224-0560/0561/0564Houston C. Anderson 713-324-3611Houston (Hobby) D. Hendrickson 713-324-4192Kansas City J. Connell 816-891-4441Louisville A. Andrus 502-359-7671Memphis D. Schremp 901-224-5087Milwaukee T. Plant TBDOrlando (BBJ) F. Gardiner 206-660-8726Tulsa J. Roscoe 918-292-2404/2707Wilmington G. Johnson 937-382-5591 x2736

Region 1Eastern United States/Latin and SouthAmerica

Region 2Western United States/Canada

Region 3Central United States

Region 4NorthernEurope/Tel Aviv

Region 5Central andSouthernEurope

Region 6Middle East /Africa/Asia

Rapid Response CenterBoeing-designed airplanes:Phone 206-544-7555Fax 206-544-9084

Technical Support DeskDouglas-designed airplanes:Phone 562-497-5801Fax 206-544-0641

Spares orders/quotes:206-662-7141 (Information)206-662-7200 (Spares AOG)562-593-4226 (Douglas AOG)

LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE

Boeing Commercial Airplanes

Contact your region’s Boeing Customer Support vice president to facilitate support in the areas of flight services, maintenance services, spares, training, and technical services and modifications.

The AmericasTom BasacchiPhone 206-766-1121Fax 206-766-2205E-mail [email protected]

Asia-PacificBruce DennisPhone 206-766-2309Fax 206-766-1520E-mail [email protected]

EuropeDaniel da SilvaPhone 206-766-2248Fax 425-237-1706E-mail [email protected]

Middle East, Africa, Russia, and South Asia-PacificMarty BentrottPhone 206-766-1061Fax 206-766-1339E-mail [email protected]

Director E. Berthiaume 44-20-8235-5600Copenhagen A. Novasio 45-3-232-4373Dublin C. Lohse 353-1-886-3086/3087East Midlands D. Rockcastle 44-1-332-852-412Gatwick T. Alusi 44-1293-510-465Geneva D. Stubbs 41-22-700-2159/2654Helsinki D. Laws 358-9-818-6450London A. Hagen 44-20-8562-3151Luton (EZY) B. Dubowsky 44-1582-428-077Luton (MON) S. Oakes 44-1582-525-869Manchester J. Raispis 44-1-612-326-693Oslo A. Holin 47-6481-6598/6613Stansted D. Johnson 44-1279-825638Stavanger E. Fales 47-51-659-345Stockholm G. Ostlund 46-8-797-4911Tel Aviv J. Sveinsson 972-3-9711147

Director G. Gebara 216-1-788-472Algiers TBD 213-21-509-378Amsterdam (KLM) G. Van de Ven 31-20-649-8100Amsterdam (TAV) H. Schuettke 31-20-648-4639Athens B. Oani 30-1-353-6317Brussels I. Gilliam 32-2-7234822Casablanca M. Casebeer 212-2-53-94-97Lanarca S. Mura 35-7-4815700Luxembourg J. Erickson 352-4211-3399Madrid H. Morris 34-91-329-1755Palma (de Mallorca) C. Greene 34-971-789-782Paris (CDG) M. Hamilton 33-1-4862-7573/4192Paris (ORY) M. Awada 33-1-4686-1047Rome J. Hill 39-06-6501-0135Tunis D. Marble 216-1-781-996Zurich K. Goellner 41-1-812-6816/7414

Director C. Armstrong 971-4-299-5412Abu Dhabi J. Sheikh 971-2-5057485/7486Addis Ababa J. Wallace 251-1-610-566Almaty R. Anderson 7-300-722-3312Ashgabat J. McBroom 993-12-510-589Cairo M. McPherson 20-2-418-3680Dammam R. Cole 966-3-877-4652Dubai G. Youngblood 971-4-208-5656Istanbul B. Nelson 90-212-573-8709/663-1203Jeddah (SRF) L. Giordano 966-2-684-1184Jeddah (SVA) A. Noon 966-2-685-5011/5013Johannesburg A. Ornik 27-11-390-1130/1131Kuwait R. Webb 965-434-5555 x2512Mumbai R. Piotrowski 91-22-615-7179/7777 x3289Muscat A. Ostadazim 968-519467Nairobi R. Aman 254-2-824659Riyadh (BBJ) J. Richards 966-1-461-0607Tashkent K. Rastegar 998-71-1206572

Director R. Nova 65-732-9435/9436/9437Bangkok D. Chau 66-2-531-2274Jakarta R. Tessin 62-21-550-1614/1020Kuala Lumpur M. Standbridge 60-3-746-2569Manila D. Lucas 63-2-852-3273Singapore T. Thompson 65-541-6075Taipei (CHI) M. Heit 886-3-383-3023Taipei (EVA) D. Bizar 886-3-393-1040

Director T. Premselaar 81-3-3747-0073/0078Auckland R. Lowry 64-9-256-3981Brisbane D. Bankson 61-7-3295-3139Hanoi D. Beberfall 84-4-934-2342Melbourne E. Root 61-3-9280-7296/7297Narita H. Connolly 81-476-33-0606Okinawa E. Sadvar 81-988-57-9216Pusan K. Cummings 82-51-325-4144Seoul (AAR) J. DeHaven 82-2-665-4095Seoul (KAL) G. Small 82-2-663-6540Sydney (IMU) B. Payne 61-2-9317-5076 x419Sydney (QAN) W. Mahan 61-2-9691-7418Tokyo (ANA) T. Gaffney 81-3-5756-5077/5078Tokyo (JAL) L. Denman 81-3-3747-0085/3977Tokyo (JAS) R. Saga 81-3-5756-8737

Director T. Lane 86-10-6539-2299 x1038Beijing R. Shafii 86-10-6456-1567Chengdu G. King 86-28-570-4278Guangzhou S. Sherman 86-20-8659-7994Haikou R. Wiggenhorn 86-898-575-6734Hong Kong R. Brown 852-2-747-8945/8946Jinan S. Pearson 86-531-899-4643Kunming T. Bray 86-871-717-5270Shanghai (CEA) M. Perrett 86-21-6268-6268 x35156Shanghai (SHA) D. Babcock 86-21-6268-6804Shenyang L. Poston 86-24-8939-2736Shenzhen S. Cole 86-755-777-7602Tianjin P. Lavoie 86-22-2490-2606Urumqi D. Cannon 86-991-380-1222Wuhan M. Nolan 86-27-8581-8528Xiamen Y. Liu 86-592-573-9225

Director T. Waibel 49-89-236-8060Berlin (BER) F. Wiest 49-30-4101-3868Berlin (GER) R. Lopes 49-30-4101-3895Budapest R. Horton 36-1-296-6828Frankfurt (CDF) J. Harle 49-69-69581-280Frankfurt (DLH) L. Rahimane 49-69-696-89407Hamburg P. Creighton 49-40-5070-3040/3630Hanover R. Anderson 49-511-972-7387Kiev R. South 380-44-296-7231Moscow (ARO) V. Solomonov 7-095-961-3819Moscow (TRX) E. Vlassov 7-095-937-3540Prague D. Keller 42-02-2056-2648Vienna R. Adams 43-1-7000-75010Warsaw F. Niewiadomski 48-3912-1370

Region 7SoutheastAsia

Region 8Asia/Australia/New Zealand

Region 9China

Region 10EasternEurope/Russia

LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE

2 4 - H O U R A I R L I N E S U P P O R T

aero - boeing · 2 aero no. 19, july 2002 first, we have created four vice-president-level...

Documents