Research Article

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

2017, Vol. 9(6) 1–12
Ó The Author(s) 2017
A method of prioritizing quality DOI: 10.1177/1687814017706436
journals.sagepub.com/home/ade
improvement in aviation refuelling
services at airport

Kanon Ruamchat1, Natcha Thawesaengskulthai2 and

Chaipong Pongpanich3

Abstract
There has been growing emphasis on quality measures and process analysis techniques that may be implemented in the
daily practice of aviation refuelling to improve the overall quality of safety care. The quality assessment and process con-
trols are most effective when used to determine the level of execution proficiency against the standard of aviation fuel
quality control and handling. In this article, we have developed the quality assessment tools, control charts and new key
indicator to prioritize the quality improvement that should be actionable and specific to guide process improvement
efforts successively. Changing from a regular visual check to an automatic visual inspection tool, as well as from a pass/fail
criteria to a satisfaction scale from 1 to 10 in the control, produces systematic data. Control charts are an effective way
to separate a change in the process, so the user can focus on issues that are more likely to improve quality and safety.
Our proposed quality assessment tools, process control and quality improvement prioritization were used to provide
continuous feedback on the aviation refuelling service’s capability to exceed the standards.

Keywords
Aviation refuelling service, quality improvement prioritization, safety management system, statistical process control

Date received: 17 February 2017; accepted: 2 April 2017

Academic Editor: Kuei Hu Chang

Introduction generated from the fuel movement in the aircraft tank

Aviation fuel handling and quality control are consid-
ered critical procedures that require both safety and
quality management from the refinery through to fuel
transportation, delivering to the airport, storage, and
finally delivery into the aircraft. Beside the human
errors and equipment failures that may occur, the sig-
nificant risks come from two primary sources: an unin-
tended ignition of fuel vapour occurred by a single
spark and fuel contamination during the delivery pro-
cess and storage. The high risk of ignition of fuel
vapour may result from spillage arising from human
errors, process failure, poor quality fuel handling,
depot leaks or aircraft tank venting of pressurized fuel
couplings. The single spark to ignite the fuel vapour
occurs from the discharge of electrostatic energy
during the fuelling process, as well as the electrostatic
energy accumulation on the surface of the aircraft and
refuelling truck. If the charge has sufficiently high
potential, it can spark within the aircraft tank.
1
Technopreneurship and Innovation Management, Graduate School,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
2
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
3
Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration of Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand
Corresponding author:
Natcha Thawesaengskulthai, Department of Industrial Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, 254 Phayathai Road,
Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Email: natcha.t@chula.ac.th

Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
open-access-at-sage).
2 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
Currently, the use of dissipater additives in the fuel and
electrical bounding can eliminate this risk. However,
incidents and accidents still occur, such as the accident
of British Airways Boeing 777–200 in 2001 on the
ground at Denver International Airport, USA. The
refuelling coupling under pressure was the improper
attachment, resulting in the single spark causing sub-
stantial damage and the death of the refuelling
operator.1
The fuel contamination can also affect the aircraft
engines, and it may not be evident until the aircraft has
been airborne. The potential sources of fuel contamina-
tion are particulates,2 water,3 other petroleum prod-
ucts4 and microbial growth in the fuel.5,6 The main
source of particulate contamination is rust and scale
from the surfaces of fuel tanks and pipes which are
made of steel or alloys. Another source comes from air-
borne solids entering the tanks through its seals of
floating roof tanks, solids through from damaged hoses
and filters, and from microbial infestation. Managing
water contamination is critical and requires careful
monitoring and filtering from the fuel. Some major
examples of water contamination are as follows:3
 Low spots in a pipeline;
 Rain water leaking past the seals in floating roof
tanks;
 Moist outside air entering the vents of fixed roof
depots;
 Airflow during refuelling operations can change
the moisture content of air in contact with the
fuel;
 Water left behind after cleaning operations in
tanks or transport vehicles due to poor personal
procedures;
 Changes in temperature of the fuel can increase
the chance of water condensing out.
Other petroleum product contamination can occur
when different types of fuels are stored in the same
Figure 1. Overview of JIG standards mapped with aviation fuelling supply chain.
storage tanks. However, this case can lead to zero inci-
dents if the fuel specification is fully checked before
loading. Finally, the solids formed by microbial growth
(i.e. bacteria and fungi) can block the fuel filter and
some micro-organisms can generate acidic substances
resulting in metal corrosion. There are three main
methods for all contaminant detection and removal: fil-
tering, water-absorbing media and clay treatment.
An example of an incident related to fuel contamina-
tion is a Cathay Pacific Airbus A330-300 route from
Surabaya to Hong Kong had trouble in controlling
engine thrust. One engine became unusable and a PAN
and then a MAYDAY were declared prior to a success-
ful landing at the destination with excessive speed, after
gaining control of the thrust from the remaining engine.
The problem was the salt water contamination of the
hydrant fuel system at Surabaya.7 Note that the fuel
contamination can occur at various points in the fuel
supply chain, from the refinery through to the storage
at depot, and delivering fuel into the aircraft.8
With these primary risks that can occur during the
refuelling process, control of fuel quality at the airport
becomes critical, and a quality assurance process is
required to ensure that the refuelling service quality
improves towards the zero-accident objective. It should
be noted that the way the airport implements the qual-
ity practices can impact on the safety performance sig-
nificantly,9 such as aircraft fuel system failure
prognosis,10 fault diagnosis,11 maintenance quality
function deployment12 and gap analysis with analytic
network process.13 Therefore, most airports have
acquired both quality management system (QMS) and
safety management system (SMS) programmes to iden-
tify the hazards associated with organizational factors,
including human performance. QMS is generic and
non-industry specific, while SMS is specially designed
for fuelling system programmes, such as Joint
Inspection Group (JIG) standard.14 JIG standard
focuses on fuel handling and quality control procedures
through the quality control chain (see Figure 1). The
Ruamchat et al.
individual control procedures are established at the
refinery and are continued through transportation,
storage at depot and refuelling into the aircraft. Even
though the SMS and standards have been applied, inci-
dents and accidents still remain that affect the signifi-
cant loss of property and even death. As a result, an
enhancement of service quality integrating to safety
standards at airport towards better risk management
and incident/accident prevention.15
This article, however, aims primarily to develop the
aviation refuelling quality assessment tools, process
controls towards the quality improvement prioritization
based on the JIG standard to improve aviation refuel-
ling service and safety at the airport. The key weakness
of applying safety standards alone is a lack of continu-
ous quality improvement and identification of quality
gaps for improvement.16 Therefore, it is very important
to ensure the refuelling process, equipment and people
constantly improve in terms of quality. Based on our
literature review, there is no publication focusing on
quality improvement and prioritization on refuelling
service at the airport.
Our proposed method will ensure the refuelling ser-
vice quality is able to control the refuelling process
towards the zero-accident objective. Additional goals
of this research are to minimize the human errors that
can occur during quality assessment,17 by developing
an in-house quality assessment software to generate the
systematic quality assessment records and to monitor
the process using statistical process control (SPC) tech-
niques to identify the site-specific tolerance levels for
the point-of-maintenance indicator. These tools will
assist in refuelling operation to be more effective.
Aviation refuelling services at airport
The need of aviation safety standards with data-
driven monitoring
Safety has had a significant impact in aviation opera-
tion, technology, development and innovation.18 A
study found that organizations have been focusing
more on their staff’s safety responsibilities than on
implementing an effective SMS and encouraging posi-
tive safety culture.19 However, human error is consid-
ered as a primary cause in 70%–80% of all aviation
incidents and accidents. The safety standards should
recommend to incorporate error analysis during opera-
tion.20 To minimize the human errors in safety manage-
ment, systematic interventions or monitoring is
recommended to address the interrelated process of
safety programmes.21 A further reduction of the acci-
dent rate in human errors will require investment in
better support for error management, especially in bet-
ter understanding of the nature and effectiveness of
error detection mechanisms.20 Therefore, relying on
3
staff’s safety responsibilities alone may not be enough
to achieve the safety goals in aviation, even though
most of the errors can be detected based on routine
checks.
Accidents are usually highly visible, and as a result,
aviation has developed standardized methods of inves-
tigating, documenting and disseminating errors and
their lessons.22 Sarter et al.20 suggested that aviation
operation requires more effective feedback in support
of data-driven monitoring rather than implementing
the safety standard alone. For example, a quantitative
model had been used for the assessment of the aviation
risk generated from the fight safety management infor-
mation system.23 A hybrid multiple criteria decision-
making model was developed and applied to address
dependent relationships among criteria based on an
analytical network process as a safety feedback.24
JIG standards
The JIG standards for aviation fuel quality control and
operating procedures consist of internationally agreed-
upon procedures for handling aviation fuel at airports
and upstream aviation fuel facilities. These standards
have been approved from the international air trans-
port association (IATA) and have been widely used in
the airport in Thailand. The standards include recom-
mended practices for fuel sampling and testing, depot,
hydrant, and fuelling vehicle design features, and pro-
cedures for storage and delivery of aviation fuel to air-
craft. Figure 1 (shown above) maps the JIG standards
to the aviation fuel supply chain which is shown as
follows:
 EI/JIG standard 1530 defines quality assurance
requirements for the manufacture, storage and
distribution of aviation fuels to airports.
 JIG 1 issue 12 is the aviation fuel quality control
and operating standard for into-plane fuelling
service.25
 JIG 2 issue 12 is the aviation fuel quality control
and operating standard for airport depots and
hydrants.26
EI/JIG 1530 1st edition was exhibited on October
2013, and JIG 1 and 2 Issue 12 were exhibited on
January 2016. In this article, JIG 1 and 2 Issue 12 has
been focused for quality assessment tool development
and process control; therefore, the discussion of JIG 1
and 2 is presented in this section. Both JIG 1 and 2
Standards contain three main parts: quality control,
maintenance and accident/incident reporting. The
shared goals of JIG standards include zero breakdown
of fuelling and depot storage equipment, zero defects
and zero accidents. The JIG standards are a compre-
hensive set of quality control and maintenance
4 Advances in Mechanical Engineering
practices. Along with maintenance, JIG standards facil-
itate airport management with an emphasis on quality,
safety and productivity, which results in an overall per-
formance enhancement of fuelling services. JIG stan-
dards involve four main parties: fuelling operator or
staff, internal and external inspectors, airport manage-
ment and fuel suppliers.25,26
Beside JIG standards, there are aviation fuel safety
standards available, such as:
 Airline for American (A4A), as an operation and
maintenance guidance manual;27
 NFPA 407 standards, for aircraft fuel servicing
published by National Fire Protection
Association, USA, focusing on safety operation
and equipment maintenance for private
aircraft;28
 CAAP 234 guidelines for aircraft fuel require-
ment used in Australia;29
 OISD standard-235 from India;30
 ASTM D1655 standard specification for aviation
turbine fuels.31
All standards share the same common focus of fuel
handling, but differ in routine check period and
techniques.
Monitoring aviation safety data through control
charts
One of the quality management tools, or Six-Sigma, is
SPC and has been potentially applied to analyse the
aviation safety data.32,33 SPC is divided into two stages:
collection of empirical training data to determine the
control limits and then monitoring a process using con-
trol charts to detect whether data exceeds the control
limits.34 The control limits are set as the range within
which the process is considered normal or in control.
These control limits can be used as a warning indicator
that a process may not be stable. The unstable process
might not result in an accident or incident, but the
warning warrants further investigation due to statisti-
cally abnormal deviation in aviation procedures.
Moreover, the SPC technique can be applied to moni-
tor a significant change in the process over time to
identify the failure likelihood and its trend.
The control charts are a simple but effective means
for monitoring multivariate observations. For example,
the meaningful threshold system can be developed for
multivariate aviation safety data for both regulating
and monitoring purpose to evaluate the safety perfor-
mance. If data fail to the defined threshold level, the
assignment of appropriate corrective actions must be
established to prevent the shift from incident to acci-
dent. SPC has been applied to measure aviation
system’s safety performance based on the proactive
measurement tool for assessing the safety performance.
The main purpose of using SPC in aviation is to reduce
any defects and variability from processes and objec-
tives.35 Therefore, integrating SPC into regular SMS
will lead to a systematic approach in managing aviation
quality that can be more beneficial to higher safety
performance.36
Ground-based safety and quality assessment for
refuelling services at the airport
A quality assessment can be done by visual appearance
tests, physical checks, fuel sampling for contamination
checks (i.e. water, particulate and microbial tests), con-
ductivity checks and product identification checks that
are recommended in JIG standards. Sampling fuel for
water detection, particulate detection, other petroleum
products and microbial tests uses the visual appearance
test that can vary from assessors and environments.
The assessment form uses questionable or unsatisfac-
tory results obtained from these simple tests. Figure 2
presents the sample of paper-based forms used in qual-
ity assurance in refuelling service at Thai airport. These
forms were developed based on the recommendations
from JIG standards.
This quality assessment aims to focus on SMS pro-
grammes for identification of hazards associated with
human performance, equipment and fuel quality prior
to and during the refuelling service. This can be
improved to integrate using quality assessment tools
and process controls (SPC) to evaluate the service per-
formance and quality of service. With our proposed
quality assessment tools and process controls, the
refuelling service quality can be maximized.
Proposed quality improvement
prioritization and case study
Aviation refuelling service quality monitoring
In this research, the scope of service quality monitoring
is within refuelling service airport; into-plane fuelling
service (JIG 1 issue 12) and airport depots and hydrants
(JIG 2 issue 12). Figure 3 presents the frequency of
quality assessments, and measurement methods, on the
refueller truck. There are four main measurement meth-
ods: visual check, control or physical check, conductiv-
ity check and microbiological growth test. Beside the
daily check, the truck must be additionally checked
prior to the service being provided. The sampling fuel
must be collected to ensure it is water-free and has no
contamination. In addition, Figure 4 shows the quality
assessments through the process map from delivering
fuel, storing and releasing to the refueller truck. There
are microfilter and water filter separators before
Ruamchat et al. 5

Figure 2. Quality assessment form for water and dirt precautions certificate (left) and for aviation fuel station tank release record
(right).

Figure 3. Quality monitoring on refueller truck.

6 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 4. Quality monitoring on depot.

Figure 5. Proposed method of quality assessment and process control for refuelling service at airport.

loading fuel into depots and water filter separators
before releasing the fuel to the refueller truck.
For our proposed method for quality assessment, we
have developed an automatic visual inspection tool for
the microbiological growth test and use a satisfaction
scale (score 1–10) instead of pass/fail criteria (see
Table 1). The data from the satisfaction scale, conduc-
tivity test and output of the automatic visual inspection
tool are used to conduct the control charts to monitor
the quality performance of the refuelling service.
Moreover, the activity log is recorded to ensure the
staffs’ activities meet the JIG standards. The output of
the quality assessments and process controls is to estab-
lish a quality improvement priority (QIP) list. Figure 5
shows the workflow of our proposed quality assess-
ment tool.
Automatic visual inspection tool for microbiological
growth assessment
In general, a routine monitoring of aviation fuels in
supply and distribution facilities, airport depots and
into-plane operations with MicrobMonitor2 (ECHA
Ruamchat et al. 7

Table 1. Daily refueller truck serviceability record using a 1–10 scale of satisfaction.

Component October 2016 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Check list Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Engine and chassis Fuel, oil, water-check and replenish if necessary 9 9 9 8 8 8 8

Tries (Visual) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Fuelling equipment Pumps, filters, pipes-leakage 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
Fuelling couplings and nozzles leakage/damage/ 9 9 8 8 8 7 7
dust caps
Foot valve operation 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Drain point-visual check leakage and dust caps 8 8 8 7 7 7 7
Tank-top fitting for tightness against water and 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
dirt
Hydrant dispenser/refueller dump tank-empty 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Bonding Check bonding wires and clips-visual 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
Interlock system Seal on interlock over-ride switch intact 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Check function or brake interlock at least one 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
switch
Deadman control system Deadman hose stowage 10 10 9 9 9 9 9
Platform Loose, cracked, damaged or missing parts and 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
any spills/drips
Fire extinguishers Required number fitted, pressure gauge-normal 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
QC equipment Water detect, sample jars, etc. complete 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Appearance External, pumping compartments and cab- 9 8 9 9 8 7 9
cleanliness
Pneumatic system Leakage 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Microbiology, Cardiff, United Kingdom) are con-
ducted. MicrobMonitor2 enables on-site or laboratory
testing for microbial growth wherever any water accu-
mulates in aviation fuel tanks and systems. The sample
fuel of 0.5 mL is filled in the bottle, then shaken vigor-
ously for 30 s and stored in a warm dark place at 25°C
for 4 days with daily examination. To examine the test,
the bottle is held against a light background and all the
red purple colonies are counted. There are two cate-
gories of sample: category A are samples from vehicle
tanks and category B are samples from the low point of
the storage tank of the depot. There are three levels of
data interpretation: acceptable (less than 2 and 5 colo-
nies counted for categories A and B), moderate (2–10
and 5–50 colonies counted for categories A and B) and
heavy (more than 10 and 50 colonies counted for cate-
gories A and B). This visual inspection measurement
has potential disadvantages that rely on the assessor.
Therefore, we developed an in-house software to auto-
matically count the colonies and percentage of colony
area and then display the data interpretation using
MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA) shown in
Figure 6. This software uses image processing tech-
niques to automatically identify the red dots, contour-
ing, and calculates the area of colonies in pixel2 and
then converts this to a percentage.
SPC and process capability index
SPC requires prior data collection to determine the con-
trol limits. Setting appropriate control limits based on
‘good historical data’ can exclude acceptable variability
and focuses the detection on errors such as high con-
ductivity at the refueller truck and unaccepted levels of
microbiological contamination at the refueller truck
and depot. The data were collected for a month to con-
duct the upper control limit (UCL), the central line
(CL) and lower control limit (LCL). There are five prin-
ciple steps of implementing SPC:
1. Assessing conductivity tests and microbiological
tests based on JIG standards. The assessors
ensure the refueller and depot are regularly
maintained.
2. Characterizing the distribution of the data and
analyse the descriptive statistics and estimating
an initial control limit.
3. Removing data outside the initial control limit
due to any unnatural patterns.
4. Update the control limit for a moving range
(MR) control chart (constructed from step 4) to
detect the assignable variation. Our pilot study
selected three refueller trucks and two depots
have been applied for evaluating the refuelling
service performance.
Process monitoring using SPC allows us to deter-
mine the process output (verification results) and pro-
cess variability (dispersion of results) that will help to
differentiate between normal and assignable (special)
causes of variation.37 The limits that are used to classify
variation are set by calculating the mean, standard
8 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Figure 6. GUI for automatic visual inspection of microbiological growth; counting number of microbial spots and percentage of
microbial in bottle.

deviation and range of the set of process data collected

when the process is under stable operation. Then, sub-
sequent data can be compared to these limits to deter-
mine whether the new data fall within acceptable
bounds and therefore whether the process is in control.
The control chart contains two statistical control
limits: UCL and LCL.38 In this study, an MR chart was
used for the quality assessment in aviation refuelling
service. In addition, MR control charts are designed to
detect large and rapid drifts in a process and are recom-
mended for quality assurance and control in aviation
maintenance management. The statistical control limit
for the MR control chart is defined as Figure 7. Example SPC of conductivity in refueller truck No.
R22-1303 (daily measurement of 36 days), the specification
MRi = jXi  Xi1 j conductivity should not exceed 10 ohm.
MR MR ð1Þ
CL = x, = x  3 , UCL = x + 3
d2 d2
The MR control chart can be used to identify signifi-
where X is the result of each conductivity test and cant deviation at particular equipment based on the
microbiological test of each refueller truck and depot, test observation. If the data exceeds either the UCL or
and MR is the absolute difference between two consec- LCL, the system alerts as a warning trigger to warrant
utive tests. When two consecutive measurements are further investigation on that equipment. Moreover, if
used to calculate the MR, d2 = 1.128. CL is the centre the data exceeds either USL or LSL, immediate action
line defined as the mean. Moreover, the conductivity must be taken to prevent the incidents and following
tests and microbiological tests must follow the guide- accidents to occur.
line from JIG standards that defines the limits of an Long-term quality evaluation can be analysed using
acceptable level of these tests. The defined range of tol- a capability index (Cpk), which represents the ability of
erance levels are set as a lower specification limit (LSL) a process to produce data that is within the control
and upper specification limit (USL). Figure 7 presents limit. We monitored the aviation refuelling service for
the use of SPC for conductivity tests in refueller track 3 months (September 2016–November 2016) with a
number R22-1303, which contains two bounds. total of 3216 services. The results were evaluated using
Ruamchat et al. 9

Table 2. Long-term quality evaluation using process capability index.

Equipment/location Quality assessment Frequency Capability index (Cpk)

Depot 1 Conductivity test Daily 0.515

Microbial test (% area) Weekly 0.267
Depot 2 Conductivity test Daily 0.742
Microbial test Weekly 0.215
Refueller truck 1 Conductivity test (bond 1) Daily 0.483
Conductivity test (bond 2) Daily 0.452
Microbial test (% area) Weekly 0.587
Refueller truck 2 Conductivity test (bond 1) Daily 0.645
Conductivity test (bond 2) Daily 0.573
Microbial test (% area) Weekly 0.692

Table 3. Example of quality improvement priority of refueller truck 1 (assessment by the end of November 2016).

Ranking Components QIP score

1 Engine and chassis 0.41

2 Fuelling equipment 0.35
3 Bonding 0.32
4 Deadman control system and platform, external cleanliness 0.16
5 Interlock system, fire extinguishers, QC equipment, pneumatic system 0.00

Cpk (see Table 2). This long-term monitoring used sepa-
rate data from the data that were used for the control
limit calculation. The results of Cpk are able to assist
the department to identify quality gaps required to
improve the process, such as improved quality assur-
ance best practice or introducing new and more effec-
tive equipment for providing the refuelling service. The
process capability index is defined as follows
 
m  LSL USL  m
Cpk = min , ð2Þ
3s 3s
QIP setting
A quality improvement is considered one of the most
important stages that should be managed properly.
However, the need for better management and con-
trol by giving a reasonable prioritization for quality
improvement becomes essential based on how labour
intensive and cost effective it is.39 A combination
between satisfaction scale (SS) and output of capabil-
ity index (Cpk) is applied to set the QIP as shown in
equation (3)
 
SS
higher number of operators (and hence a smaller work-
QIP = 1  3 exp mean(Cpk )
maxðSS Þ
To set the priority order, all QIP calculations are
sorted from largest number to smaller number. The
larger number of QIP means higher improvement pri-
ority (see example in Table 3).
To quantify the performance of the proposed QIP
method against the traditional safety management
using JIG standard alone, three randomly selected air-
ports located in Thailand that have been implementing
this method were investigated. The indicators of perfor-
mance evaluation contain two key matrices: (1) number
of incidents before and after the proposed method was
implemented and (2) feedback from an internal auditor.
These performance evaluations were assessed by the
end of December 2016 (a month after refuelling quality
improvement using our proposed method) after the air-
port improved their quality based on the recommenda-
tion from the QIP. The selected airports were picked
due to different sizes and types of services, including
domestic and international airport (Airport 1), local
airport with military aircraft (Airport 2) and pilot train-
ing airport (Airport 3). The number of incidents before
and after the QIP implementation was used for key per-
formance evaluation of QIP.
It found that all airports reduced the number of inci-
dents related to refuelling service after QIP was imple-
mented on-site, with an average of 46.2% reduction.
Airport 1 showed the highest incident reduction, with
an incident reduction of 62.3%. This is due to the
ð3Þ load per operator) in Airport 1. The internal auditor’s
feedback showed all airports have improved their
refuelling quality after QIP implementation with scores
of 3.8/5.0 on average. We can conclude from these per-
formance evaluations that QIP can assist quality
improvement in the refuelling service at the airport.
10 Advances in Mechanical Engineering

Table 4. Performance evaluation of refuelling quality improvement after our proposed QIP applied on-site and quality improvement
based on internal auditor’s perspective for three airports.

Site Type Average number of Number of Number of Percentage Performance

incident between incidents fuelling of number evaluation feedback
January and July 2016 detected services in incident from internal auditors
(monthly) in December December reduction (1 – not at all
2016 2016 improved,
5 – very improved)

Airport 1 Domestic and 5.3 2 5573 62.3% 4

international airport
Airport 2 Local airport with 6.4 3 719 53.1% 4
military aircraft
Airport 3 Pilot training airport 5.2 4 457 23.1% 3.5
Average 5.6 3 2250 46.2% 3.8

Research limitation and future direction
Even though the proposed QIP method has potential
to reduce the number of incidents in refuelling services
at airports (see Table 4), this work presents the limita-
tion that it is dependent on other safety and quality
management procedures acquired on-site. The aim of
the proposed QIP is to integrate the JIG standard with
other quality assessment tools; changing from Pass/Fail
criteria to be a scaling from 1 to 10, applies SPC and
control charts to monitor processes, process capability
index to evaluate the long-term refuelling performance,
replacing visual assessments with automatic assess-
ments using image processing tools and prioritization
for rearranging the opportunity for improvement. QIP
alone cannot lead to zero incident in refuelling service
at the airport. It should use alongside the SMS and the
QMS. However, QIP is the measurement tool to iden-
tify the gap in accountable safety improvement in the
process of refuelling. The quality audit and refuelling
servicer will not miss signals of problems in safety and
miss the opportunity for improvement. Therefore, inte-
grating QIP with current safety standards and quality
amendment systems would lead to the zero incident.
Future studies can be taken into different aspects, such
as using QIP for other industries such as medical ser-
vices,40 radiation oncology41 and manufacture.42
However, it needs to observe and identify the signifi-
cant parameters for measuring the QIP. Moreover, the
QIP can be integrated for optimizing the budget to
maximize the resources and expected quality of refuel-
ling service simultaneously.
Conclusion
In this article, we proposed the refuelling service quality
assessment tools and process controls to determine the
quality improvement priorities of service processes,
equipment and facilities. This quality assessment
method was developed based on the JIG 1 and 2 issue
12 standards as we focused on refuelling service at the
airport. To compensate the issue of high uncertainty of
visual check or assessment, the automatic visual inspec-
tion tool for microbiological growth test software was
developed and implemented to ensure the accuracy of
data interpretation from microbiological growth test
kit. In addition, the pass/fail criteria for control check,
using a satisfaction scale (1–10), was applied to identify
the level of personal inspection satisfaction. The use of
control charts can potentially assist the operators to
identify the likelihood towards the incidents as an alert
indicator. The combination of process capability index
(Cpk) and satisfaction scale can be used to set the QIP
in the refuelling process and equipment. This quality
improvement prioritization can benefit to the preventa-
tive maintenance strategy and align with the QMS of
ISO 9001:2015, which focuses on continuous quality
improvement and risk-based thinking.43 Note that with
our proposed method, the aviation refuelling service
quality can be maximized to achieve the zero-accident
objective.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This research was supported by the 90th Anniversary
of Chulalongkorn University, Rachadapisek Sompote Fund.
References
1. Brady T. The aircraft accident investigation that never
was. J Aviat/Aerosp Educ Res 2014; 23: 1.
2. Gammon J and Rewritten A. Aviation fuel quality control
procedures. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, 2009.
Ruamchat et al.
3. Baena-Zambrana S, Repetto S, Lawson CP, et al. Beha-
viour of water in jet fuel – a literature review. Prog
Aerosp Sci 2013; 60: 35–44.
4. Shayeson M. Jet fuel quality considerations. Shell Aviat
News 1977; 443: 26–31.
5. Rauch ME, Graef HW, Rozenzhak SM, et al. Character-
ization of microbial contamination in United States air
force aviation fuel tanks. J Ind Microbiol Biot 2006; 33:
29–36.
6. Passman F. Microbial contamination and its control in
fuels and fuel systems since 1980 – a review. Int Biodeter
Biodegr 2013; 81: 88–104.
7. CAD. Report on the accident to Airbus A330–342 B-HLL
operated by Cathay Pacific Airways Limited at Hong
Kong International Airport, Hong Kong on 13 April 2010.
Aircraft accident report 2/2013, 2013. Hong Kong: Civil
Aviation Department, The Government of Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region, http://www.cad.gov.hk/
reports/2%20Final%20Report%20-%20CX%20780%20
2013%2007%20web%20access%20compliant.pdf
8. ICAO. Doc 9977. Manual on civil aviation jet fuel supply.
1st ed. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2012,
http://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2477.pdf
9. Pekovic S. Quality and environmental management prac-
tices: their linkages with safety performance. Prod Plan
Control 2015; 26: 895–909.
10. Chen J, Ma C, Song D, et al. Failure prognosis of multiple
uncertainty system based on Kalman filter and its applica-
tion to aircraft fuel system. Adv Mech Eng 2016; 8: 1–13.
11. Wang Q, Huang J and Lu F. An improved particle filter-
ing algorithm for aircraft engine gas-path fault diagnosis.
Adv Mech Eng 2016; 8: 1–13.
12. Valavi D and Pramod V. A fuzzy-rough set approach to
determine weights in maintenance quality function
deployment. Decis Sci Lett 2017; 6: 37–48.
13. Dabestani R, Shahin A and Saljoughian M. Evaluation
and prioritization of service quality dimensions based on
gap analysis with analytic network process. Int J Qual
Reliab Manag 2017; 34: 530–548.
14. Mak BL. ISO certification in the tour operator sector. Int
J Contemp Hospit Manag 2011; 23: 115–130.
15. Sundararaj G, Aravindan P, Devadasan S, et al. Risk
prevention and management in blast furnace operation
through mock drill exercise. Prod Plan Control 2000; 11:
197–206.
16. Wiengarten F, Humphreys P, Onofrei G, et al. The adop-
tion of multiple certification standards: perceived perfor-
mance implications of quality, environmental and health
& safety certifications. Prod Plan Control 2017; 28:
131–141.
17. Sun B, Jiang X, Ye T, et al. A novel concept and assess-
ment method for trustworthiness of prognostics. Adv
Mech Eng 2016; 8: 1–10.
18. Lee JJ. Can we accelerate the improvement of energy effi-
ciency in aircraft systems? Energ Convers Manage 2010;
51: 189–196.
19. Gill GK and Shergill GS. Perceptions of safety manage-
ment and safety culture in the aviation industry in New
Zealand. J Air Transp Manag 2004; 10: 231–237.
11
20. Sarter NB and Alexander HM. Error types and related
error detection mechanisms in the aviation domain: an
analysis of aviation safety reporting system incident
reports. Int J Aviat Psychol 2000; 10: 189–206.
21. Singer SJ and Vogus TJ. Reducing hospital errors: inter-
ventions that build safety culture. Annu Rev Publ Health
2013; 34: 373–396.
22. Helmreich RL. On error management: lessons from avia-
tion. Brit Med J 2000; 320: 781–785.
23. Shyur H-J. A quantitative model for aviation safety risk
assessment. Comput Ind Eng 2008; 54: 34–44.
24. Liou JJ, Tzeng G-H and Chang H-C. Airline safety mea-
surement using a hybrid model. J Air Transp Manag
2007; 13: 243–249.
25. Joint Inspection Group. JIG 1: aviation fuel quality con-
trol & operating standards for into-plane fuelling services.
Joint Inspection Group, International Air Transport
Association (IATA), 2016, www.jigonline.com
26. Joint Inspection Group. JIG 2: aviation fuel quality con-
trol & operating standards for airport depots & hydrants.
Joint Inspection Group, International Air Transport
Association (IATA), 2016, www.jigonline.com
27. A4A. Airport fuel facility operation and maintenance gui-
dance manual. Washington, DC: Airline for American,
2014.
28. NFPA 407:2016. Standard for aircraft fuel servicing
National Fire Protection Association.
29. CAAP. Guidelines for aircraft fuel requirement. Pasay,
Philippines: Civil Aviation Advisory Publication, 2006.
30. OISD. Storage, handling, refuelling and fire fighting at
aviation fuelling stations. Noida, India: Government of
India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, 2016,
http://oisd.nic.in/PDF/OISD-STD-235_Draft.pdf
31. ASTM. Standard specification for aviation turbine fuels.
New York: ASTM, 2004.
32. Halford CD. Implementing safety management systems in
aviation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
33. Di Gravio G, Mancini M, Patriarca R, et al. Overall safety
performance of the air traffic management system: indica-
tors and analysis. J Air Transp Manag 2015; 44: 65–69.
34. Miller W. Statistical process control. In: Miller W (ed.)
OpenStat reference manual. Berlin: Springer, 2013,
pp.317–332.
35. Panagopoulos I, Atkin C and Sikora I. Lean six-sigma in
aviation safety: an implementation guide for measuring
aviation system’s safety performance. J Safety Stud 2016;
2: 30.
36. Lazur BI, Jagadeesh L, Karthikeyan B, et al. An
approach to improve aviation quality management using
total quality management principles. In: Bajpai R, Chan-
drasekhar U and Arankalle A (eds) Innovative design,
analysis and development practices in aerospace and auto-
motive engineering (Lecture notes in mechanical engineer-
ing). New Delhi: Springer, 2014, pp.69–78.
37. Othman Z and Eshames HF. Abnormal patterns detec-
tion in control charts using classification techniques. Int
J Adv Comput Technol 2012; 4: 61–70.
38. Benneyan JC. Use and interpretation of statistical quality
control charts. Int J Qual Health Care 1998; 10: 69–73.
12
39. Saleh N and Balestra G. Comprehensive framework for
preventive maintenance priority of medical equipment.
In: Proceedings of the 2015 37th annual international con-
ference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology
society (EMBC), Milan, 25–29 August 2015, pp.1227–
1230. New York: IEEE.
40. Haugland H, Rehn M, Klepstad P, et al. Developing
quality indicators for physician-staffed emergency medi-
cal services: a consensus process. Scand J Trauma Resus-
citation Emerg Med 2017; 25: 14.
Advances in Mechanical Engineering
41. Valuck T, Blaisdell D, Dugan DP, et al. Improving oncol-
ogy quality measurement in accountable care: filling gaps
with cross-cutting measures. J Manag Care Special Pharm
2017; 23: 174–181.
42. Dos Santos EF and Dos Santos Nunes L. Methodology
of risk analysis to health and occupational safety inte-
grated for the principles of lean manufacturing. Adv Soc
Occup Ergon 2017; 487: 349–353.
43. ISO 9001:2015. Transition starts with top management.