APPENDICESA Example of Material Cat

APPENDICES
A Example of Material Category B ...........................................................................................19
B Example of Process Category C...........................................................................................34
C Example of Part Equivalency................................................................................................44
D Glossary..............................................................................................................................51
ARINC Standard – Errata Report
ARINC IA Project Initiation/Modification (APIM)
ARINC REPORT 670 – Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Overview and Background
At Avionics Maintenance Conferences (AMCs) and during the development of
material in Test Equipment Guidance (TEG) and Future Concept for
Maintenance (FCM) meetings, the subject of materials, processes, and parts
(MPP) equivalency, interchangeability or substitution and the associated
substantiation procedures for equivalency determination has been frequently
raised for discussion. MPPs become obsolete at an increasing rate and cannot
be procured any more. Some materials and processes are banned by
environmental laws of some countries and cannot be used.
Industry rules and guidelines support/mandate equivalency, but provide very little
guidance on how to realize MPP substitution. Currently, industry guidelines fail to
provide adequate direction to maintenance facilities for material, process, and
part equivalencies. Suitable substantiation procedures to be able to select
alternate materials are demanded by the air transport industry.
The lack of guidelines leads to unnecessary multiple-procurement and stocking
of equivalent MPP in maintenance facilities. Operators and repair stations want
to reduce costs, but at the same time ensuring that the quality of the repair
process is not compromised. This document examines the various needs of the
industry and provides guidance for the selection of equivalent MPP including the
substantiation required to satisfy regulatory authorities.
1.2 Scope of Document
This document will provide clear definitions for materials, processes, parts,
substantiation requirements, decision boundaries/limitations, and a standard
process for equivalency determination. This report is intended as general
guidance for avionics maintenance facilities; however, this does not preclude its
use for other sectors of aircraft maintenance as appropriate.
1.3 Goals
The goals of ARINC 670 are:
• Provide definitions for MPPs eligible for substitution by equivalents.
• Define the criteria that will be used to determine functional equivalency.
• Define the roles and responsibilities for the organizations involved.
• Provide uniform guidance for maintenance facilities in developing their
procedures and documentation for determining functional equivalence of
MPP used in aircraft and their associated components.
• Recommend the use of standard MPP for aircraft maintenance.
• Define a standard process for equivalency determination and
substantiation that is acceptable to regulatory authorities.
• Define documentation requirements for MPP in maintenance
documentation.
• Foster a common understanding of the process and provide standardized
terms to facilitate communications between all involved parties.
ARINC REPORT 670 – Page 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.4 Related Documents
ARINC Report 662: Strategies to Address Electronic Component Obsolescence
in Commercial Aircraft
ATA iSpec 2200: Information Standards for Aviation Maintenance
ATA Spec 100: Manufacturers' Technical Data
ATA: World Airlines and Suppliers Guide
FAA Advisory Circular 20-62: Eligibility, Quality and Identification of
Aeronautical Replacement Parts
FAA Advisory Circular 120-77: Maintenance and Alteration Data
FAA Notice of Interpretation, dated January 31, 1997, Replacement and
Modification Parts: “Standard” Parts.
ARINC REPORT 670 – Page 3
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
2.0 Roles and Responsibilities
2.1 Introduction
This section describes the expected roles and responsibilities of each group in
determining extent and format of Original Equipment Manufacturer's (OEM) MPP
information to be delivered to aircraft operators.
2.2 Airline Operator
The operator is ultimately responsible for the continued airworthiness of their
aircraft. As such, they are responsible to ensure that any organization performing
maintenance on that aircraft or its component parts follows the processes and
procedures defined in the airline’s airworthiness maintenance program as
approved by their regulatory agency (e.g., FAA, EASA). This program typically
relies heavily on maintenance data provided by the airframe manufacturer and/or
the component Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Typically, most of this
maintenance data is supplied in the form of Aircraft Maintenance Manuals
(AMMs), Component Maintenance Manuals (CMMs), etc.
It is the responsibility of each operator to ensure that their continuous
airworthiness program contains appropriate processes and procedures to
adequately document and demonstrate equivalency when it is required. It is the
responsibility of each operator to approve any deviations from the maintenance
documentation provided by the equipment manufacturer.
The airline operator should establish the type and format of data sufficient to
perform equivalency determination and substantiation.
In the case of equipment contracted for by the operator (BFE), it is the operator’s
responsibility to ensure that such contracts include provisions for maintenance
data sufficient to support that operator’s continuous airworthiness program,
including data appropriate for equivalency.
2.3 Airframe Manufacturer
The airframe manufacturer has the responsibility to ensure that the airline
operators are provided all necessary information to support maintenance of the
aircraft, including SFE. In the event the maintenance documentation does not
provide sufficient information to support an equivalent material, process, or part
determination, as described in this document, it is the airframe manufacturer’s
responsibility to make the necessary data available.
Airframe manufacturers should make reasonable effort to ensure SFE suppliers
use, as much as possible, standard MPP for the design and maintenance of their
equipment. Airframe manufacturers should avoid over-specifying requirements
for materials and processes.
2.4 Equipment Manufacturer
The equipment manufacturer is responsible for providing the data necessary to
maintain their product in a serviceable condition. In the event the maintenance
documentation does not provide sufficient information to support an equivalent
material, process, or part determination, as described in this document, it is the
ARINC REPORT 670 – Page 4
2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
equipment manufacturer’s responsibility to make the necessary data available.
Equipment manufacturers should make reasonable effort to use, as much as
possible, standard MPP for the design and maintenance of their equipment.
Equipment manufacturers should avoid over-specifying requirements for
materials and processes.
COMMENTARY
Operators and repair shops require sufficient information for
materials and standard parts in order to select alternate
equivalents based on this information. Missing information on
material and standard parts specifications should be provided by
the equipment manufacturers on request. This is especially
essential in view of the obsolescence of material and parts
requiring rapid problem solutions, and in the case of conflicting
local environmental laws.
Parts obsolescence is impacting both equipment manufacturers
and repair shops continuously, and much time has been wasted in
clarification of equivalency issues on both sides. It would create a
win-win situation for both if the information for substitution would
be either part of the CMM IPL or be provided on request.
2.5 Repair Facilities
In general, repair stations and other maintenance facilities perform maintenance
activities directly for operators. Such maintenance is governed by the contracting
operators work orders and comes under that operator’s continuous airworthiness
maintenance program. Deviations from operators supplied maintenance data
must be approved by the operator prior to implementation. Upon request, the
maintenance facility should provide adequate documentation to satisfy the
equivalency requirements of the contracting operator’s continuous airworthiness
maintenance program.