Maintenance.......................again............... sorry

[Quantum]

If we are to keep the maintenance regime as is at the moment on a % basis, is it possible to factor into the algorrithm/calculation ( or whatever it is that knocks the percantage down) a cycle/hours figure. What I would like to see, is the % drop at a rate consistant with at least 50 hours, preferably 100 hours, being achieved by the time the acft gets down to 95%. This would bring things in line more with real world activities.

Rgds

Q

[BigQ]

the percentage is now being lowered on the basis of how hard your landing is. What you mean is a drop even if the aircraft isn't being used?

[Mark UKD171]

Hi Q and BigQ

I think Q's suggesting that the planes maintenace % drops per hour flying - which makes sense.
I've been flying long and short hauls in a 747 and BAC1-11 and as long as I keep my landings similar the 1-11 percentage drops at the same rate as the 747 even though the 747 has flown anything upto 10 times as many hours.

btw Q, dont know if you know this (its buried away somewhere on the forum) but each flight you do is representative of 100 flights for that VA. I mention this because in another of your posts it appeared you didnt know this, but I cant remember which post now If you did know this then just ignore me and my inane ramblings

You have some good ideas m8

[Quantum]

the percentage is now being lowered on the basis of how hard your landing is. What you mean is a drop even if the aircraft isn't being used?

Hi BigQ

Is the hard landings the ONLY factor in the maintenance? If that is the case, then I think it needs some adjustment. Not wishing to beat my own chest, but my landings are all good as I like to treat my passengers well. There are occasions though where it is preferable to make a more positive contact with the runway, I am thinking crosswind landings here. In such circumstances this is not necessarily a bad landing, more good flying technique. If the descent rate at landing is the factor that determines the % drop of your aircraft status then perhaps it needs some work to make things even across all aircraft types. Modern aircraft's undercarriages are immensely strong these days, the weakest link is the tyres. I have suggested in another thread that the landing descent rate should be linked to a 'tyre blown' aircraft defect. This should only kick in when a pilot makes a REALLY heavy landing. If the client reports a blown tyre condition then the aircraft is withdrawn from service for one hour and the VA is billed automatically and aircraft is available again after the hour. Lets look at making the % drop of aircraft status linked JUST to flight hours - say 50 hours to get to 95% or to make it more linear say 50 hours to get to 50%. VA's should only lose the acft for say 6 hours (typical of an overnight check in real life say midnight to 0600) before it is available again and should not be penalised for dropping below the 95/50% point - currently there is a huge jump in maintenance cost if you dare drop below 95%. Adding to this you could make the aircraft perhaps 'unavailable for flight - maintenance due' if it drops to say the 60 hours threshold. This will 'force' VA's to maintain thier aircraft. You could also look at perhaps a simple counter of aircraft 'total hours' and 'hours since last check'. You can use the 'total hours' to determine which check is due on the aircraft. Aircraft maintenance costs should also be on the aircraft info page.

Phew

Rgds

Q

[BigQ]

Ok Q, BigQ's gotcha.

That's actually a really good idea... like the blown tyres option.