04 - Structures ALIs

Maintenance Programs Engineering + Maintenance Programs Planning
Scheduled Maintenance
Programs Seminar
4.
Structures logic
+
ALIs
Principles
Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 1

Structures logic + ALIs - Principles
Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
2. Main principles 6
3. Definitions 9
4. MSG3 Analysis procedure 23
© AIRBUS S.A.S. All rights reserved. Confidential and proprietary document.
5. Structural Inspection Reporting System 142

6. Airworthiness Limitations Items (ALIs) – Structure 145

Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
3. Definitions 9


1. Objectives
Systems and Powerplant Zonal

Section Section
Structures
Section
MSI-Analyses SSI-Analyses Zonal-Analyses

1. Objectives
Structure Program Objective
Maintain the inherent

airworthiness
throughout the
operational life of the
aircraft in an
economical manner

Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
3. Definitions 9


2. Main Principles
INFORMATION
IN-SERVICE
EXPERIENCE
DESIGN
FATIGUE
& DAMAGE
TOLERANCE
TEST RESULTS EVALUATIONS

2. Main Principles
DAMAGE SOURCES
ACCIDENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL FATIGUE
DAMAGE DETERIORATION DAMAGE
EVALUATION
SUSCEPTIBILITY
DAMAGE
DETECTABILITY
EFFECT ON
CONTINUING
AIRWORTHINESS

Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
3. Definitions 9


3. Definitions
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE consists of

all load carrying members including
wings, fuselage, empennage, engine
mountings, landing gear, flight control
surfaces, and related points of
attachment. The actuating portions of
items such as landing gear, flight
controls, doors, etc. will be treated as
systems components and will be
analysed following the Systems/ Power
Plant Analysis Procedure. Attachment of

the actuators to the airframe will be
treated as structure.

3. Definitions
STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANT ITEM

is any structural detail, element or
assembly whose failure could affect the
structural integrity necessary for the
safety of the aircraft.
PSE is an element that contributes

significantly to the carrying of flight,
ground, or pressurisation loads, and
whose integrity is essential in maintaining
the overall structural integrity of the
airplane.
OTHER STRUCTURE is that which is

judged not to be a Structural Significant
Item.
3. Definitions
Structure / Significant Structure / PSE

OTHER
SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURAL
ELEMENT
(PSE)
STRUCTURE
3. Definitions
Damage Tolerant
RESIDUAL STRENGTH
LIMIT
LIFE
3. Definitions
Safe Life
RESIDUAL STRENGTH
LIMIT
LIFE 1 LIFE 2

3. Definitions
Non-metallic structure
…graphite epoxy, boron epoxy, fibreglass, kevlar epoxy,
acrylics,…
GLARE
…hybrid material…
Al Alloy 2024T3 + glass fiber/adhesive
For MSG-3 analysis purposes, it will be treated as Metal.

3. Definitions
Accidental Damage
…caused by contact or impact with an object or influence
which is not part of the aircraft,…

3. Definitions
Environmental Deterioration
…result of chemical interaction with its climate or
environment…

3. Definitions
Fatigue Damage
…cracks due to cyclic loading and subsequent propagation.

3. Definitions
General Visual
Inspection (GVI)
A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation or

assembly to detect obvious damage, failure or irregularity.
This level of inspection is made from within touching distance unless
otherwise specified. A mirror may be necessary to enhance visual
access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of

inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such
as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight or drop-light and may require
removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders or
platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being
checked.
3. Definitions
Detailed Inspection
(DET)
An intensive examination of a specific item, installation or

assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. Available

lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such
as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc. may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.

3. Definitions
Special Detailed
Inspection
(SDI)
An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. The

examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized
Inspection Techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and
substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.

3. Definitions
Initial interval
Interval between the start of service-life and the first task

accomplishment’
Repeat interval
The interval (after the initial interval) between successive

accomplishment of a specific maintenance task’
Currently, “THRESHOLD” stands for “INITIAL INTERVAL”
REPEAT REPEAT
INTERVAL INTERVAL
0 1° 2° n°
EIS THRESHOLD

Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
3. Definitions 9


4. MSG3 Analysis procedure
Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36
Accidental Damage (AD) 45
Environmental Deterioration (ED) 61
Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Fatigue Damage (FD) 105
Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure - General
For each item selected as SSI, an individual SSI Analysis Dossier

is established.
Each type of deterioration/damage is analysed separately
¾ Accidental Damage (AD) (metallic and non-metallic structure)
¾ Environmental Deterioration (ED) (metallic structure)
¾ Fatigue Damage (FD) (metallic structure)

¾ Ageing Deterioration (non-metallic structure)

AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
SELECTION Significant
Significant YES NO Other
Other
Significant?
Significant?
Structure
Structure Structure
Structure
Document
Document the
the Significant
Significant
DOCUMENTATION Structure (SSD)
Structure (SSD)
Identify
Identify Strutural
Strutural
IDENTIFICATION Significant
Significant Items
Items (SSI)
(SSI)
Perform
Perform SSI
SSI
ANALYSIS MSG-3
MSG-3 Analysis
Analysis
Resulting
Resulting
RESULTS Requirements
Requirements
To
To be
be considered
considered
Structure
Structure
by
by Zonal
Zonal WG
WG
MPP
MPP

SSI
Metallic
Metallic YES NO Non-Metallic
Non-Metallic
Metallic?
Metallic?
Structure
Structure Structure
Structure
ACCIDENTAL
ACCIDENTAL ACCIDENTAL
ACCIDENTAL
DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
ED/CPCP
ED/CPCP ED
ED (“Aging”)
(“Aging”)
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
Safe-Life NO Damage YES Damage-Tolerant

Safe-Life Damage Damage-Tolerant
Structure
Structure Tolerant?
Tolerant? Structure
Structure
Definition
Definition of
of SAFE
SAFE FATIGUE
FATIGUE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
LIFE
LIFE LIMITS
LIMITS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS

Aircraft Define Aircraft Define Aircraft Is Item Significant no Categorise and list as
Structure Zones or Areas Structural Items Structural Item (SSI) ? Other Structure
yes
Categorise and List as SSI
1*
no
Is SSI Damage Tolerant ? Determine Inspection
yes Requirements for AD/ED
Categorise and List as Safe Life:
Categorise and List as Damage
Manufacturer Determines Safe Life 2*
Tolerant. Perform Damage
and includes the SSI Description in Determine CPCP
Tolerant Assessment
Airworthiness Limitations Requirements
no Is Scheduled Fatigue
No Fatigue Related Task
Related Inspection Required
Can FD be Detected by yes

no Can FD be Detected by Visual Is the ED Inspection Task from
NDI Methods at Practical yes
Inspection at Practical Intervals? 1* Adequate to Cover the
Intervals ?
yes CPCP Requirement from 2* ?
no yes No Additional
no
Improve access and/or Can Inspection Are Fatigue Inspection Requirements
no
Redesign May be Method be no Requirements Feasible necessary

Required or Classify According to SWG?
Improved ? Reassess ED Analysis from 1*
as Safe Life
yes and/or Define Additional Task
yes Requirements
Select SSI’s for Inclusion
in the ALI Document
Selected Items
All Items
Airworthiness Limitations Consolidated Structural Maintenance Requirements

Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Selection
‘PSE’
STATUS
COMPLETE AIRCRAFT
SIGNIFICANT
ATA BREAKDOWN
STRUCTURE
‘OTHER’
STRUCTURE
‘SSI’
DEFINITION

1 DAMAGE TOLERANT SAFE LIFE
2 EXTERNAL INTERNAL
3 Select ‘LARGE AREAS’ (zones)
4 Identify ‘ED / AGING’ areas of concern

5 Identify ‘ACCIDENTAL
‘ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE’
DAMAGE’ areas
areas of
of concern
concern
6 Identify ‘FATIGUE DAMAGE’ areas of concern

External / Large Area


External / Accidental Damage area (Ground handling)


Internal / Environmental Deterioration Area


External / Fatigue Damage Area


Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data
Initial data are required in order to define, locate and illustrate the SSI.
They are delivered in “Data sheets 1 and 2”.
¾ Data sheet 1
- SSI number (6 digits), in accordance with ATA 100 breakdown,
- Applicability,
- SSI description,
- SSI location --> Zone(s),
- Access,
- Design concept,
- Item(s) as part(s) of the SSI + Material(s) + Protection(s),

- Reason for selection
¾ Data sheet 2
- Illustration(s) representing the SSI / area to be inspected
4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data - Description
P37
P43
LH
FWD UP
C65 C66
Rear fuselage, external skin around water service panel door cutout
between FR65 and FR66 and from STR37 to STR40, RH.

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data - Zones
MAJOR ZONE
100
MAJOR
SUB-ZONE
190
ZONE
192

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data - Access
ACCESS
192GB / 192JB

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data – Design Concept
SAFE LIFE DAMAGE TOLERANT
ACCIDENTAL
ACCIDENTAL
DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
Definition
Definition of
of SAFE
SAFE
LIFE
LIFE LIMITS
LIMITS ED/CPCP
ED/CPCP ED/CPCP
ED/CPCP
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
FATIGUE
FATIGUE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data – Type of Material
METALLIC NON-METALLIC METALLIC & NON-METALLIC
ACCIDENTAL
ACCIDENTAL
DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS DAMAGE
DAMAGE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
ED/CPCP
ED/CPCP ED
ED (“Aging”)
(“Aging”) ED/CPCP
ED/CPCP ED
ED (“Aging”)
(“Aging”)
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
FATIGUE
FATIGUE DAMAGE
DAMAGE FATIGUE
FATIGUE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data – Material and
Protection
No. 1
1
ITEM: SKIN
MATERIAL: 2024 T351
PROTECTION: CAA + Primer + Top Coat
TPS applied
2
No. 2
ITEM: FRAME 60
MATERIAL: 7075 T7351
PROTECTION: CAA + Primer + Top Coat
TPS applied

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – SSI Data – Illustrations

Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Accidental Damage
¾ Accidental damage is the physical deterioration of an item caused by eg:

- Contact or impact with an object
- Maintenance practices
-…
¾ The occurrence of this random discrete event may reduce the inherent
level of strength and / or resistance against corrosion. The probability of
occurrence being constant during the life of the aircraft
¾ It is considered that for major damage easily detectable no inspection

task is required
¾ Minor (not obvious) damage is evaluated for analysis and its impact
on fatigue and corrosion is assessed

MINOR DAMAGES IF CAUSES TO BE

(not OBVIOUS) ANY CONCERN CONSIDERED
COMPLETE DAMAGE NOT TO BE

EVALUATION
CONSIDERED
COMPLETE DAMAGE AS PART OF
ASSESSMENT MSG-3
OBVIOUS DAMAGES
AND EVENTS
LIKELIHOOD Residual
Detection Damage
& Strength
Capability Growth
PROBABILITY Reduction
DAMAGE SCHEDULED
SOURCES TASK
NO NO SCHEDULED
CONCERN TASK

DAMAGE SOURCES
‘METALLIC’ ‘LIKELIHOOD’ ‘NON-METALLIC’

PROBABILITY
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
OF IMPACT ON: OF IMPACT ON:
DEGRADATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL STATIC STRENGTH
DETERIORATION REDUCTION (SSR)
RESISTANCE
RESISTANCE TO
FATIGUE ‘AGING’
BEHAVIOUR DETERIORATION

GROUND
GROUND HANDLING
HANDLING EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT CARGO
CARGO HANDLING
HANDLING EQUIPMENT
EQUIPMENT AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE

RUNWAY
RUNWAY DEBRIS
DEBRIS AIRCRAFT
AIRCRAFT OPERATION
OPERATION

LIGHTNING
LIGHTNING STRIKE
STRIKE WEATHER
WEATHER EFFECTS
EFFECTS (hail)
(hail) MANUFACTURING
MANUFACTURING DEFECTS
DEFECTS OTHER
OTHER

IMPACT NO IMPACT NO
ACCIDENTAL
ACCIDENTAL END
ON ED? ON FD?
DAMAGE
DAMAGE
YES YES
ED/CPCP
ED/CPCP FATIGUE
FATIGUE DAMAGE
DAMAGE
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS

Non-metallic structure
¾Damage Sources similar to metallic structure.
¾Impact damages on non-metallic structures can lead to a sudden

reduction of their strength capability, without any further decrease.
¾Damage depends on the energy and shape of the object creating

the impact and may not necessarily result in a visible external mark.
It may be only an internal deterioration
¾All Airbus aircraft composite parts are designed so that all defects
which may affect the structural integrity are detectable from outside,
i. e. non-detectable damages are non-critical - proven by tests.
¾Intervals established so that resulting level of safety is acceptable

and not lower than for metallic structure.

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Accidental Damage – Non metallic
SKIN
DENT
DELAMINATION
SKIN
HONEYCOMB
CORE
STRINGERS DEBONDED
STRINGER
DEPRESSION

SKIN
HONEYCOMB SCRATCH
CORE
PERFORATION
STRINGERS
SKIN
PERFORATION
GOUGE

Damage
size
Non-metallic structures may be subject to
Little or no damage growth
damage (shock, impact) which may not
necessarily result in a visible mark.
--> Internal deterioration ...
Flights (FC)
Consequence of an AD is a reduction
Residual Before
strength impact
of the static strength and stiffness of
the items.
After impact --> Can be characterised and
graduated by consideration of the

residual strength level
(from UL to LL)
Flights (FC)

TYPE OF DAMAGE
LOCATION
INSPECTION
LEVEL
SIZE
Residual Static Strength Reduction (SSR) BASIC

Static
INSPECTION
Strength Severity of SSR
INTERVAL
(x ‘Limit Load) Damage Rating
1.5 NEGLIGIBLE 0 N/A
Reducing VERY SLIGHT 1 12 Years

Static SLIGHT 2 6 Years
Strength MODERATE 3 Note 2
1.1 SEVERE 4 Note 1
NOTE 1: Inspection frequency below A-check
NOTE 2: 3 Years, a written remark must be provided justifying the figure that ultimately determined.

BASIC AD Likely more NO INSPECTION

INSPECTION than once during
Basic Interval? INTERVAL
INTERVAL
YES
Re-assess
BASIC
INSPECTION
INTERVAL

DETERIORATION OF
PROTECTION AGAINST
UV LIGHT
DISBOND / DELAMINATION
ASSOCIATED TO
FREEZE-THAW CYCLE

Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Environmental Deterioration
¾ The environmental deterioration is characterized by structural

deterioration due to chemical interaction with its climate and
environment.
¾ Assessments are required to cover corrosion, stress corrosion and

deterioration of metallic and non-metallic materials.
¾ Therefore the tasks necessary to ensure the appropriate detection

of environmental deterioration,are selected considering the following
main parameters:
- susceptibility to various kinds of corrosion (corrosion rating),
- type of protection used (protection rating),

- exposure to adverse effect of environment (environmental rating),
- detectability/level of inspection,
- susceptibility to Accidental Damage (if any).

ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERIORATION
+
CORROSION PREVENTION
AND CONTROL PROGRAM

ED ANALYSIS
TYPE OF CORROSION
RATING INSPECTION
ENVIRONMENT
SYSTEM INTERVAL
PROTECTION
MATERIAL
SELECTION SYSTEMATIC
CHARAC-
CHARAC- INSP. THRESHOLD
TERISTICS (SAMPLING)
RANDOM
TYPE OF CORROSION INSPECTION LEVEL
ED INSPECTION
REQUIREMENT
CONSOLIDATED
ED/CPCP
MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENT
CPCP MAINTENANCE
REQUIREMENT
ED INSPECTION REQUIREMENT TPS APPLICATION
IN-
IN-SERVICE EXPERIENCE CPCP EXPECTATIONS (LEVEL 1)
CPCP ANALYSIS
Procedural Steps
¾ Selection of most sensitive material
¾ “Definition” of Corrosion Ratings
¾ “Definition” of Environmental and Protection Ratings
¾ Characteristic of Environmental Deterioration (systematic or random)
¾ Selection of Threshold for initial inspection

¾ Selection of repeat Inspection Interval
¾ Selection of Inspection Level

Selection of potential type of corrosion
¾The Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH) and Structure Repair

Manual (SRM) both contain information concerning the most typical
forms of corrosion encountered by aircraft structure in service.
¾The sensitivity of each SSI to each of these types of corrosion is

considered in the ED analysis.
¾The severity of each type of corrosion is assessed according to a

Rating. The Ratings are selected from the PPH.
¾The Ratings are then combined in a matrix to select a Calendar

inspection interval.

POTENTIAL TYPE
OF CORROSION
MATERIAL
CORROSION
STRESS
CORROSION RATING
RATINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION
RATING INTERVAL
COMBINATION
ACCIDENTAL
ACCIDENTAL PROTECTION
DAMAGE
DAMAGE RATING

INTERGRANULAR 1 HIGH
MATERIAL
DEPENDENT 2 MEDIUM
PITTING
CORROSION
TYPES UNIFORM 3 LOW
1 HIGH
GALVANIC 2 MEDIUM
ENVIRONMENT/
3 LOW
DESIGN -
N/A
DEPENDENT
CORROSION MICROBIOLOGICAL
TYPES 1 LIKELY
FILIFORM
- NOT LIKELY
FRETTING

INTERGRANULAR
CORROSION
Chemical action along grain

boundaries, often with little
surface indication.
Can lead to fatigue cracking in
high strength alloys.

EXFOLIATION CORROSION
Type of Intergranular
corrosion.
Swelling and flaking at
exposed end grain,
particularly extrusions.

PITTING CORROSION
Local paint attack.
Sharp pits can cause fatigue

cracks and perforation of thin
sheets and pipes.
Little surface indication.

UNIFORM CORROSION
Proceeds at a uniform rate over the metal surface.
Produced by micro anode and cathode areas.
Titanium and stainless steels are not sensitive to this corrosion.

Intergranular, Pitting & Uniform Corrosion Ratings determination


GALVANIC CORROSION
Contact between dissimilar

metals ( or metal and CFRP)
in presence of moisture.

CREVICE CORROSION
Penetration of oxygen and

moisture in crevice or joint.
Often due to flexing.

Galvanic Corrosion Ratings

• If appropiate faying exists, rating can be

increased by one (1).
If associated to crevice, rating converted to ‘1’

MICROBIOLOGICAL
CORROSION
Growth of micro-organisms in
presence of heat and
humidity.
Bacteria, fungi and algae
produce acidic waste
products, leading to galvanic
attack of structure.

FILIFORM CORROSION
Paint damage leading to
spidery traces below the paint.
Often starts from
discontinuities such as
fastener heads, panel edges
or paint scratches. Occurs
particularly on clad sheets.

FRETTING CORROSION
Relative micro-movement
between two clamped surfaces,
at least one of
which is metallic.
Accelerated by presence of
moisture.

Microbiological, Filiform & Fretting Corrosion Ratings determination
1 LIKELY
ENVIRONMENT
- NOT LIKELY
EXPERIENCE
1 LIKELY
SPECIALIST’S ADVICE
- NOT LIKELY
1 LIKELY
WORKING CONDITIONS
- NOT LIKELY

STRESS CORROSION
(form of intergranular corrosion)
It occurs when tensile stresses
and corrosive environment occur
concurrently.
Failure can occur well below the
yield point for the material.
Failure can be of the brittle type
(without warning) and can occur
under internal stress only.

Stress Corrosion Rating
RATING CRITERIA
Materials sensitive to stress corrosion. Subject to built-in
stresses, including heat treatment and additional built-in stresses
1
in the sensitive direction due to assembly, interference fit
bushes, etc…
Materials sensitive to stress corrosion but not subject to any
2
built-in stresses in the sensitive direction
3 Materials not sensitive to stress corrosion

Stress Corrosion Rating determination


Environmental Rating
RATING CRITERIA
Probable exposure to highly corrosive products.
e.g.
1
- toilet or galley spillage
- battery electrolyte spillage
Probable exposure to corrosive products.
e.g.
2 - runway water
- cabin condensation and fluid spillage from cargo
- alkaline or acidic dust

3 No probable exposure to any corrosion product
Note: Hydraulic fluid spillage being considered in the protection rating has not to
be taken into account in the environmental rating (rating 3 to be considered).

Protection Rating MATERIAL PROTECTION RATING
ALOCROM 1
ALOCROM + PRIMER 2
ALOCROM + PRIMER + TOP COAT 2
CAA 2
ALLOYS
CAA + PRIMER 3
CAA + PRIMER + TOP COAT 3
SAA + LUBRICANT 3
RATING: HARD SAA 3
1 - AVERAGE PROTECTION VAPOR BLAST + PAINT 3

SAA + LUBRICANT 3
2 - GOOD PROTECTION TITANIUM
SAA + PAINT 3
NO PROTECTION 3
3 - SPECIAL ATTENTION
PROTECTION CADMIUM PLATED 2
CADMIUM PLATED + PAINT 3
PHOSPHATING + LUBRICANT 2
STEELS PHOSPHATING + PAINT OR SPRAYING 2
WITH ALUM. + PAINT 2

CHORMIUM + LUBRICANT 3
SPRAYING WITH SILVER 2
VAPOR BLAST + PAINT 3

CADMIUM PLATED + PAINT 3
STAINLESS STEELS SPRAYING WITH SILVER 3
CHROMIUM + LUBRICANT 3
NO PROTECTION 3

TOP COAT ACCIDENTAL

ACCIDENTAL
DAMAGE
DAMAGE
PRIMER
CAA
BASE MATERIAL BASE MATERIAL

SPECIAL ATTENTION AVERAGE

Combination of Ratings
Selected material Accidental damage to be considered ? No Yes
[ ] [ ]
7075 T651 Environmental Protection
Potential type of rating rating ↓ ↓
Toilets or
corrosion galleys spillage, Average 1
Filiform battery acid,.. [ ]
Probable exposure to
Good 1 1
highly corrosive products
Uniform 2 Special attention 2
Pitting 1 Average 2
2 Runway water,
Intergranular [ ]
Probable exposure to
Good 2 2
cabin corrosive product
Fretting Special attention 3
condensation,
Crevice Average 2
alkaline or acid
Galvanic 3 [ ] No probable exposure Good 3 2
dust
Microbiological Special attention 3
Select
Selectthethe
lowest ratingrating
lowest numbernumber
Stress => 1
Corrosion
rating 1 2 3 1 2 3
Material sensitive and Note 1 2.5 yrs 5 yrs 1
subject to built-in stresses
1 1 1 2
Material sensitive but not 2.5 yrs 55 yrs
yrs 10 yrs 2
subject to built-in stresses 2 2 2 2
Material not sensitive 3 2 2 3 5 yrs 10 yrs Note 2 3
Note 1: Redesign or corrective action required

Note 2: No inspection required for SIP

Selection of Threshold for initial inspection
¾ For corrosion having systematic characteristics, the in-

service experience of the manufacturer could allow the
introduction of a threshold for initial inspection.
Therefore, an appropriate initial threshold can be selected by the

engineering judgement of the Structures Working Group
¾In order to define if the corrosion has systematic characteristics,

the following can be considered.

Items subject to deterioration with systematic characteristics:
¾ Items susceptible to be attacked by a sort of corrosion

showing systematic characteristics (time relative corrosion), like :
Galvanic, Microbiological,
Intergranular, Fretting,
Filiform, Pitting corrosion.
¾ Materials not sensitive to stress corrosion (rating 3) or

materials sensitive but not subject to stress corrosion (rating 2)
Note : For deterioration with systematic characteristics, a threshold

can be selected (predictable damage).

Items subject to deterioration with random characteristics :
These are items susceptible to be attacked by :

- Stress corrosion
The random characteristics concern materials sensitive and
subject to built-in stresses (stress corrosion Rating 1).
- Corrosion due to accidental causes :
fluid spillage, rupture of protection systems…
- Corrosion that doesn't follow any time relative law.
- Items with environmental rating 1 (probable exposure to highly

corrosive products)
Note : For random deterioration, no threshold will be proposed

(unpredictable damage)

Selection of Inspection Level
According to the expected type of corrosion, either a GVI,or DET may

be required.
In order to select the most appropriate inspection level, the following
table can be used as a guide:
Detailed General visual
Inspection Inspection
Stress corrosion X
Galvanic corrosion X
Intergranular corrosion X X
Filiform corrosion X
Microbiological corrosion X
Fretting corrosion X
Pitting corrosion X
Uniform corrosion X

ED ED ED
INSPECTION THRESHOLD/ INSPECTION
INTERVAL SAMPLING? LEVEL
ED INSPECTION
REQUIREMENT
• INSPECTION LEVEL
• THRESHOLD
• INTERVAL
• Sampling (?)

Determine rating:
A - Stress corrosion potential
SSI Select material Determine type of corrosion B - Other corrosion potential
C - Protection potential
D - Environment
End Note 1 (N) Determine combined rating:

Redesign or Can a suitable interval be
corrective action selected from the table ?
Y required
N o te 1 2 .5 y rs 5 y rs
Is there an adequate 2 .5 y rs 5 yrs 1 0 y rs
zonal inspection to No inspection Note 2 (N) 5 y rs 1 0 y rs N o te 2
check general required for SIP
condition of the area ? Y
N N Has this type of corrosion
systematic characteristics ?
Ask for a zonal Y
inspection of Threshold = Interval
selected area
N Does in-service
experience allow a
Can corrosion be detected by
threshold ?
general visual inspection ?
Y
Y N
Establish the
Can a suitable GVI N Establish threshold
inspection interval be detailed inspection
defined ? task
Y SSI candidate for
Sampling Program
(Damage tolerant
End items only)

Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Environmental Deterioration - CPCP
ATA MSG-3
Operator/Manufacturer
Scheduled
Maintenance
Development
Revision 2
April 1988
November 1993
ED + CPCP expectations

¾ CPCPs were originally established for ageing aircraft.

¾ At MSG3 Rev. 2 issue, it was stated that CPCP should:
6 be established to allow to “control corrosion to Level 1 or better”,
6 be based on the ED analysis (assuming an a/c operated in a typical
environment).
If corrosion is found to exceed Level 1, the corrosion control program
in the area must be reviewed.
¾MSG-3 Rev. 2 has been applied retrospectively to existing Airbus
aircraft.
¾AIRBUS and the various Structures Working Groups choose to
integrate the CPCP into the Structure Program of the MRB Report
¾CPCP tasks are identified

Level 1 Corrosion
Corrosion damage that does not require structural reinforcement or

replacement,
or
Corrosion occuring between successive inspections that exceeds

allowable limits but is local and can be attributed to an event not typical
of operator's usage of other aircraft in the same fleet (e.g. mercury
spillage).

IN-SERVICE ED INSPECTION
EXPERIENCE RESULTS
TPS CPCP
APPLICATION? EXPECTATIONS
CPCP
REQUIREMENT
• CPCP THRESHOLD
• INTERVAL
• TPS Application (Y/N).
Consolidated ED / CPCP Requirement

ED INSPECTION CPCP
REQUIREMENT REQUIREMENT
• INSPECTION LEVEL • INSPECTION LEVEL
• THRESHOLD • CPCP THRESHOLD
• INTERVAL • INTERVAL
• Sampling (Y/N) • TPS Application (Y/N).
ED/CPCP CONSOLIDATED
MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
SAMPLING
• THRESHOLD (Y/N)
• INTERVAL
• TPS Application (Y/N)
• CPCP THRESHOLD (100% Threshold)
4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Environmental Deterioration - Aging
CORROSION
FATIGUE
METALLIC
CORROSION FATIGUE
AGING
NON-METALLIC

Fatigue Damage
Fatigue tests carried out on composites have not shown significant

damage propagation in normal or extreme ambient conditions.
Fatigue tasks therefore not required.
Environmental Deterioration
Environmental tests carried out with composite structure have not shown
significant non-reversible degradation.
Specific ED inspections are therefore not required for non-metallic

structure
Condition of the paint system is adequately covered by Zonal inspections.

Aging Deterioration
¾To date neither in-service experience nor test experience have

highlighted any significant reduction in stiffness or static strength due
to ageing.
¾However, unlike metallic structures, the effects of long term ageing in

an operational environment have not been fully documented for non-
metallic structure. Consequently, to verify the structural integrity of the
airframe, sensitive areas should be inspected.
¾Based on stress office recommendations, the Structures Working

Group uses engineering judgement to select appropriate intervals to
detect in-service ageing deterioration.

LOADING
No significant influence
of fatigue cycling
ENVIRONMENT Moisture + High Temperatures

UV Light
Long Term Ageing

IN-SERVICE AGEING

MANUFACTURER
PREDOMINANT SOURCE
MANUFACTURER’s
AGING
RECOMENDATIONS INSPECTION
REQUIREMENT
CANDIDATES
Major Attachments Exposed Areas
High Stress Areas Joint with metallics
In Service Findings

Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Fatigue Damage
Fatigue Damage - (Thresholds):
Initiates at a flaw or stress concentration

Random process
Static High scatter - Complex behaviour
jump Crack Propagation - (Intervals):
Occurs under repetitive tensile loading
Systematic process
Low scatter - Predictable behaviour
Initiation Propagation Ultimate static failure
Fatigue mechanism

Today, two design concepts for structures are used

1. Safe Life
Structure must be free from (detectable) cracks during life
of structure being considered
Fatigue inspection not required for Life limited items

e. g. landing gear items
2. Damage Tolerant
Damage must be capable of detection by inspection prior to reaching
critical length, and structure must have adequate residual strength in
the presence of potential damage between inspections
Damage tolerant items to be inspected in accordance with the

Structure Program

Inspections are to be
established, as necessary, to
prevent catastrophic failure
25.571
25.1529
A340
App. H AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS
SECTION

FATIGUE
& DAMAGE
TOLERANCE
MANDATORY EVALUATIONS
REQUIREMENTS (FAR/JAR 25.571)
ALI
ALI MRB
MRB
REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS PROCESS
PROCESS
TYPE
TYPE
CERTIFICATION
CERTIFICATION
APPROVAL
APPROVAL
A380
AIRWORTHINESS
LIMITATIONS
SECTION

Strength requirements for damage tolerant structure
Structural
Normal deterioration due
Damage size
Strength
to undetected damage Damage detection
and restoration
Ultimate loads
(UL) = 1.5 LL
Limit loads
(LL)
Damage size Critical damage size
Detectable damage
Inspection period Number of flights (Fc)

Several steps are necessary to perform a Fatigue Damage Analysis:
Step 1: Determination of Inspection level (GVI, DET or SDI) .
Step 2: Determination of detectable crack length .

Done by use of logic process - matrix
Step 3: Definition of inspection requirements.

Calculated by Stress Office following results of step 2.
Step 4: Selection of Program concept (Sampling or 100% ?)

Inspection Level
The objective is to select the lowest level of inspection, which is

practicable and effective.
If possible, start with GVI. If interval not practical, select DET. If interval
still not practical or a hidden crack, select SDI.
c. Special Detailed Inspection SDI

b. Detailed Inspection DET
a. General Visual Inspection GVI
Apart from cost aspects, the choice of inspection level has a direct
effect on the detectable crack length and the repeat interval. This is
illustrated on the next slide

CRACK
LENGTH
Inspect. Level vs. Inspection Period
LCRIT Crack detection period

GVI
CG
LGVI
Crack detection period
CD
LDET DET
LSDI CS Crack detection period

SDI
DAMAGE DETECTION PERIOD FC
LCRIT : Critical crack length
LGVI : Detectable crack length (GVI)

CG : Crack detection period (GVI)
It can be seen that by using an DET or SDI inspection, the detectable crack size is
smaller and the crack detection period is longer. Therefore, interval can be longer

Viewing Rating
3.0m 1.5m 0.5m
0 1 2 3
No Access Poor Moderate Good

Congestion Rating 1
Congested Area
3
Moderate
2 Congestion Clear Area
Size Rating
1 Large Area

Size Rating
2 Medium Area (1 square meter or less)

Large Item
2 (Frames, spars, etc…)

Size Rating
Medium Item
3 (Portions of frames, spars,
ribs, stringers, etc…)

Size Rating
4 Small Item / Small Area

(Not more than 10 centimetres square)

Lighting Rating
Exterior of A/C in shadow

1 (e.g. landing gear bay without directed light)

Lighting Rating
Exterior of A/C in full daylight 2

2 Inside A/C with artificial light

Lighting Rating
3 Concentrated lighting as required


Surface Rating
1 Areas or items liable to be 2 Clean Areas

covered in sealant
or subject to excessive grease,
oil or dirt contamination
Viewing rating Congestion rating Lighting rating Surface rating

Area or item liable to be
No access - hidden item or Go to the next higher
[ ] Exterior of a/c in shadow covered sealant or subject
distance greater than 3 meters inspection level
to excessive grease, oil or 1
[ ] (e.g. landing gear bay
without directed light) dirt contamination
Congested 1
Poor - when the distance is Clean area 2
[ ]
1.5 meters to 3 meters
Moderate congestion 2
Area or item liable to be
Clear area 3 Exterior of a/c in full covered sealant or subject
to excessive grease, oil or 2
Congested 2 [ ] daylight - inside a/c with
Moderate - when the distance artificial lighting dirt contamination
[ ]
is 0.5 meter to 1.5 meters
Moderate congestion 3 Clean area 3
Clear area 4 Area or item liable to be
Congested 3 covered sealant or subject
Concentrated lighting as to excessive grease, oil or 3
Good - when unrestricted, as [ ]
[ ]
close as needed
Moderate congestion 4 required dirt contamination
Clear area 5 Clean area 4
Access rating Practicality Condition rating

Size rating rating
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
Large area 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 295 205 145 100

Medium area, 2 205 100 70 50

large fitting 2 1 2 2 3 3
3 145 70 35 22
35
Medium size
fitting 3 1 2 3 4 4
4 100 50 15 10
Small area,
small fitting 4 1 2 3 4 5 5 70 22 10 8
Result : BASIC DETECTABLE CRACK LENGTH: LBAS (mm)

The basic detectable crack length has to be adjusted due to the following:
Material Gauge effect
LBAS - Hypothetical crack length.

- To be adjusted according
to thickness of material
The thicker the material of an item

The tighter a crack is held together
The more difficult it is to detect.
LBAS therefore adjusted as follows:

a For material thickness less than 5 mm : multiply x 1
b For material thickness 5 mm to 10 mm : multiply x 1.25
c For material thickness greater than 10 mm : multiply x 1.5

Adjustment for edge effect
LBAS - Hypothetical crack length.

- To be adjusted according
to edge effect.
A crack at the centre of a panel is

clamped by material around it.
Edge crack has less constraints.
Edge crack is easier to detect.
For cracks which originate from, or terminate at, the

edge of a member the detectable length is to be
multiplied by 0.5.
For non edge cracks multiply by 1.

Visible Detectable Crack Length LVIS
The Visible Detectable Crack Length LVIS is therefore defined

as follows:
LVIS = LBAS x (Gauge factor) x (Edge factor)

LVIS does not take account of any hidden crack length.

Effective Detectable Crack Length LDET

If there is a hidden crack length, LVIS must be corrected as follows:
LH
LVIS : visible crack length LVIS
LH : hidden crack length
LDET = LVIS + LH
LDET
LDET : detectable crack length

This is the crack which should be found in service with the required
degree of confidence

Threshold (1st inspection) and Interval (repetitive inspections)
Using the selected value of LDET , the inspection threshold and repeat
intervals are determined for the selected inspection method e.g. GVI
Mean Fatigue Life

Threshold =
Fatigue scatter factor
Crack Propagation Life

Repeat Interval =
Propagation scatter factor
If inspection requirements are unacceptable, the next higher level

of inspection has to be selected, e.g. DET, and the process
repeated until an acceptable requirement is obtained.

Step 1: Calculate the Mean Fatigue Life Tc

Step 2: Establish the Crack Propagation Life curve from a starting
length (…) to the critical length.
Step 3: Determine the Effective Detectable Crack Length LDET of
damage for the lowest level of inspection considered.
(Start with GVI - if possible).
Step 4: Establish the Crack Propagation Life Rc from the detectable
crack length to critical crack length.
Step 5: Determine the inspection threshold Tt and repeat intervals Ti
for the selected inspection method.
Threshold :Tt Tt < Tc / kt

Repeat interval: Ti Ti < Rc / ki
kt and ki are appropriate scatter Factors.

Step 6: If inspection requirements unacceptable, select next higher

level of inspection and repeat process from Step 3 until
acceptable requirement is obtained.
When DET inspection is not appropriate, the use of NDT method has to
be considered to determine if detectability can be improved sufficiently to
achieve practical intervals.
Then, the most appropriate NDT method has to be detected considering:

- the desired detectable crack length
- the geometry and materials of the SSI
- the probable damage locations.
Once the NDT method selected, its qualification has to be done to

confirm the effectiveness of the selected task.

Crack
Length
Li = Length of the assumed initial rogue flaw
Ncrit = Number of flights from initial rogue flaw to critical length
kt = Appropriate Scatter Factor
Lcrit
Ncrit
crit
Ttt =
ktt
Li ‘Crack-growth’
‘Crack-growth’
METHOD
METHOD
NcritofNumber
Flights
Crack
Length
LDET = Detectable Effective Crack Lenght Rcc
Ti = Crack propagation life (FC/FH) associtated to the LDET Tii =
ki = Appropriate Scatter Factor kii
Lcrit
LDET1 RGVI
RDET
LDET2
RSDI
LDET3
Damage Detection Period (FC/FH)
Range Requirement
All fatigue-sensitive airframe areas are damaged

incrementally by the ground-air-ground loading
cycle (G.A.G)
Inspection requirements in Flight Cycles (FC)
Certain airframe areas are also sensitive to

the aircraft flight duration. In these cases,
the incremental fatigue damage also
increases as a function of the flight time
(gusts, manoeuvres)
Inspection requirements in Flight Cycles (FC) and Flight Hours (FH).

Inspection be carried out at, or before, whichever limit comes first
Short Range aircraft

Reaches FC Limit first
Mid Range aircraft. Reaches either FC or FH Limit first,

depending on utilisation
Long Range aircraft

Reaches FH Limit first

Effect of Mixed Missions
Analysis of different combinations of missions has shown that the effect

of flying a combination of short and long range missions is more
penalising than flying a mid range mission, even when the AFT is the
same in both cases.
For example, flying 50% of missions at 1 FH/FC and 50% at 7 FH/FC is

more damaging than flying 100% of missions at the basic mission length
of 4 FH/FC (even though the AFT is the same in both cases).
The effect is mainly limited to SSIs which are mechanically loaded by

take-off weight e.g outer wing and center wing box.
The FC and FH limits therefore represent the effect of mission length

and the effect of mission mix combinations.

Table of Contents
General 24
SSI Selection 29
SSI Data 36

Program concept 137

4. MSG-3 Analysis Procedure – Program concept
Sampling Program
¾The Sampling Program is designed to detect systematic deterioration

on the oldest 20% of aircraft in each operator’s fleet.
¾The Sampling Program is applicable to both Fatigue Damage (FD)

and Environmental Deterioration (ED) SSIs, where deterioration,
should it occur, is considered as being progressive with age or
operating usage.
¾SSIs which are susceptible to Accidental Damage (AD) are not

considered for the Sampling Program.
¾Sampling requirements are stated in a dedicated column of the

Structure Program
¾The Sampling Program terminates for each applicable SSI at the

100% Limit.

100% Limit & Inspection findings

Calendar tasks : The 100% Limit for all calendar-time Sampling Program
items is 20 Years.
Fatigue Items : Fatigue Sampling Program SSI's are split into two
categories:
∗ The more fatigue sensitive SSI's have a 100% Limit.

∗ The less fatigue sensitive SSI's have no 100% Limit.
Based on the results of Sampling Program inspections:
¾ In case of findings, each operator should take appropriate corrective

actions, e.g. change of program concept to 100%, decrease of interval,
application of TPS etc.....
¾ In case of no findings, the current inspection program continues to
apply until the 100% Limit is reached, if applicable.
Selection of aircraft for sampling program (eg. SA fleet)

For each operator, the Sampling Program inspections are to be performed
on the oldest 1/5 of the operator's A320 aircraft.
The oldest aircraft are defined as the aircraft with the highest age in years
since their initial manufacturer's delivery date.
If the 1/5 sample of the operators aircraft is not a whole number of aircraft,
the number is to be increased to the next highest whole number.
Î To be updated
Detailed rules + examples are defined in the MRBR Structure

Program introduction and in the corresponding MPD Section.

100%Limit= 31600 FC
Yrs, FC, FH T= 24000 FC
No A/C I= 8400 FC I= 8400 FC I= 8400 FC
10Yrs 15Yrs 20Yrs 25Yrs
1 A320
2 A320
3 A320
4 A320
5 A320
6 A320 I= 8400 FC I= 8400 FC
7 A320
8 A320
9 A321 I= 8700 FC I= 8700 FC I= 8700 FC
10 A321
11 A321
12 A321
Aircraft Utilisation: 2000 FC/Yr SSI 57.20.08 - A320 & A321

1600 FH/Yr Insp Level Threshold Interval 100% Limit Concept Effectivity
= Aircraft Delivery DET 24000 FC 8400 FC 31600 FC S A320
42000 FH 15500 FH 58600 FH A319
= Sampling Program Aircraft DET 24000 FC 8700 FC - S A321
= Aircraft Inspection 42000 FH 16100 FH

Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
3. Definitions 9


5. Structural Inspection Reporting System

5. Structural Inspection Reporting System
Maintenance
Task Results
Reporting Tool

Table of Contents
1. Objectives 3
3. Definitions 9


6. Airworthiness Limitations – Structure Inspections
MRB Process / TC Interface(s) CS/FAR 21/39

(AD, CN)
AD, CN
Service
Bulletins
MRB PROCESS (CS/FAR 25.1529) …/…
Evaluation
Methods MRB Report
25.1529, Appx H
(MSG-3)
Operator´s
Approved
Maintenance
TYPE CERTIFICATION PROCESS MPD
MPD Program
(CS/FAR 25)
2.Structure ALIs 3.Systems CMRs
(25.571 & 25.603 (25.1309 SSA

25.1529 App.H 25.4) 25.1529 App.H)
1.Safe Life items 4.Ageing Systems ALS

(25.1529 App. H 25.4 Maintenance Parts 1 to 5
25.571)
5.Fuel ALIs ALS : Airworthiness
L/HIRF (Ass. Plan) (SFAR 88 / CS25-981) Limitation Section

¾The ALS Part 2 contains the fatigue critical items and FC related
accidental damage items arising from the fatigue and damage tolerance
evaluation (FAR/CS 25.571).
¾These, together with the Safe Life Limits (given in ALS Part 1) and the
Certification Maintenance Requirements (given in ALS Part 3), satisfy the
requirements given in CS Part 25.
¾The requirements given in the ALS Part 2 are mandatory.
¾Non-compliance suspends the validity of the Certificate of Airworthiness.

¾The ALS Part 2 does not take into account Airworthiness Directives (AD).

¾Airworthiness Limitations - Structure Inspections must be performed

on all applicable aircraft with the quoted inspection level and access
requirement, not later than the threshold and repeated not later than
each subsequent interval.
¾Thresholds and intervals for Airworthiness Limitations - Structure
Inspections cannot be increased, unless advised by the manufacturer
following approval by the appropriate Type Certification authority.
Reporting
Significant inspection findings shall be reported to the manufacturer.

These include any corrosion findings greater than Level 1. An
appropriate form is included in the MRB Report Appendices.

Corrosion
The control of corrosion is necessary in accordance with FAR/CS 25.571.
Corrosion must be controlled to Level 1 or better on all PSEs.

Corrosion Level 1 is defined in the Structure Section of the MRB Report.
The Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) defined in the

Structure Section of the MRB Report is an acceptable means to
comply with the above paragraph.

Supporting documentation
Additional information concerning Airworthiness Limitations - Structure

Inspections can be found in the following AIRBUS supporting
publications:
4 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR)

4 Maintenance Planning Document (MPD)
4 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM)

4 Non-Destructive Testing Manual (NTM)
4 Structural Repair Manual (SRM)




This document and all information contained herein is the sole
property of AIRBUS S.A.S. No intellectual property rights are
granted by the delivery of this document or the disclosure of
its content. This document shall not be reproduced or
disclosed to a third party without the express written consent
of AIRBUS S.A.S. This document and its content shall not be
used for any purpose other than that for which it is supplied.
The statements made herein do not constitute an offer. They

are based on the mentioned assumptions and are expressed
in good faith. Where the supporting grounds for these
statements are not shown, AIRBUS S.A.S. will be pleased to
explain the basis thereof.

04 - Structures ALIs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

04 - Structures ALIs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maintenance Programs Engineering + Maintenance Programs Planning

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 1

5. Structural Inspection Reporting System 142

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 2

5. Structural Inspection Reporting System 142

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 3

Systems and Powerplant Zonal

MSI-Analyses SSI-Analyses Zonal-Analyses

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 4

Structure Program Objective

Maintain the inherent

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 5

5. Structural Inspection Reporting System 142

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 6

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 7

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 8

5. Structural Inspection Reporting System 142

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 9

AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE consists of

Plant Analysis Procedure. Attachment of

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 10

STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANT ITEM

PSE is an element that contributes

OTHER STRUCTURE is that which is

Structure / Significant Structure / PSE

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 14

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 15

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 16

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 17

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 18

A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation or

access to all exposed surfaces in the inspection area. This level of

An intensive examination of a specific item, installation or

assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. Available

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 20

An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or

assembly to detect damage, failure or irregularity. The

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 21

Interval between the start of service-life and the first task

The interval (after the initial interval) between successive

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 22

5. Structural Inspection Reporting System 142

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 23

 Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 24

For each item selected as SSI, an individual SSI Analysis Dossier

Each type of deterioration/damage is analysed separately

¾ Accidental Damage (AD) (metallic and non-metallic structure)

¾ Environmental Deterioration (ED) (metallic structure)

¾ Fatigue Damage (FD) (metallic structure)

¾ Ageing Deterioration (non-metallic structure)

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 25

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 26

Safe-Life NO Damage YES Damage-Tolerant

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 27

Can FD be Detected by yes

Redesign May be Method be no Requirements Feasible necessary

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 28

 Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 29

Scheduled Maintenance Programs Seminar – Structures Apr 10 Page : 30

1 DAMAGE TOLERANT SAFE LIFE

3 Select ‘LARGE AREAS’ (zones)

4 Identify ‘ED / AGING’ areas of concern

Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94

Corrosion Prevention & Control Program (CPCP) 94