N.F.F. Wasting Time and Money

1

N.F.F. Wasting Time and Money

Flybe Aviation Services

2

Agenda

What Costs Do We Suffer From N.F.F’s

How We Identify N.F.F’s

Why Do We Have N.F.F’s

How Do We Reduce N.F.F’s

3

Agenda





4

How Do We Identify N.F.F’s

I Believe at Flybe We See 3 Types of N.F.F.

Operational Direct (Resets) Technical Dispatch Reliability Reports

Operational Indirect (Component Replacements) Technical Dispatch Reliability Reports Shop Strip Reports

Shop Failures Strip Reports Technical Dispatch Reliability Reports.

5


Turbo Prop Q400 WATOG Figures

6


E- Jet WATOG Figures

7


Difference between Flybe and Bombardier WATOG Figures

Flybe WATOG 97.99% which in Nov had 14 cancellations and 153 delays over 15 mins.

These delays are shown by ATA category above.

8



Bombardier, working with Flybe review the delay reports and Bombardier would report the WATOG as 98.96%. (Non Chargeable 80).

The 0.97% difference can be broken down into 4 categories.

9



Focusing on the N.F.F. figure shows that of the 0.97% non chargeable 0.21% is down to N.F.F.

As I’m sure you are aware an increase in technical performance of 0.21% is a valued improvement.

10


Technical Dispatch Reliability Reports

11


Technical Dispatch Reliability Reports

Date FLEET A/C Base ATA Fault Action

21-Oct-12 Q400G-JECN

7320 T/LOG 729911. #2 engine fault code 902AADD`ed iaw MEL. (T/LOG 729916 - #2 engine FADEC replaced and op test c/o iaw 71-00-00. Engine start c/o - satis. No codes on #2 engine. ADD closed)

26-Nov-12 Q400G-FLBA

7320T/LOG 720241. #2 engine fault codes 805 A&B, 722B and 738B

FIM 73-20-00-810-807 c/o. Fault code 738 channel B latched. ADD`ed (T/LOG 720243 - FADEC replaced - original fault codes cleared. Fault code 902 latched on CDS. FIM 73-20-00-810-863 c/o would not clear. Suspect FADEC unit - original FADEC refitted. ADD remains open)

The Technical Dispatch report below shows an Operational Indirect delay attributed to having the No2 Engine FADEC replaced by a unit which had failed previously and was then found to fail again. This component had been through a shop test and was NFF.

12


ST Aerospace Shop Strip Reports Flybe July-Sept2012

Total number of scheduled & unscheduled removals between July 2012 & September 2012 is 761

143 of these removals classed as NFF

Total number of NFF represents 19% of all removals

13


ST Aerospace Shop Strip Reports Flybe July-Sept2012

Total Removals & NFF removals by Part Number

14

Agenda





15


Cancelations Delay Costs

Component Replacement Costs

Shop Visit Costs

Stock Holding Costs

Maintenance Crew Costs

16

Agenda





17

Why Do We Have N.F.F.s

My Views

Component design is poor (DDV)

Aircraft system design is poor (De-Ice)

The system functional test is weak

The shop visit test is weak

18

Agenda





19

How Do We Reduce N.F.F.s

Again My Views

Improve system/component design (Self/Functional Test)

Improve Repeatable Defect reporting (Electronic Tech log)

Work with spares providers to identify “rogue” parts

Work with overhaul/test providers to provide feedback and improve quality of tests

20

N. F. F. Wasting Time and Money

SUMMARY

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to talk to you today and more so for listening. I hope it has been of some interest and may be, some value?

Just to recap what

we have covered:How We Identify N.F.F’s




21

N. F. F. Wasting Time and MoneySUMMARY

At Flybe over the last 9 years we have been driven to continually improve our performance. The Airline Industry have pushed us and continue to push us, to deliver more reliable Aircraft whilst offering less time for maintenance!

As always Airlines want more for Less!

As I hope I have shown in the Nov WATOG report we could of improved the Airlines performance by 0.21% just by removing the NFF issues.

Thank you again.

Any Questions.

Documents

N.F.F. Wasting Time and Money