Aviation Maintenance Programs - Research Paper Example

? Aviation Maintenance Programs Aviation Maintenance Programs Introduction Aircraft safety has been of major concern in the military, Federal and civilian circles. This is because any problem to the aircraft on flight might lead to loss of lives or could affect the mission of the military unit. The military service and the Federal Aviation Administration many at times face similar safety concerns during their day today operation of aircrafts. The aircrafts may be similar or may be different in their composition and make up but use common materials and parts. To address the safety concerns the Federal Administration Aviation and the military services often take similar or divergent maintenance programs to address the aircraft safety issues. The paper will look at the similarities and differences of how the Federal Administration and the military service run their aircraft maintenance programs. The paper will also make a comparison of aviation maintenance programs of the United States and those of other countries in the world. Similarities Similar Internal Mechanism used to Communicate Safety Related Information In running the aircraft maintenance programs, both the military service and the Federal Administration Aviation have established a formal and informal internal means to realize their aircraft safety issues. In both cases, there are established formal internal mechanisms that are used to convey any official information that is of concern such as those of giving orders and directives in the aviation industry and the military service. In cases where the Federal Administration aviation predicts any unsafe condition for the aircraft, they issue a formal airworthiness directive of the unsafe condition to the primary owners and the operators of the aircraft so that they can take precautionary measure to avoid areas that are considered unsafe for the aircraft to pass through (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). In case of large civil commercial airplanes, the airworthiness directive is first written by the agency based in Renton, Washington, and then sends to the Federal Administration Aviation headquarters based in Oklahoma, which then convey information to the aircraft owners and operators via their website. The military service on the other hand also issues formal airworthiness directive similar to that of Federal administration aviation. In cases of imminent aviation safety concerns, the military service ensures that the safety concerns messages are sent to the units affected and the aviation safety centers. The similar also come in as we find that the military service safety centers always hold formal service safety conferences after every six months to address any issue pertaining to safety maintenance (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). The Federal Administration Aviation and the military both have an internal informal channels established among the aviation safety personnel used for sharing safety information. They are self initiated and happens on an ad hoc basis, and are usually based on personal relationships. The military service center uses these informal networks to keep abreast of any current aircraft safety concerns. It is therefore evident that in both the military service and the Federal Administration Aviation, personal relationships are the foundations of informal communication that results into thorough networking that allows for a vigorous swap of aircraft safety information (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Both the military service and the Federal Administration Aviation ensure that there are formal internal meetings among the engineers and the staff charged with the responsibility of programming as well as the Federal Administration managers. Formal communication is also seen as internal meetings are also held among the senior military officers charged with the responsibility of maintaining the aircraft safety. In both the military service and the Federal Administration Aviation, training is used as a way of sharing aircraft safety information internally among the military staffs and the agency of the Federal Administration Aviation (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Similar Process for Maintaining Aircraft Safety concerns Bothe the military services and the Federal Administration Aviation (FAA) ensures that there is compliance with the aviation safety rule and procedures, and ensures that required corrective actions are taken by instituting thorough inspection and internal audit on areas pertaining to safety maintained in the aviation industry. To ensure that there is compliance with the aviation safety and corrective actions taken, the Federal administration have established a law that compels the aircraft operators to be diligent and responsible in providing services with the highest degree of safety to the public (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). The Federal Administration Aviation monitor the airlines operations at the times they seek a certificate of operation to ensure compliance so that they do not operate in a manner that puts the public lives at risk. The Federal Administration Aviation also ensures that there are mechanisms put in place to ensure that they track various reports from the pilots and other crews as a way of monitoring the aircrafts compliance with the Federal safety requirements as argued by the United States general Accounting Office (2000). The military service also ensures that there is compliance by conducting routine inspections and audits, to ensure that there is implementation of corrective actions. In some instances, the military service ensures that there is compliance by reporting any aircraft safety issues to the oversight organization using aircraft identification numbers (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Bothe the military service and the Federal Administration Aviation (FAA) establish similar reactive and proactive approaches in spotting any imminent aircraft safety concerns. The proactive approaches employed in both cases include monitoring the manufacturer’s directives, aircraft’s structural reports, any weaknesses in materials used, inspectors’ reports on condition of the airplane, and the pilot’s reports on problems facing the aircraft. The reactive approach employed in both cases is ensuring that immediate action is taken from the findings and recommendations on aircraft security issues (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Both the FAA and the military services use similar process in assessing aircraft safety risks in order to establish if there is any corrective action needed. In carrying out this process they both ensure that cost and benefit comparisons are established in doing away with the potential aircraft risk concerns. For this reason, both the military service and the federal Administration aviation employ the use of risk assessment matrix in establishing the risk level associated with any potential aircraft safety risk (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). They classify any potential risk in accordance with the probability of its occurrence and how severe it may be. Both the military service and the FAA employ similar methods in implementing corrective actions used to solve an aircraft safety concerns. The United States General Accounting Office (2000) observed that the federal Administration Aviation issues an airworthiness directive in notifying the aircraft owners and operators of unsafe conditions. They also provide them with a corrective action to take so that the aircrafts are not put at risk, which may lead to airplane crash. The military service also the same airworthiness directive and the corrective action that is supposed to be taken by the crews. The similar corrective actions are seen in the manner in which they handle their emergency procedure in compelling a corrective action to be taken by the aircraft owners and pilots. For example, if the FAA establishes any serious threat to an aircraft due to unsafe conditions The Feral agency would ensure that an emergency airworthiness directive is issues to the primary aircraft owners and the operators. This directive will ensure that there is compliance on the part of the aircraft crews before they can have another flight. This has also been witnessed in the military service as they issue such directives. For example, the military service centre may issue emergency aircraft safety information that compels instant grounds of all the aircrafts that are affected by the unsafe condition. The other branches of the military service such as the Air force and the Costal Guard also ensure that an emergency signal is conveyed by publishing a time Compliance Technical Order (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Differences Differences in Military and Civil Accident Investigation Process In case of an accident occurs to the aircrafts, the investigation programs of the military differs from that carried out by the federal Administration Aviation. United States General Accounting Office (2000) observed that the military service do conduct their own in investigation without involving the third parties. They conduct the safety investigation to establish the actual cause of the accident and a legal investigation pertaining to the accident to establish evidence. This is to assist in establishing any disciplinary action to take or establish a claim or litigation. The Federal Administration on the other hand employs an independent investigation agency called the NTSB co conduct the investigation concerning the accident on their behalf. Difference in speed of decision-making process and Limit for Aircraft Safety Actions There is a big difference in decision making speed between the military service and the FAA pertaining to potential aircraft safety issues. The same applies to the threshold used in establishing appropriate course of action that is supposed to be taken. United States General Accounting Office (2000) observed that decision making pertaining to potential aircraft safety is made very first within the military service. This is because the military service does not have to carry out any consultation with third parties, but is governed by its well structure command and control structure. The FAA on the other hand decision-making is slower in that they must first consult with third parties that include the manufactures stakeholders and the plane operators. They also work under different formal chucks in issuing aircraft safety laws. Te military gives direct orders to solve aircraft safety problems and implements this orders to avert any potential risk to the aircrafts. The FAA on the other hand have complicated processes of making rules as they are required to first provide comprehensive notice and comments to stakeholders before any change can be effected. Difference in Certification Methods The military service and the FAA apply different certification methods in cases where an aircraft is used exclusively for military purposes or where an aircraft derived from civil variant is changed to perform military purposes. In such instances, the military engineers are first required to provide a certification that the aircraft is actually fit for military purposes and safety. However, the FAA would still consider the aircrafts modifications to be below civil airworthy standards. On the other hand, military service serves both duties of approval and users of the military aircraft (United States General Accounting Office, 2000). Comparison of US aviation Maintenance program with that of other countries Williams (2011) in his observation of the US Army aviation maintenance established that most of the military army helicopters and aircrafts adopt a RESET maintenance programs as opposed to those applied I other countries. The RESET program is an aviation maintenance program that involve thorough cleaning of the helicopters and aircrafts to remove contaminants, thorough inspection of airframe and other components and repair of circle bring back the aircraft to its original condition In conclusion, it is evident that the FAA and the military service have both similarities and differences on how they run their aircraft maintenance programs. The similarities are found in their internal Mechanism used to communicate safety related information, process for maintaining aircraft safety concerns. They however differ in the manner in which military and civil accident investigation process is conducted and pace of decision-making process and certification methods. The US aviation maintenance differs with that of other countries in the military area as they have adopted the RESET program. References United States General Accounting Office (2000). Aviation safety: FAA and DOD Response to similar safety concerns. GAO 02-77 Williams, K.B. (2011). RESET aviation maintenance program study of U.S. Army aviation: Master’s Thesis & Specialist Projects. Western Kentucky University: Top scholar, Jan 5. Read More