Strek
Местный
www.mtain.com
Про FRACAS, и, кстати, про неподвержденные отказы ...
Что касается неподвержденных отказов, то в буржуазных GENERAL CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE CUSTOMER SUPPORT между изготовителем ВС и поставщиком ПКИ существует специальный раздельчик:
Ну и т.д. ...
Очень интересная штука.
Про FRACAS, и, кстати, про неподвержденные отказы ...
Defect Report and Corrective Action System (DRACAS)
DRACAS- is a formal closed-loop reporting system that requires each reported failure to be analyzed from an maintainability perspective and if necessary, followed up with a corrective action. This system would be used in unison with the FRACAS. However, the objective of this data collection system would be to obtained specific maintainability data.
The collection of data could start early in a design and development phases and continue to be implemented into the operational or fielded phase. The type of data to be collected, with respect to maintainability would ascertain the maintainability characteristics of a system. This data could include actual maintenance elapse times, observation on the BIT performance, discrepancies in technical manuals and documentation, criteria tied to actual repair actions, and any supporting dispositions. For example, where it is observed that for a particular assembly, a large percentage of these assemblies are returned from a supplier as a No-Fault-Found (NFF) or No-Evidence-Of-Failure (NEOF). Upon investigation by the vendor they were unable to locate any faults associated with the assembly in question and after testing, to verify its operational status, returned it to the user as NFF. This type of scenario has an adverse impact upon the operational support cost of a system. The impact upon a system's Life Cycle Cost of those items being found to be NFF is augmented, as there is a cost associated with removing "serviceable" items from a system and entering them into the repair loop. The cause of this maybe as a result of the ineffective diagnostics routine, technical manuals and/ or training of the maintainers
There are many maintainability issues that could have an impact upon the operational Life Cycle Cost for a system. These need to be identified and addressed in a systematic fashion.
Что касается неподвержденных отказов, то в буржуазных GENERAL CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE CUSTOMER SUPPORT между изготовителем ВС и поставщиком ПКИ существует специальный раздельчик:
APPENDIX D NO FAULT FOUND POLICY
Definition of terms
Equipment such as proximity switches, pressure transducers, circuit breakers and hydraulic, mechanical and engine system parts are not included in the NFF policy. Such cases may be reviewed with the aim of improving maintenance practises - including Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM) quality -but the decision to remove a part will remain with the Operator.
It has been found that such cases are impossible to adjudicate as far as assessing the responsibility within the standard maintenance practises.
The NFF Policy is intended for application with avionic components.
Aims and benefits to be achieved from implementing this policy
The policy applies to Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) returned to the Supplier or to a Supplier’s authorized repair station.
o Reduction of No Fault Found costs for the Airline.
o A better understanding of the Centralized Fault Display System (CFDS) and Centralized Maintenance System (CMS). Reduced system interrogation times as experience is gained. This is in conjunction with the revised A320 Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM), which is in the same format as the A330/A340 document.
o A better understanding between all parties and quicker resolutions of NFF issues will ensue. The Supplier's authorized repair station will contact the Operator to ensure that reasons for removal are understood and to obtain historic data on the units. Airbus Industrie may be involved to make sure all causes are documented and to resolve any interface issues with regard to the application of the
NFF policy.
o Reduction of unjustified removals will result in optimum utilization of spares.
o Improvement of the TSM procedures through correlation of common NFF removals.
o Time to identify rogue LRUs will be reduced through analysis of historic records.
o This policy is based on the minimum supporting data required to
substantiate an unscheduled removal. In developing the policy Airbus Industrie has given careful consideration to operational restrictions.
Supplier's responsibility
The Supplier is responsible for keeping historic data by serial number of all units. These files should not only contain data on a LRU warranty aspects but also on the total repair history, reasons for removal, testing, NFF, modification standard and all the work performed on the LRU.
In taking the leadership of the removal analysis, the Supplier or Supplier's authorized repair station will contact the Operator to obtain any information associated with the LRU removal required to complete the LRU history.
Operator’s responsibility
The application of the policy along with an adequate Operator involvement in trouble shooting will significantly lower the number of NFF cases.
The Operator will provide the minimum data for removal substantiation.
The removal data are:
The initiating Pilot Report (PIREP) and/or Maintenance Report (MAREP) and Post Flight Report (PFR) and The BITE/Trouble Shooting Data (TSD) printout as applicable
Or
The failure results of the return to service test procedure (as per CMM) and historic data of all NFF occurrences at Operators facility (for LRU history files) This policy presupposes that the Airbus Industrie operational
- Flight Crew Operating Manual (FCOM)
including Operation Engineering bulletins (OEBs) - and maintenance recommendations are followed.
The operator is requested to include a technical contact on the paperwork.
NFF charges
Tests resulting in NFF may be charged whenever:
No supporting data is supplied with the unit
The supporting data does not substantiate the removal
Operator chooses not to provide the substantiating data after the request of the Supplier's repair station.
When no LRU defect is found to be the origin of a fault message, the cause will be clarified between the Supplier and Airbus Industrie. The Supplier will open a specific file for these cases.
Airbus Industrie and the Suppliers will not support NFF cases where clear TSM procedures, in relation to a PFR warning message, provide for correct system trouble shooting.
Automatic Test Equipment (ATE) at Operator's facility
The Operator shall not be deemed responsible where it is shown that the LRU test specification is incomplete or incorrect.
The LRU Supplier takes responsibility to verify test specifications.
The ATE manufacturer is responsible for translation of test specifications.
Where the LRU test specification published in the CMM is shown to be correct, the Operator’s selected ATE manufacturer is responsible to clarify NFF resulting from incorrect implementation. If necessary, Airbus Industrie will mediate disputes for such issues.
PROCEDURE ON AIRCRAFT
Action is initiated by a cockpit effect or repetitive CFDS fault. A cockpit effect can be in the form of an ECAM warning or aural call out, or crew observation leading to log book entry.
Log Book entry
All entries are made by the flight crew (PIREP) or maintenance personnel (MAREP) into the aircraft log.
Post Flight Report (PFR)
A summary of ECAM warning messages. These are identified and cross referenced at the time of message occurrence and ATA chapter reference of the equipment involved. A print is made of the PFR.
BITE test
Interrogation of CFDS/CMS to confirm equipment fault in reference to the PFR warning or log book entry.
Fault confirmed by BITE test
When the fault is confirmed by CFDS the unscheduled removal is supported.
A print is made of the BITE test results and returned with the removed LRU.
The LRU is removed in accordance with TSM procedures and dispatched to Supplier's authorized repair station with supporting data.
In this case the supporting data is the PFR and/or the logbook, and the BITE test results (where applicable).
Fault not confirmed by BITE test
In the case of intermittent faults, the decision to remove the LRU may be delayed until time allows deeper trouble shooting. Prior to the LRU removal the Trouble Shooting Data should be retrieved.
Trouble Shooting Data (TSD)
Snapshot of system at time of ECAM warning (creation of PFR message). This allows an analysis of the system and to correctly attribute the failure. A print is made of the TSD and returned with the removed LRU.
The LRU is removed in accordance with the TSM and dispatched to the Supplier’s authorized repair station with the supportive data.
In this case the supporting data is the PFR and TSD.
PROCEDURE IN OPERATOR SHOP
Fail Test at Test Bench
If the LRU fails test then it is sent for repair.
If the LRU passes the test it is returned to service.
Unscheduled removal supported by ATE results The LRU is returned to Supplier repair station together with the ATE failure report. In this case the supporting data is the PFR and the ATE report.
CFDS/CMS print included with LRU
If the PFR plus the BITE Test Results or TSD as applicable or the ATE failure results are included and demonstrate (in conjunction with TSM) that the removal is justified, then no testing charges will apply in case of NFF.
If the above data confirm Aircraft system fault, and if no Airbus Industrie Operational or Maintenance procedure exists to prevent LRU removal, Airbus Industrie will warrant that the Aircraft system responsible party supports test charges.
Removals not supported by CFDS/CMS data
The LRU is considered as an unsupported unscheduled removal.
The Operator is charged for testing in case of NFF.
Ну и т.д. ...
Очень интересная штука.