| Author | Post |
|---|
pd@scotairways
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18th, 2006 02:55 pm |
|
Does anyone use CAFAM to produce component reliability figures?
I'm interested in producing MTBUR figures for all components - including those which are OC.
pd
|
ph@flybe
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 8th, 2006 02:27 pm |
|
Hi PD.
I was deliberately staying away from this topic as at present we do not have to produce any reliability figures so I have never had to try and produce reliability information from CAFAM.
However, I have been looking at the new AD981C and AD981D to see what the AOC holders that we currently support are going to have to comply with before September and I think I had better start taking an interest.
I have had a little play with some of CAFAMs reports and I think I would need a number of changes before I could use it for reliability reporting.
I would suggest that it would be in the operators interests to get together to set out a common way of doing things, otherwise John Dias is going to be pulled in different directions by different operators.
As a "for instance", I would not so much be interested in MTBUR as I would MTBF. We have lots of unscheduled removals which are not failures and I would want to exclude these from the reliability figures. Also if I was working on MTBUR I would want to include the times accumulated on those components still fitted as they are part of the average or mean time.
Have you had much luck getting good component removal information out of CAFAM ?
|
pd@scotairways
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14th, 2006 09:37 am |
|
Hi ph
Firstly, apologies for not posting this before!!
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments - a co-ordinated approach covering common interests and requirements would be very sensible. Do any other operators out there agree?
Playing with CAFAM in this respect has only been of a minor nature up to now, without a great deal of success, but I think we've reached the time to take it much more seriously and move the capability forwards.
And you're right about MTBF - my use of the MTBUR term was incorrect!!!
Perhaps an initial meeting in John's office would be a starting point?
|
ph@flybe
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15th, 2006 01:44 pm |
|
Hi PD
If somebody wants to co-ordinate a meeting with John then I would probably be able to attend.
The way I see it LTO2836 details the new compliance requirments for Approved Maintenance Programmes which have to be complied with by October 2006. This includes detailing how you carry out reliability analysis.
Over the next few months AOC operators who use CAFAM will have to start thinking about reliability reporting (Apart from A/C below 5700Kg). Reliability can be done in numerous different ways and they are all acceptable, but if all the CAFAM users decide to do reliability different ways then CAFAM is going to have to be hard pushed to satisfy everybody.
I you want to speak to John Dias about a meeting then you can count me in.
|
Current time is 05:22 am | |
|
