Human Factors

Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

Maintenance Briefing Notes

Human Factors
Error Management

Can technology set the maintainer free? Introduction

The contribution of maintenance errors to accidents, or incidents vary widely in the
various published reports, mainly due to different assumptions taken, but one can
conclude that there is an increasing probability, or at best a steady trend over the
years.
This issue of the Maintenance Briefing Notes presents an updated analysis on the
contribution of maintenance caused operational interruptions, and comparing two
different time periods which could be considered as representative of the technology
evolution.
The aircraft manufacturer has the unique opportunity to receive operational data from
their customer base worldwide, covering therefore all types of airline and maintenance
operations.
The data are received in a standardized format, entered into a database, and were
taken for the analysis being the subject of this issue of the Maintenance Briefing Notes.
With the Maintenance Briefing Notes Issue 2, we had already published the result of a
dedicated airline survey, and statistical analysis of maintenance errors contributing to
delays and cancellations.
We have further refined the analysis method, including an evaluation on the potential
impact of technology evolutions.
We hope you find this edition of the Maintenace Briefing Notes of value.

Frank Schreiber Uwe Eggerling

Vice President Author
Maintenance Programmes & Services Maintenance Programmes & Services
Customer Services Customer Services

Page 1 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

I Selecting maintenance related operational interruptions

The following process was applied in defining operational interruptions due to
maintenance, and for the considered time periods:

Figure 1: Selection and classification of maintenance events

Considering the technology differences, the time periods were categorized based on
different generations of Airbus aircraft. The first generation of Airbus fleet, A300 and
A310 were entered into commercial services in 1974, and 1983 successively.
Following the successful wide body jetliners, the A320 was introduced in the end of
1980s. Incorporating new technologies, the aircraft provided better operating efficiency
and better performance.
The first longer range product, the A340, was introduced in 1993, and the twin-engine
A330, entered service in a year later.

Page 2 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

Therefore, the technology developments of Airbus would be basically divided into three
periods: “1974 ~ 1987”, “1988~1997”, and “1998 ~ 2007”.
According to the figure below, the entire Airbus fleet consisted of wide body aircraft
during the first period. Over the time, the share of the wide body series gradually
decreased with the introduction into service of the Airbus single aisle and long range
families.
In 2007, the share of A300s and A310s were less than 13 % which means most of the
Airbus aircraft are operated upon the new technologies. In order to make a significant
comparison in terms of the technology differences, only the periods of “1974 ~ 1987”
and “1998 ~ 2007” were taken for this analysis.

Figure 2: Share of Airbus Wide Body vs Single Aisle and Long Range Family

Page 3 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

I.1 Maintenance Error Classification at different activity levels

The maintenance related events retained for this study, were classified according to
different activity levels:
• Installation
• Servicing
• Job set-up / Preparation
• Pre-flight
• Unsecured
• Removal
• Inspection
• Repair
• Test
• Escape slides
• Others

I.2 Comparisons - 1974~1987 V.S. 1998~2007

The statistics of maintenance errors at different activity levels are shown below.

Page 4 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

Figure 3: Maintenance Errors at Different Activity Levels - 1974~1987

Figure 4: Maintenance Errors at Different Activity Levels - 1998~2007

The top five maintenance errors were the same in the two considered time periods, and
in the order of: Installation, Servicing, Job set-up/ Preparation, Pre-Flight and
Unsecured.
During 1974 to 1987, nearly 60% of maintenance errors occurred during installation,
followed by “servicing” (13.1 %), and “Job set-up/ Preparation” (9.6 %).
One may conclude that the higher utilization of mechanical parts and systems,
compared to the latest generation of aircraft types, could have contributed to the high
percentage of installation errors.
During the second considered period, the installation errors reduced from 57.1 % to
34.6 %.
The maintenance errors classified as “Servicing” increased from 13.1% to 25.3%, and
“Job set-up/ Preparation” 9.6 % to 15.1 %.

Page 5 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

Maintenance Errors during Installation Tasks (1974~1987 V.S.

1998~2007)

Figure 5: Maintenance Errors during Installation Tasks (1974~1987 V.S.

1998~2007).
Most of the installation errors were resulted from the incorrect installations, e.g.
installed components with incorrect orientations or improper locations. The incorrect
installation problems reduced slightly to 50.1 % in the second period. In the 1970s and
1980s, most of the incorrect/improper torquing and adjustment problems were
reported at the cable riggings and mechanisms.
The usage of wrong parts have seen a 20 percent increase in the second considered
period. One possible explanation could be that the variety of the aircraft types and
increased time pressure, increases the workload for the maintenance mechanics.

Page 6 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

Maintenance Errors during Servicing Tasks (1974~1987 V.S. 1998~2007)

Figure 6: Maintenance Errors during Servicing Tasks (1974~1987 V.S.

1998~2007).
The error patterns between the two periods are significantly different. Incorrect
Servicing problems (water drainage, engine-core wash, bleeding and data loading)
were reduced, but there were more data loading errors in the second period.
Improper hydraulic fluid servicing problems (over-servicing or wrong fluid) and
improper refueling problems (over-servicing, wrong distribution or wrong operation)
increased. However, looking more in detail in the corresponding reports, there were
two operators having contributed over-proportional by 45% of all the reports to the
incorrect hydraulic fluid servicing reports.
Finally, the percentage of lubrication errors reduced because of less mechanical parts
used on the second generation of aircraft types.

Page 7 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

Maintenance Errors during Job Set-up/Preparation (1974~1987 V.S.

1998~2007)

Figure 7: Maintenance Errors during Job Set-up/Preparation (1974~1987 V.S.

1998~2007).
Improper Decision Making / Trouble Shooting errors and the wrong part order problems
were increased to 42.1 % and 10.2 % accordingly.
Planning problems were slightly increased, and the improper task arrangements were
reduced.

Page 8 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

II Conclusion
Looking at the main maintenance error classifications, the overall result of the study
confirms the conclusion made in the Maintenance Briefing Notes No.2, and also other
research on this subject published in various publications.
Errors made during installation procedures lead the list of contributing factors, followed
by servicing and job set-up and preparation. There is also no difference in this ranking
considering the two different time periods.
As it is often the case, statistical figures have to be considered with some precautions,
e.g. the total number of aircraft in the two time periods were much different, so were
the total number of events selected for this study.
However, the figures are certainly a good trend indicator.
The more detailed analysis within the different maintenance activities reveals that the
later generation of aircraft had less maintenance errors related to maintaining
mechanical parts, e.g. during installation procedures.
Some other error classifications increased during the second time period, and one may
conclude that increased time pressure for the line mechanic, and also increased
complexity may have been a contributing factor.
Coming back to the question asked at the beginning of this Maintenance Briefing Notes:
“Can technology set the maintainer free?”
The answer is certainly “NO”, as the maintenance engineer, at the heart of the
maintenance operation on the aircraft, is still a human being with all it’s capabilities and
limitations.
However, more advanced maintenance technologies being researched today, may offer
the potential to provide real-time and up-to-date data guidance for the maintainer
working on the aircraft, and can thus contribute to reduce maintenance error events
even further.

In conclusion, we hope you found this issue interesting and worthwhile, and as we want
to ensure that the content of the Maintenance Briefing Notes meets your expectations,
we look forward to your comments and feedback, either to:
mailto:uwe.eggerling@airbus.com
or
mailto:frank.schreiber@airbus.com

Page 9 of 10
 Human Factors
Maintenance Briefing Notes Error Management

This Maintenance Briefing Note (MBN) is part of a set of Briefing Notes that provide an overview of the applicable standards,
techniques, best practices, human factors, suggested company prevention strategies and personal lines-of-defense related to
major threats and hazards that may affect maintenance.

This MBN is intended to enhance the reader's safety awareness but it shall not supersede the applicable regulations and the
Airbus or airline's maintenance documentation; should any deviation appear between this MBN and the Airbus or airline’s
maintenance documentation, the latter shall prevail at all times.

In the interest of aviation safety, this MBN may be reproduced in whole or in part - in all media - or translated; any use of
this MBN shall not modify its contents or alter an excerpt from its original context. Any commercial use is strictly excluded.
All uses shall credit Airbus.

Airbus shall have no liability or responsibility for the implementation or use of this MBN, the correctness of the duplication,
adaptation or translation and for the updating and revision of any duplicated version.

Airbus Customer Services

Maintenance Programmes and Engineering
1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte - 31707 BLAGNAC CEDEX FRANCE
MBN Reference : MAINT – HUM_PER_SEQ 03 – REV 01 –June 2008

Page 10 of 10