Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 1

QTR_02

A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

THE BOEING EDGE

Delivering the

Boeing Edge

Why and When

to Perform a

Go-Around

Maneuver

New Maintenance

Applications for

iPad

Planning Efficient

Airplane

Maintenance

Facilities

Cover photo:

787 engine

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 3

AERO

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Issue 54 _Quarter 02 | 2014

Contents

Delivering the Boeing Edge

Boeing’s new senior vice president of

Commercial Aviation Services, Stan Deal,

talks about providing a superior customer

experience.

Why and When to Perform

a Go-Around Maneuver

The decision to go around to avoid

unstabilized approaches is an important

factor in reducing runway excursions

and accidents within the industry.

New Maintenance Applications

for iPad

Mobile devices are improving operational

efficiency in airline maintenance. Boeing has

developed a number of mobile applications

designed specifically to speed and stream

line airplane maintenance tasks.

Planning Efficient Airplane

Maintenance Facilities

Determining the layout and workflow

of a maintenance facility is both an art and

a science. Boeing offers assistance to

airlines planning construction of hangars

and maintenance facilities.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 4

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

Editorial Board

Don Andersen, Gary Bartz, Richard Breuhaus, David Carbaugh, Laura Chiarenza,

Justin Hale, Darrell Hokuf, Al John, Doug Lane, Jill Langer, Duke McMillin,

Keith Otsuka, David Presuhn, Wade Price, Jerome Schmelzer, Corky Townsend

Technical Review Committee

Gary Bartz, Richard Breuhaus, David Carbaugh, Laura Chiarenza, Justin Hale,

Darrell Hokuf, Al John, David Landstrom, Doug Lane, Jill Langer, Duke McMillin,

David Presuhn, Wade Price, Jerome Schmelzer, Corky Townsend, William Tsai

AERO

Online

www.boeing.com/boeingedge/aeromagazine

The Boeing Edge

www.boeing.com/boeingedge

AERO

magazine is published quarterly by Boeing Commercial Airplanes and is

distributed at no cost to operators of Boeing commercial airplanes.

AERO

provides

operators with supplemental technical information to promote continuous safety

and efficiency in their daily fleet operations.

The Boeing Edge supports operators during the life of each Boeing commercial

airplane. Support includes stationing Field Service representatives in more than

60 countries, furnishing spare parts and engineering support, training flight crews

and maintenance personnel, and providing operations and maintenance publications.

Boeing continually communicates with operators through such vehicles as technical

meetings, service letters, and service bulletins. This assists operators 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 regulatory-approved unless specifically stated.

Airline personnel are advised 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 only within their own organizations. They thereby

assume responsibility for the current accuracy of the republished material. All others

must obtain written permission from Boeing before reprinting any

AERO

article.

Print copies of

AERO

are not available by subscription, but the publication may

be viewed on the Web at www.boeing.com/boeingedge/aeromagazine.

Please send address changes to csms.catalog@boeing.com. Please send all other

communications to

AERO

Magazine, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707,

21-72, Seattle, Washington, 98124‑2207,

USA

E-mail: WebMaster.

BCA

@boeing.com

AERO

is printed on Forest Stewardship Council™ Certified paper.

AERO

Editorial director

Jill Langer

Editor-in-chief

Jim Lombardo

Design

Methodologie

Writer

Jeff Fraga

Distribution manager

Nanci Moultrie

Cover photography

Jeff Corwin

Printer

ColorGraphics

Web site design

Methodologie

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 5

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Delivering

the Boeing Edge

Hello.

First, I want to say that I am deeply

honored to lead Boeing’s customer service

organization. I am both thrilled by the new

opportunity

and

humbled by the responsibility.

When you operate a Boeing airplane,

you expect world-class services and inno

vative solutions to help your businesses

grow. That’s what sets Boeing apart.

Frankly, you deserve nothing less.

We’re focused on supporting the

assets in your fleet so that Boeing is your

preferred partner for maintenance and

spares, engineering and modifications,

training, navigation, and a wide range of

technology solutions.

Yet, we know we have not always lived

up to all of your expectations. There have

been times when we have disappointed

customers. We are committed to improving

on that.

As you probably have heard, we are

making changes to enhance our customer

support. We are building a new customer

support center in Southern California, bring

ing together all teams that work directly

with airlines. Instead of devoting one center

to airplanes currently in production and

another to out-of-production models (as we

do now), we are establishing a single facility

dedicated to providing a superior customer

experience. This will free up capacity for

our Customer Support team in the Puget

Sound area to focus exclusively on helping

you successfully introduce the next genera

tion of Boeing airplanes — the 787-8 and

787-9/-10 and all members of the 737

MAX

and 777X families.

We also are expanding our flight and

maintenance training options, redoubling

our efforts to ensure critical parts are

available around the clock and around the

globe, and providing new analytical tools

to help you enhance operational efficiency

and take advantage of market opportunities.

Our team is dedicated to making you

successful, whether you are introducing the

787 Dreamliner into your fleet or operating

-80s/-90s, 757s, Next-Generation 737s,

777s, or any other Boeing airplane.

As I take on my new role, I am excited

about spending time with you, hearing

about issues you face every day and solu

tions you expect from Boeing. I promise to

be your champion for world-class customer

support. And I expect the rest of the Boeing

team to do the same.

We are part of an exciting industry. It is

our job to give you every possible advantage

to be successful — every day, wherever

you fly, and with every airplane you operate.

STAN DEAL

Senior Vice President

Boeing Commercial Aviation Services

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 6

Flight crews should

execute a go-around

maneuver instead

of continuing an

unstabilized landing

approach.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 7

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

According to industry sources, no single

decision has the potential impact on the

overall aviation industry accident rate than

the timely decision to execute a go-around

maneuver. The reason is that runway excur

sions or overruns — which are typically the

result of an unstabilized approach with a

failure to perform a go-around — account

for 33 percent of all commercial aviation

accidents and are the primary cause of

hull loss.

This article explains the relationship

between unstabilized approaches and hull

loss, why flight crews continue landing

despite an unstabilized approach, the fac

tors that govern landing outcomes, when

flight crews should choose a go-around

maneuver, and industry education efforts

related to go-arounds.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

UNSTABILIZED APPROACHES AND

HULL LOSS

Boeing developed an analysis to help visu

alize runway events. This Boeing Runway

Track Analysis combines multiple sets of

investigation data, including time-based

flight-data-recorder data, distance-based

ground-scar data, and the calculated track

(see fig. 1).

Why and When to

Perform

a Go-Around

Maneuver

Industry statistics indicate that while only 3 percent of commercial-airplane-landing

approaches meet the criteria for being unstabilized, 97 percent of these unstabilized

approaches are continued to a landing, contrary to airline standard operating procedures.

Most runway excursions can be attributed at least in part to unstabilized approaches,

and runway excursions in several forms are the leading cause of accidents and incidents

within the industry. Airlines should emphasize to flight crews the importance of making

the proper go-around decision if their landing approach exhibits any element of an

unstabilized approach.

By Michael Coker,

Lead Safety Pilot, Flight Services

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 8

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

This analysis shows the relationship

between unstabilized approaches and hull

loss, due to runway excursion (see fig. 2).

In every instance of hull loss, the outcome

may have been very different if the flight

crews involved had elected to perform a

go-around instead of attempting a landing.

According to a Flight Safety Foundation (

FSF

)

study, more than half of all commercial air

plane accidents in 2011 could have been

prevented by a go-around decision. In fact,

according to

FSF

’s analysis 83 percent of

approach-and-landing accidents could be

prevented by a go-around decision.

The conclusion from this analysis is

that flight crews need to know when to

abandon an approach to landing and

perform a go-around maneuver because

the decision to go around is an essential

element of conducting a safe flight.

WHY FLIGHT CREWS CONTINUE

LANDING WITH AN UNSTABILIZED

APPROACH

According to the

FSF

, a number of factors

contribute to a flight crew’s decision to

continue landing with an unstabilized

approach, including:

■

Fatigue.

■

Pressure of flight schedule (e.g., making

up for delays).

■

Any crew-induced or air-traffic-control

(

ATC

)-induced circumstances resulting

in insufficient time to plan, prepare, and

conduct a safe approach.

■

ATC

instructions that result in flight

too high and/or too fast during the

initial approach.

■

Excessive altitude or excessive airspeed

(e.g., inadequate energy management)

during the initial approach.

■

Late runway change.

■

Excessive head-down work.

■

Short outbound leg or short downwind

leg (e.g., because of traffic in the area).

■

Late takeover from automation.

3 Degree Glideslope

Figure 1: Boeing Runway Track Analysis

Boeing Runway Track Analysis uses a variety of data to analyze runway events.

Radio Altitude (feet)

800

600

400

200

Aircraft Speed (knots)

150

100

Engine N1 (%)

Autopilot/Autothrottle Discretes

A/P Engaged

A/T Engaged

Calculated Tailwind (knots)

-15

-10

-5

Negative = Tailwind

Calculated Lateral Deviation from

Central Centerline (feet)

-1,000

-500

500

Speedbrake

Brake Pressure

Air/Ground

Air

-16,000

-12,000

-8,000

-4,000

4,000

8,000

Distance from Runway Threshold (feet)

Vref

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 9

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Figure 2: Relationship between unstabilized approach and hull loss

This analysis shows that four out of seven unstabilized approaches in this study resulted in hull loss.

Touchdown

Point

(

)

Touchdown

Speed

Deceleration

Speedbrake

(

)

Thrust Reversers

(

)

Runway

Result

Approach

Point

(feet)

Runway

Used

LDA

)

Airspeed

>Vref

(knots)

Tail

Wind

(knots)

When

Deployed

(sec)

When

Deployed

(sec)

When

Reduced

(feet)

Braking

Action

Overrun

Speed

(knots)

Hull

Loss

Long

Unstable

7,000

72%

+ 3

Departure

Good

Yes

Unstable

6,200

70%

Never

Dry

Unstable

5,300

60%

+ 4

Departure

Good

Unstable

5,150

48%

+ 5

+ 7

900

Med

Unstable

4,700

52%

-1

+ 2

1,000

—

100

Yes

Unstable

4,500

60%

-3

+ 2

Departure

Good

Yes

Unstable

4,500

56%

+ 3

400

Dry

Yes

Stable

3,950

44%

+ 3

Departure

Med

Yes

Stable

3,260

41%

-1

+ 3

2,000

Med

Stable

3,200

48%

-7

With

+ 2

Departure

Good

Stable

3,120

42%

+ 2

Departure

Good

Stable

3,000

37%

-5

+ 2

Departure

Med

Stable

3,000

34%

+ 3

Departure

Med

Fast

Stable

1,600

20%

+ 27

Departure

Good

Stable

1,500

20%

+ 3

600

Med

Stable

1,450

20%

+ 3

1,250

Med

Stable

1,450

20%

+ 3

Departure

Med

Stable

1,250

18%

+ 2

Departure

Poor

Deceleration

Stable

2,700

30%

Never

Med

Stable

400

-6

Never

+ 22

Departure

Med

Stable

500

With

+ 20

Departure

Med

Stable

1,250

21%

+ 16

Departure

Poor

Unstable

1,720

27%

+ 13

Departure

Good

Unstable

1,800

23%

With

+ 11

Departure

Poor

Stable

1,900

26%

-2

+ 8

Departure

Med

Stable

1,150

24%

-5

+ 6

100

Med

Stable

2,900

28%

-6

+ 3

+ 5

2,800

Poor

Stable

2,600

31%

+ 2

2,250

Good

Stable

2,200

27%

+ 2

2,000

Med

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 10

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

■

Premature or late descent caused by

failure to positively identify the final

approach fix.

■

Inadequate awareness of wind conditions.

■

Incorrect anticipation of airplane decel

eration characteristics in level flight or on

a three-degree glide path.

■

Excessive confidence by the pilot

monitoring (

) that the pilot flying (

)

will achieve a timely stabilization.

■

and

too reliant on each other to

call excessive deviations or to call for

a go-around.

■

Visual illusions that cause a crew to

misinterpret the airplane’s position, such

as a narrow runway that may give the

impression that the airplane is higher

than it actually is.

■

Lack of airline policy, cultural norm,

and training to direct pilots to perform

a go-around instead of continuing an

unstabilized approach.

■

Lack of practice in performing a

go-around maneuver.

FACTORS THAT GOVERN LANDING

OUTCOMES

Three primary factors govern the outcome

of every landing:

■

Touchdown point.

Defines runway

remaining to dissipate energy. Having a

stabilized approach contributes heavily

to a proper touchdown point.

■

Touchdown speed.

Defines energy to

be dissipated.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 11

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

■

Deceleration after touchdown.

Defines the effectiveness of dissipating

the energy.

An analysis of overruns indicates that

if two out of three conditions exist, an

overrun is likely. But if one condition is

removed, the overrun risk is reduced.

WHEN TO PERFORM A GO-AROUND

MANEUVER

A go-around maneuver should be performed

whenever the safety of a landing appears

to be compromised (see fig. 3). Typically,

this occurs for one of these reasons:

■

Requested by

ATC

may request a

go-around for a variety of reasons,

including tight airplane spacing, an

airplane on the runway, or an airplane

too close on a parallel landing runway.

■

Unexpected events.

The flight crew may

determine that something is not correct

for landing — such as a flap gauge or

gear indication — and that a checklist

is needed to configure the airplane for

landing. The presence of wind shear is

another unexpected cause of go-arounds.

These unexpected events may warrant

initiation of a go-around even after the

airplane has touched down following a

stable approach. Runway conditions,

surface winds, friction coefficients, or

unknown conflicts may be different than

those reported to the crew during

approach. A successful go-around may

be possible after touchdown up to the

point where the crew initiates the use

of thrust reverse if conditions warrant.

Because these types of go-arounds

involve unexpected events, it is difficult

to anticipate them.

■

Unstabilized approach.

An unstabilized

approach occurs when an airplane fails

to keep one or more of these variables

stable: speed, descent rate, vertical/

Recommended elements of a stabilized approach

All flights must be stabilized by 1,000

feet (305 meters) above airport elevation

in instrument meteorological conditions

(

IMC

) and by 500 feet (152 meters) above

airport elevation in visual meteorological

conditions (

VMC

). An approach is

stabilized when all of the following

criteria are met:

1. The airplane is on the correct flight

path.

2. Only small changes in heading/pitch

are required to maintain the correct

flight path.

3. The airplane speed is not more than

Vref + 20 knots indicated airspeed

and not less than Vref.

4. The airplane is in the correct landing

configuration.

5. Sink rate is no greater than 1,000 feet

per minute (

FPM

) or 305 meters per

minute; if an approach requires a sink

rate greater than 1,000

FPM

, a special

briefing should be conducted.

6. Power setting is appropriate for the

airplane configuration and is not

below the minimum power for

approach as defined by the airplane

operating manual.

7. All briefings and checklists have been

conducted.

8. Specific types of approaches are

stabilized if they also fulfill the follow

ing: instrument landing system (

ILS

)

approaches must be flown within one

dot of the glide scope and localizer;

a Category

or Category

III

ILS

approach must be flown within the

expanded localizer band; during a

circling approach, wings should be

level on final when the airplane

reaches 300 feet (91 meters) above

airport elevation.

9. Unique approach procedures or

abnormal conditions requiring a

deviation from the above elements

of a stabilized approach require a

special briefing.

An approach that becomes

unstabilized below 1,000 feet (305

meters) above airport elevation in

IMC

or below 500 feet (152 meters) above

airport elevation in

VMC

requires an

immediate go-around.

Source: Flight Safety Foundation Approach-

and-Landing Accident Reduction Task Force

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 12

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

lateral flight path, and configuration for

landing. It is important to understand

that the stabilized approach recom

mendations do not apply only to the

“gates” of 1,000-foot (305-meter)

instrument meteorological conditions

(

IMC

) and 500-foot (152-meter) visual

meteorological conditions (

VMC

). Those

altitudes are merely a snapshot analysis

of the approach, and the elements need

to be maintained throughout the landing.

(See “Recommended elements of a

stabilized approach” on page 9.)

■

Landing cannot be made within the

touchdown zone.

This is defined as

the first 3,000 feet (915 meters) or first

third of the runway, whichever is shorter.

Crews should calculate a landing dis

tance based on current conditions and

compare that distance to the runway

available for every landing. Touchdown

at the far end of the accepted first

3,000 feet (915 meters) or first third of

the runway may not be appropriate if

conditions change at the last moment

during the flare or touchdown.

INDUSTRY EDUCATION EFFORTS

Numerous airline pilot associations and

regulatory authorities have efforts under way

to educate flight crews about go-arounds.

These include the

FSF

, International Civil

Aviation Organization (

ICAO

), International

Air Transport Association, Commercial

Aviation Safety Team (

CAST

), and European

Commercial Aviation Safety Team.

Figure 3: When to perform a go-around

The timely decision to initiate a go-around if the approach is unstable or conditions have changed, such

that a safe landing is at risk, allows the crew to safely conduct a follow-on approach. There are several

reasons to perform a go-around maneuver, including a request by

ATC

, an unexpected event (such as

wind shear), an unstabilized approach, or the determination that the landing cannot be made within the

touchdown zone.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 13

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Resources include:

■

FSF

Approach-and-Landing Accident

Reduction Tool Kit Briefing Note,

Being Prepared to Go Around

(http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_bn6-1-

goaroundprep.pdf).

■

ICAO

Working Paper,

Measures for

Preventing Runway Excursion Caused

by Unstabilized Approach

(http://www.

icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/

wp302_en.pdf).

■

CAST

Go-Around Safety

(http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/

Portal:Go-Around_Safety).

SUMMARY

Runway excursions are the leading cause

of accidents and incidents within the

industry. Airlines can avoid most runway

excursions if flight crews choose to execute

a go-around maneuver instead of con

tinuing an unstabilized approach to a

landing. Flight crews should understand

the importance of making a go-around

decision if they experience an unstabilized

approach or conditions change during

the flare or touchdown up to the point

of initiating thrust reverse during the

landing rollout.

Runway

Go-Around

Normal Approach

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 14

Boeing’s new mobile

maintenance application

suite helps airlines

improve their operational

efficiency.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 15

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

New Maintenance

Applications

for iPad

As more airlines discover the efficiencies of

using electronic flight bags (

EFB

s) to store

flight manuals and other data, they are

seeking ways to extend these efficiencies

to other aspects of their operations. Main

tenance is a logical area to target. Even

if an airline is using digital manuals, it

typically prints hard copies of the proce

dures needed when maintenance

personnel work on the airplane.

With the emergence of tablets as viable

tools for business, Boeing has worked with

several airlines to develop a suite of main

tenance applications.

This article provides a brief history of

Boeing’s technological innovations that led

to the development of the mobile main

tenance application suite and describes

the individual applications that comprise

the suite.

A HISTORY OF INNOVATION

Boeing began offering

EFB

s to operators in

2003 and now offers a common application

suite and ground infrastructure for use

across all categories of

EFB

s (i.e., Class 1,

Class 2, and Class 3). (See

AERO

second-

quarter 2008 and

AERO

first-quarter 2010.)

In 2007, Boeing introduced Maintenance

Performance Toolbox, an online system

that provides operators with up-to-date

fleet maintenance information using

intelligent documents and visual navigation

methods. (See

AERO

first-quarter 2007.)

As the iPad emerged as a viable tool for

the flight deck, Boeing began developing

applications for it, the first of which was an

electronic iPad-based version of the quick

reference handbook (

QRH

) used by flight

crews. (See

AERO

first-quarter 2013.)

More recently, Boeing worked with

several airlines to develop a suite of main

tenance applications to enable airline

As part of the overall commercial aviation industry trend of using mobile devices to

increase operational efficiency, Boeing has developed a number of mobile applications

designed specifically to speed and streamline airplane maintenance tasks. Airlines are

now using these applications to improve operations efficiency and productivity, lower costs,

and reduce flight delays.

By Rex Douglas,

Product Manager, Toolbox Mobile Library/Parts, and

Stephen P. Miller,

Product Manager, Maintenance Turn Time

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 16

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

technicians to perform routine mainte

nance tasks and diagnose airplane issues

more quickly and easily. Boeing has

used input from these airlines to optimize

the user interface and maximize utility for

airline technicians.

As an example of the efficiency and

cost-savings improvements airlines are

experiencing, technicians from one of the

participating airline development partners

recently estimated that by using these

iPad applications, the airline will reduce

the volume of printed paper by as much

as 4,000 pages per day.

SUITE OF MAINTENANCE

APPLICATIONS IMPROVES EFFICIENCY

Boeing’s maintenance applications give

technicians real-time access to manuals,

parts availability, the maintenance history of

an airplane, and other critical information

needed to resolve maintenance issues at

the airplane and collaborate with coworkers

located elsewhere.

The mobile maintenance applications

include Toolbox Mobile Library, Toolbox

Mobile Parts, and Maintenance Turn Time.

These advanced tools can enhance

regulatory compliance, reduce flight delays,

and lower operational costs.

TOOLBOX MOBILE LIBRARY

Toolbox Mobile Library gives technicians

access to Boeing maintenance documents

and internal company manuals on a mobile

device (see fig. 1). Available maintenance

documents include the aircraft mainte

nance manual, fault isolation manual,

illustrated parts catalog, structural repair

manual, wiring diagram manual, and

system schematics manual. Operators can

Figure 1: Toolbox Mobile Library

Toolbox Mobile Library gives technicians access to maintenance documents to perform routine maintenance tasks and diagnose airplane issues more quickly

and easily.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 17

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Figure 2: How Toolbox Mobile Library saves time

A typical line maintenance scenario can involve multiple trips to the line maintenance office to locate and print required information. Toolbox Mobile Library

enables technicians to find and use the information they need without leaving the airplane.

Mechanic is by airplane

Mechanic investigates problem

and needs information

Mechanic fixes problem

Typical Line Maintenance

Mechanic goes to

maintenance building

Mechanic goes back to

the airplane

Mechanic logs into

multiple systems

Mechanic searches,

finds, and prints out

information

Non-value-added steps

Mechanic discovers more

information is needed

Mechanic is by airplane

Mechanic investigates problem,

searches, finds, and uses

information on the spot

Mechanic fixes problem

Leaner Line Maintenance

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 18

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

use the Maintenance Performance Toolbox

Authoring module to add customized con

tent, including internal company manuals.

Toolbox Mobile Library enables oper

ators to reduce airplane turn times by

giving them instant access to maintenance

documents. With access to the procedures

they need readily available on their tablets,

maintenance technicians don’t need to

leave the airplane to go to the maintenance

building and retrieve documents (see fig. 2).

Toolbox Mobile Library supports full search

capabilities and hyperlinking between

documents — the same features as in the

online Maintenance Performance Toolbox,

but with the portability of a tablet.

TOOLBOX MOBILE PARTS

The Toolbox Mobile Parts module enables

technicians to use an iPad to check on the

availability of required parts, reducing the

need for trips to the line maintenance office.

The application gives maintenance and

engineering personnel access to the most

current parts inventory information (see

fig. 3). Direct linking from part numbers in

the illustrated parts catalog to the airline’s

local parts inventory database eliminates

part number rekeying errors and allows the

technician to make an immediate decision

as to whether or not the necessary parts

are available to perform maintenance and

release the airplane on time.

Figure 3: Toolbox Mobile Parts

Toolbox Mobile Parts enables technicians to instantly retrieve information about part availability, according to the airline’s most current inventory information.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 19

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

MAINTENANCE TURN TIME

The Maintenance Turn Time application

allows airlines to quickly identify and resolve

nonroutine defects, reducing delays and

cancellations while improving productivity.

Technicians can access Maintenance Turn

Time from a mobile device at the airplane

to quickly troubleshoot defects. Technicians

can also share information securely in real

time to collaborate with their colleagues in

the airline’s maintenance and engineering

organizations (see fig. 4).

Through integration with the airline’s

systems, the application enables technicians

to access airplane maintenance history at

the gate, eliminating the need to go to the

line maintenance office to view this infor

mation. Technicians can add photos to a

case using a mobile device to record any

physical damage to an airplane, and they

can also view a three-dimensional image

of the damaged section.

SUMMARY

Boeing’s new mobile maintenance appli

cation suite helps airlines improve their

operational efficiency by delivering real-

time, critical digital maintenance information

to technicians at the point of use.

For more information, e-mail

theboeingedge@boeing.com.

Figure 4: Maintenance Turn Time

Maintenance Turn Time gives technicians a secure connection to collaborate with their colleagues when troubleshooting a maintenance issue. A technician

can take a photo of a damaged part, upload it for others to see, and annotate and share information about maintenance issues with peers in real time.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 20

Boeing offers

maintenance-facilities

planning services to

help airlines be more

successful.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 21

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Planning

Efficient Airplane

Maintenance Facilities

Boeing can assist airlines with their planning and preliminary layouts of hangar and

maintenance facilities.

By Gerald Paluszek,

Lead Principal Engineer, Maintenance and Ground Operations Systems

The planning and construction of airplane

hangars and maintenance facilities require

a unique skill set and extensive knowledge

of airplane maintenance and component

repair and overhaul. This type of expertise

is beyond that of conventional design firms.

In addition to the actual physical structure,

the facility design should incorporate work

flow analysis for airplane maintenance and

component repair. Examples of workflow

analysis include procedures for cleaning,

repairing, testing, and inventorying parts.

The facility design also should reflect the

operator’s fleet growth and maintenance

plans for five to 15 years into the future

and incorporate the latest lean-manufactur

ing principles.

This article explains the benefits of

well-planned maintenance facilities and

the fee-based planning services offered

by Boeing.

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF MAINTENANCE

FACILITIES IN AIRLINE OPERATIONS

Properly planned and constructed, an air

line’s maintenance facilities can contribute

to operational safety, efficiency, and cost

control. (See

AERO

first-quarter 2001.)

Effective project planning will help

ensure that a new maintenance facility will

meet an airline’s present and future busi

ness objectives. For this reason, a number

of factors should be considered in planning

the facility.

The facility must be tailored to the site.

order to achieve maximum site utilization,

planners should gather as much informa

tion as possible about the existing site

and its planned uses before beginning a

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 22

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

preliminary layout (see fig. 1). These are

some examples of what to consider when

performing an initial site survey:

■

Existing and planned runway construc

tion.

There are specific formulas per

International Civil Aviation Organization

regulations that determine the position

and height of buildings with relationship

to runways. This is critical to the location

of the hangar and facilities on the site.

■

The number, type, and size of airplanes

that will use the facility.

Entering, exiting,

and turning radii must be planned into

the layout along with adequate parking

for the number of expected airplanes.

■

Dedicated engine run-up area.

If a

run-up area is to be included at the site,

the plan must provide adequate space,

an access road, and a determination

of the prevailing wind direction so the

run-up area is positioned properly.

Future space requirements may include

an engine overhaul and test facility.

■

Warehouse.

If the overall plan needs to

accommodate a warehouse, access

within the grounds and adequate road

access outside the facility should be

included because large semitrailers will

use this warehouse. Access roads and

loading areas need to be planned into

the facility.

■

Site services.

These include the incoming

water supply, the type and capacity of

waste treatment, and the availability of

the electrical supply. These also include

the heating and air-conditioning require

ments of the facility depending on the

regional climate.

■

Local building codes.

These include local

laws for building design and construction.

Incorporating lean-production principles

saves money during both the development

and the use of a facility.

The term “lean

production” refers to the efficient design,

manufacture, delivery, and support of

products through the systematic identifi

cation and elimination of waste.

In maintenance facility planning, lean

construction processes start with the selec

tion of a contractor that uses methods and

systems that not only monitor progress and

costs but can also contribute to selecting

systems that will produce operational effi

ciencies. Evaluating contractor proposals

and their individual approach to managing

the entire project provides insight to the

methods and efficiencies that each pro

spective contracting company is using,

well before construction begins.

An efficient layout produces operational

cost efficiency.

After choosing the facility’s

location and tailoring the facility to the site,

the next stage in maintenance facility

planning is to design the most efficient

physical layout for the facility. Workshop

positioning, shop equipment, and tooling

should be arranged with an objective of

optimizing the workflow with a minimum

of disruptions.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 23

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

Aspects that should be considered in

creating an efficient layout include:

■

Work flow.

The flow should reflect the

level and quantity of airplane mainte

nance to be accomplished in the

facilities. This helps determine the size

and layout of the workshops needed for

component repair and refurbishment.

For example, the design should take

into consideration the parts, materials,

equipment, processes, and workforce

skill set required to perform airplane

maintenance, and modification, and

component repair and overhaul.

In some cases, maintenance docking

systems should be included to perform

heavy maintenance more efficiently.

■

Materials handling.

The layout must

accommodate the handling of all types

of airplane components, engines, and

materials, from small parts to large jet

engines. Special consideration should

be given to the location of specialized

material handling equipment, such as

overhead cranes.

■

Parts and components.

Adequate space

should be provided on the hangar floor

and within each component repair

overhaul shop.

■

Safety and environmental.

The facility

should be laid out to ensure that it can

operate in accordance with applicable

safety and environmental regulations

and requirements.

■

Security.

Design and layout of the main

tenance complex should incorporate all

aspects of exterior and interior security

monitoring and management. This may

include appropriate perimeter fencing and

guard access control and monitoring,

vehicle and truck inspections when

necessary, and lighted and monitored

parking and warehouse access.

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS

Comprehensive planning for a maintenance

facility project encompasses these steps:

Research.

This involves studying the types

of required maintenance, support functions,

facility specifications, site development,

site utilities, and building requirements.

The overall objective is to optimize an

airline’s investment by developing design

criteria documentation and conceptual

layouts for fully functional and lean

maintenance facilities.

Development of a criteria document.

A comprehensive criteria document for a

maintenance facility project specifies all

aspects of the planning process, taking into

account the most efficient layouts and land

utilization. This can include workshop designs

that contribute to a lean-production facility.

The workflow should reflect the level and quantity of airplane

maintenance to be accomplished in the facilities. This helps

determine the size and layout of the workshops needed

for component repair and refurbishment. For example, the

design should take into consideration the parts, materials,

equipment, processes, and workforce skill set required

to perform airplane maintenance, and modification, and

component repair and overhaul.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 24

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

Pneumatic Shop

Hydraulic Shop

Lobby

Carpentry

Shop

Medical

Security

S&R

Oxygen

Room

Clean Room

Calibration Lab

94.4 m (309.9 ft)

Aircraft

Maintenance

Offices

Component /

Material

Storage

Toolroom

Aircraft

Maintenance

Offices

747 Line Maintenance Hangar

162.9 m (534.3 ft)

Aircraft

Maintenance

Offices

Figure 1: Maintenance facility site plan

All aspects of the maintenance facility site must be

considered to obtain optimum use of the available

space.

Elevator Shaft

Stair Well Roof Access

Offices, Training

Support Building

Interior, Emergency Equipment, etc.

Sheet Metal, Composite, etc.

72.0 m (236.2 ft)

9.0 m

(29.5 ft)

72.0 m (236.2 ft)

9.0 m

(29.5 ft)

45.0

Bird Screen

23.8 m

(78.1 ft)

747 Hangar

21.5 m

(70.5 ft)

95.5 m (313.2 ft)

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 25

WWW

.BOEING.COM/BOEINGEDGE/AEROMAGAZINE

94.5 m (310.0 ft)

737 Line Maintenance Hangar

Offices/

Break

room

Toolroom

106.4 m (349.1 ft)

Storage

Area

Offices/

Break

room

Cleaning Shop

Paint Shop

Fuel Shop

2-ton

Overhead

Monorail

Mechanical Accessory Shop

Welding

Shop

Machine

Shop

Clean Room

Sheet Metal Shop

2-ton

Overhead

Monorail

Composite Shop

Offices/

Break

room

737 Heavy Maintenance Hangar

106.4 m (349.1 ft)

Toolroom

Mez

zanine

first

floor

Storage

Area

Offices/

Break

room

94.5 m (3 10.0 ft)

Component /

Material

Storage

Elevator

Aircraft

Maintenance

Offices

GSE

Storage

Toolroom

747 Heavy Maintenance Hangar

162.9 m (534.3 ft)

GSE

Storage

Cleaning

Storage

Mixing

Masking

GSE

Storage

Paint

Office

Control

Room

96.3 m (315.8 ft)

Paint Hangar

99.8 m (327.3 ft)

First

floor

sky

bridge

Bird Screen

737 Hangar

23.8 m

(78.1 ft) 21.5 m

(70.6 ft)

Mezzanine

m (147.6 ft)

10.0 m

(32.8 ft)

95.5 m (313.2 ft)

Elevator Shaft

Mezzanine

Elevator Shaft

Stair Well Roof Access

Support Building

45.0 m (147.6 ft)

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 26

AERO QUARTERLY

QTR_02 | 14

Although the criteria document is

tailored for each project, it may include:

■

Project approach,

including purpose

and scope, design phases and reviews,

building codes and regulations, and

drawings and specifications.

■

Facilities,

such as hangar, component

repair, warehousing, ground-service

equipment repair, guard houses, line

maintenance, and hazardous materials

storage facilities.

■

Site requirements,

such as geotech

nical investigation, parking, aprons

and taxiways, site utilities, security,

and landscaping.

■

Special considerations,

such as appli

cable airplane weights and special

concrete requirements where these

airplanes will park, taxi, and be posi

tioned within the hangar.

■

General building information,

including

building materials, mechanical and

electrical space requirements, building

finishes, elevator requirements, foun

dations, mechanical systems, fire

protection, and information technology.

■

Data access,

which includes how person

nel will access maintenance and repair

data for the specific airplane model type.

■

Descriptions of specific spaces,

such

as hangar bays, shops, offices, and

support spaces.

■

Plan review,

which may include sug

gested revisions based on data about

the airline, its fleet size, and the types

of maintenance it wants to perform

in-house, both initially and in the future.

For example, during the planning

process, Boeing can review the plans

for a facility and provide the customer

with a summary of items that it should

consider changing, along with reasons

for each change. Boeing can also

perform a major redesign of a cus

tomer’s plans. In one case, this resulted

in retaining the outer facility and hangar

dimensions but making significant

changes to the shop layout to improve

efficiency.

SUMMARY

Adept maintenance-facilities planning can

help airlines develop facilities that enable

efficient and cost-effective airplane main

tenance, thereby improving the airlines’

operations and overall competitiveness.

Boeing offers fee-based maintenance-

facilities planning services to help airlines

be successful.

For more information, e-mail mgos@

boeing.com.

Boeing maintenance facility planning services

When providing maintenance facility

planning services, Boeing’s goal is to

meet the strategic goals of the airline

and keep an operator’s fleet in the air

by reducing repair time.

To this end, Boeing provides oper

ators with various degrees of requested

assistance, from developing a facility

criteria document to reviewing construc

tion documents to planning lean and

efficient maintenance facilities.

Boeing assistance of planned facil

ities can range from a single component

workshop — such as a wheel, tire,

and brake shop — to full maintenance

facilities.

Boeing’s access to airplane mainte

nance data and component maintenance

manuals helps ensure that facilities

utilize the latest technology, the

appropriate equipment, and the proper

procedures. Boeing’s experience and

knowledge of worldwide maintenance

facilities can help to ensure the appli

cation of the latest concepts for a

maintenance facility design.

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 27

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine — page 28

www.boeing.com/boeingedge/aeromagazine

Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine

Prompt to Clone This Boeing AERO Maintenance Magazine

Apply this example's core structure, strategic pacing, and structural hierarchy directly to your own topic.

What are you generating today?