4. Bilateral Agreement – Russia/FAA
4
•Interstate Aviation Committee Aviation Registry (AR) and Federal Aviation Authority of Russia (FAAR)Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement signed in 1998
•Each agency considers certifications/findings as valid without further finding
The AR will accept FAA Airworthiness Approval Tags on parts only when the FAA certifies that each part(s) conforms to AR approved design data
Is marked in accordance with approved procedures
Meets all additional requirements of the AR, as notified
Parts must have an 8130-3 tag referencing document for approved design data
5. Direction of the PMA Discussion
•All discussion on the legal basis has ended
•All mention of safety issues have ceased
•Commercial aspects dominant
–Individual customer specific
–OEM’s very active on restricting use of parts/data
–Lessor/financier education is key
•Smaller PMA supplier absorbed/partnering
•Significant focus on PM aspect of parts
•Revision D of 8110.42 in signature phase
•PMA approvals heading more to a risk based culture
–Issue by FAA of the streamlined process policy
5
6. FAA Direction
•Separation of approval basis?
–Production
–Engineering
–Installation
•Focus on supply chain
–Who/what/how
–Frozen processes
–Management of sub-tier
–Flow down of requirements
–Lessons Learned
–Selection/de-selection of suppliers
•Less push for ODA
–Operator confusion
•Harmonization of Critical Part definition
–Aligns with FAA/EASA TIP
6
7. 7
Where Can You Use FAA-PMA Parts?
Types of parts for which FAA-PMAs exist:
Gears (CSD/IDG, ATS, APU, etc.)
Shafts (various components / accessories)
Bearings (rod ends, ball, roller, needle, spherical, tapered wheel, etc)
Bushings (bronze, teflon lined, flanged, etc.)
Filters (Oil, air, water, fuel)
Seals (o-rings, gearbox, various components / accessories)
Impellers, Turbine Wheels, etc. (various components / accessories)
Compressor Blades
Turbine Blades
HPT Shrouds
Electrical (switches, lights, sensors, LVDT etc)
Interiors/passenger accomodations
Galley products
Structures
Hardware (nuts, bolts, washers etc)
Landing gear
Avionics
Harnesses and cables
Ball screw actuators
8. Eligibility
“Crack down” on data sources
No blanket statements allowed
Data sources scrutiny
Questions on similar part experience
Quality of source data
OEMs willing to put PMA in IPC/CMM
8
9. 9
•Piece Part Price
•Reliability
•Leverage
How do PMAs save airlines money?
10. Piece Part Price
•Every PMA company will use the standard verbiage – 40% or better
•Higher usage = bigger savings
•Incentive programs
•Cost avoidance based on historical stocking
•Reliability Improvements
•Options on parts
10
11. PMA parts are generally as reliable or more reliable than OEM parts. Why?
1.PMA developers have the benefit of understanding the OEM’s shortcomings
2.PMA developers often have newer materials, manufacturing methods and hold tighter tolerances due to the re-engineering process
3.Generally PMA developers avoid major problem areas that ADs or major service bulletins have been written against
Reliability
11
12. 12
Leverage
The influence you have
to negotiate yourself a better deal
13. Lease Holder Opinion
•Will allow - no critical/no-gas path PMA
•What’s in it for me?
•Ask and we can discuss
•Negotiate the use up front/early in the contract
•Financial institute????????
•Make your mind up
–Standardize use of PMA
–Decide what your policy is
13
14. New Services
•More active bundling of services
–PM of solutions
•PBH offering
–Emphasis on reliability of parts
•PMA supplier cooperation
•Input to maintenance cost drivers
•PMA/OEM packages
•Owner Operator Produced Parts
•New aircraft – what can you do for me?
14
15. OPERATIONAL Rules
•Deviation to CCLDC granted for PMA parts
–SFAR 88
–737NG/757 Fuel Pump Parts
•Airworthiness Directive granted
–Landing Gear door hinge fitting AMOC for 737
•Use of TSO
–Cargo net approvals
15
16. Conclusion
•Every facet of aviation is using PMA
•PMA solutions available across a wide range of products
•PMA parts deliver significant savings via
–Direct part savings
–Reliability improvments
–Leverage in contract negotiations
•PMA parts are safe, reliable and a competitive business advantage
16
21. 21
Customer
Fleet Size
Wencor PMA Spend 2012
Savings
XYZ
500+
$8.2 M
$3.2 M
ABC
500+
$2 M
$800 K
DEF
500+
$2 M
$800 K
HIJ
294
$290,742
$196 K
OPQ
321
$321,416
$166 K
RST
142
$238,381
$152 K
UVW
198
$221,315
$126 K
GLQ
339
$339,307
$122 K
TST
500+
$346,226
$90 K
MNO
312
$302,137
$155 K
LTO
110
$138,907
$69 K
Representative PMA Savings
22. Cost Avoidance
22
PMA DeltaP Indicator – Airline X
•PMA Board approved use of PMA DeltaP Indicator in the B737NG APUs in Feb 2012
•OEM selling price: $8,100 each, with 85 used per year due to poor reliability
Old annual spend: $ 688,500
New Annual spend with more reliable PMA: Less than $100,000
•40 OEM on order - cancelled
Immediate cost avoidance: $324,000
•20 OEM in stock sold immediately
$140,000+ generated
23. Airline D Coffee Makers
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2010 2011 2012
MTBUR
Current Cost Trendline
416 series BE Coffee makers
MTBUR (hours)
23
24. 24
Airline H: GTCP331-200/-250 RFQ
•Current PMAs
–86 parts with known usage
–$889,253 savings
•WIP (PMAs currently in development)
–2 parts with known usage
–$9,156 savings
•Development potential
–29 parts with known usage
–$237,724 savings Total Annual Savings incorporated into the winning bid = $1,136,133
24