Risk evaluation for the task transfer of an aircraft maintenance program based on a multielement connection number

Abstract

This paper proposes a framework for evaluating the efficacy and suitability of maintenance programs with a focus on quantitative risk assessment in the domain of aircraft maintenance task transfer. The analysis is anchored in the principles of Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3) logic decision paradigms. The paper advances a holistic risk assessment index architecture tailored for the task transfer of maintenance programs. Utilizing the analytic network process (ANP), the study quantifies the weight interrelationships among diverse variables, incorporating expert-elicited subjective weighting. A multielement connection number-based evaluative model is employed to characterize decision-specific data, thereby facilitating the quantification of task transfer-associated risk through the appraisal of set-pair potentials. Moreover, the paper conducts a temporal risk trend analysis founded on partial connection numbers of varying orders. This analytical construct serves to streamline the process of risk assessment pertinent to maintenance program task transfer. The empirical component of this research, exemplified through a case study of the Boeing 737NG aircraft maintenance program, corroborates the methodological robustness and pragmatic applicability of the proposed framework in the quantification and analysis of mission transfer risk.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

risk evaluation / maintenance steering group / analytic network process / task transfer / maintenance program

References

[1] Azadeh, A Asadzadeh, S M Tanhaeean, M (2017). A consensus-based AHP for improved assessment of resilience engineering in maintenance organizations. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 47: 151–160

[2] BaiW HZuo H F (2011). Study on making method of civil aircraft’s maintenance review board report based on CBR. In: Proceedings of Prognostics and System Health Management Conference. Shenzhen: IEEE, 1–5

[3] Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) (2006). AC–121/135–67 Maintenance Review Committee and Maintenance Program (in Chinese)

[4] Chen, W Huang, S (2015). Human reliability analysis for aviation maintenance based on Bayesian network. Journal of Safety and Environment, 15( 1): 48–52

[5] DuanYYuan L (2015). Risk assessment of aviation maintenance error based on set pair analysis and BP neural network. In: Proceedings of 5th International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation. Paris: Atlantis Press, 299–303

[6] DuffuaaS ORaouf A (2015). Planning and Control of Maintenance Systems: Modeling and Analysis. Cham: Springer

[7] Gao, J Duanmu, J Zhang, B Yang, J (2014). Identification and analysis of organizational factors affecting aircraft maintenance safety. China Safety Science Journal, 24( 5): 32–37

[8] Insley, J Turkoglu, C (2020). A contemporary analysis of aircraft maintenance-related accidents and serious incidents. Aerospace, 7( 6): 81–107

[9] Jia, B H Liu, Y B Lu, X Tong, S (2018). Model for determining maintenance intervals of aircraft structural with low utilization. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 39( 1): 220–230

[10] Junqueira, V S V Nagano, M S Miyata, H H (2020). Procedure structuring for programming aircraft maintenance activities. Revista de Gestão, 27( 1): 2–20

[11] Kucuk Yilmaz, A (2019). Strategic approach to managing human factors risk in aircraft maintenance organization: Risk mapping. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 91( 4): 654–668

[12] Kumar, K Garg, H (2018). Connection number of set pair analysis based TOPSIS method on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application to decision making. Applied Intelligence, 48( 8): 2112–2119

[13] Liu, A Fu, S N Xiao, Z H (2019). Study on risk assessment of overseas merger and acquisition knowledge integration based on character-weighted set pair. Cluster Computing, 22( 2): 2689–2700

[14] Ostrom, L T Wilhelmsen, C A (2008). Developing risk models for aviation maintenance and inspection. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 18( 1): 30–42

[15] PontecorvoJ A (1984). MSG-3: A Method for Maintenance Program Planning. SAE Technical Paper 841485

[16] Regattieri, A Giazzi, A Gamberi, M Gamberini, R (2015). An innovative method to optimize the maintenance policies in an aircraft: General framework and case stud. Journal of Air Transport Management, 44: 8–20

[17] RenHChenX ChenY (2017). Reliability Based Aircraft Maintenance Optimization and Applications. Salt Lake City, UT: Academic Press

[18] Samaranayake, P Kiridena, S (2012). Aircraft maintenance planning and scheduling: An integrated framework. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 18( 4): 432–453

[19] Shi, Z J Wang, H W Wang, X (2016). Risk state evaluation of aviation maintenance based on multiple connection number set pair analysis. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 38( 3): 588–594

[20] Sun, J Chen, D Li, C Yan, H (2018). Integration of scheduled structural health monitoring with airline maintenance program based on risk analysis. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 232( 1): 92–104

[21] van Horenbeek, A Pintelon, L (2014). Development of a maintenance performance measurement framework: Using the analytic network process (ANP) for maintenance performance indicator selection. Omega, 42( 1): 33–46

[22] WangHMao XDongF (2010). Application of five-element connection number on the comprehensive impact evaluation of water-saving renovation in irrigation area. In: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery. Yantai: IEEE, 994–997

[23] Wang, T Chen, J Wang, T Wang, S (2015). Entropy weight-set pair analysis based on tracer techniques for dam leakage investigation. Natural Hazards, 76( 2): 747–767

[24] Xie, L Wei, R Sun, S Lin, M Xiao, J (2017). Individual forecast set pair analysis and combination modeling of ship equipment maintenance cost. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 39( 10): 2264–2269

[25] Yazgan, E (2018). Development taxonomy of human risk factors for corporate sustainability in aviation sector. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 90( 6): 1012–1022

[26] Zhao, Y F Wan, J Q (2018). On the operational risk assessment of the air traffic control based on the set pair analysis method. Journal of Safety and Environment, 18( 3): 871–875

[27] Zimmermann, N Mendonca, F A C (2021). The impact of human factors and maintenance documentation on aviation safety: An analysis of 15 years of accident data through the PEAR framework. Collegiate Aviation Review International, 39( 2): 1–25

[28] ZuoH FCai JWuHChenZ X (2011). Aviation Maintenance Engineering. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese)

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 Higher Education Press