Configuration-Aware Aircraft Maintenance Program Bridging: Data Model, Decision Rules and Scheduling Optimization Illustrated with FAA Airworthiness Directives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56830/IJSIE202616Keywords:
Aircraft maintenance program, Configuration management, Airworthiness directives, Maintenance program bridging, Mixed-integer programmingAbstract
This design-science paper specifies the IMPB-TDO framework: a relational data model with explicit limit anchors and evidence links; seven ordered decision rules that assign each requirement–aircraft pair to one of seven disposition classes, including an engineering exception that is never defaulted to “not applicable”; flight-hour, flight-cycle and calendar forecasting with “whichever occurs first/later” logic; and a network-flow mixed-integer program that schedules only approved tasks. Four Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airworthiness Directives (ADs) from 2024–2025 serve as illustrative cases, and the framework is demonstrated on a synthetic 14-aircraft fleet and on randomly generated capacity-constrained fleets. The ADs differ in what determines applicability (all serials, in-service embodiment, repair method, certificate date) and in costing unit; two published fleet cost totals are ceilings, not expected costs. In the worked example on AD 2025-16-06, production embodiment, a planned modification and an undocumented configuration each changed the disposition. On a fleet built to contain these situations, an SB-aware tracking comparator still differed on 3 of 14 configuration-sensitive pairs, all traceable to provenance or coupled actions; a model-level filter differed on 10. On 18 generated instances with fleet-wide inspector capacity, the optimization lowered the common objective by a mean of 15% (up to 22%) relative to the best of two planner heuristics wherever a heuristic found a plan, found compliant plans on 5 instances where both heuristics failed, and proved infeasibility on 1; no run was proven optimal within 180 s, so gaps are reported. The paper contributes a specified, reproducible artefact; the synthetic results demonstrate mechanisms rather than operational effect sizes, which require the validation protocol provided.
References
Agency, E. U. (2024). Airworthiness Directive 2024-0204: ATA 53 – Fuselage – Rivet holes at Frame 64 – Inspection . (issued 22 October 2024, effective 5 November 2024). https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2024-0204.
Ahmadi, A., Söderholm, P., & Kumar, U. (2010). On aircraft scheduled maintenance program development. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 16(3), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552511011072899.
Airlines for America. (2022). MSG-3: Operator/manufacturer scheduled maintenance development. Volume 1 – Fixed wing aircraft (Revision 2022.1). A4A.
Airlines for America. (2023). Spec 2000, Chapter 11: Reliability data collection/exchange . (Revision 2023.1). A4A.
Airlines for America. (2023). Spec 2500: Aircraft transfer records. (Revision 2023.1). A4A.
Airlines for America. (2025). iSpec 2200: Information standards for aviation maintenance . (Revision 2025.1). A4A.
Brundage, M. P., Sexton, T., Hodkiewicz, M., Dima, A., & Lukens, S. (2021). Technical language processing: Unlocking maintenance knowledge. Manufacturing Letters, 27, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2020.11.001.
Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). Title 14, §121.380 – Maintenance recording requirements. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title- 14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-V/section-121.380.
Code of Federal Regulations. (n.d.). Title 14, Part 39 – Airworthiness directives. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter- I/subchapter-C/part-39.
Deng, Q., Santos, B. F., & Curran, R. (2020). A practical dynamic programming based methodology for aircraft maintenance check scheduling optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, , 281(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.08.025.
Deng, Q.; Santos, B. F.; Verhagen, W. J. C. (2021). A novel decision support system for optimizing aircraft maintenance check schedule and task allocation. Decision Support Systems, 146, 113545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113545.
European Union Aviation Safety Agency. (2025). Easy Access Rules for Continuing Airworthiness (Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014). EASA. https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/onlinepublications/easy-access-rules-continuing-airworthiness.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2024). Airworthiness directives; The Boeing Company airplanes (AD 2024-18-07, Amendment 39-22841, Docket FAA-2023-1886). Federal Register, 89(195), 81320–81324. FR Doc. 2024-23116.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2024). Electronic signatures, electronic recordkeeping, and electronic manuals (Advisory Circular 120-78B, 11 December 2024). U.S. : Department of Transportation.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2024). Maintenance review boards, maintenance type boards, and original equipment manufacturer/type certificate holder recommended maintenance procedures (Advisory Circular 121-22D, 31 May 2024). U.S. Department of Transp Transportation. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_121-22D.pdf.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2025). Airworthiness directives; Airbus SAS airplanes (AD 2025-02-04, Amendment 39-22937, Docket FAA-2024-2323). Federal Register. 90(26), 9214–9216. FR Doc. 2025-02375.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2025). Airworthiness directives; Airbus SAS airplanes (AD 2025-16-06, Amendment 39-23104, Docket FAA-2025-0907). Federal Register, 90(157), 40028–40030. FR Doc. 2025-15685.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2025). Airworthiness directives; The Boeing Company airplanes (AD 2025-15-01, Amendment 39-23088, Docket FAA-2024-1880). Federal Register, 90(137), 34171–34173. FR Doc. 2025-13595.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2025). Dynamic Regulatory System (DRS). U.S. : Department of Transportation. https://drs.faa.gov.
Gonçalves, F. C., & Trabasso, L. G. (2018). Aircraft preventive maintenance data evaluation applied in integrated product development process. Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, 10, e1718. https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v10.706.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research . MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625.
Ho, G. T., Tang, Y. M., Tsang, K. Y., Tang, V., & Chau, K. Y. (2024). A blockchain-based system to enhance aircraft parts traceability and trackability for inventory management. Expert Systems with Applications, 179, 115101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115101.
Huangfu, Q., & Hall, J. A. (2018). Parallelizing the dual revised simplex method. Mathematical Programming Computation, 10(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12532-017-0130-5.
Kang, Z., Zhou, D., Guo, Z., Zhou, Q., & Wu, H. (2024). An ontology-based knowledge representation framework for aircraft maintenance processes to support work optimization. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,, 134(11), 5577–5601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-024-14428-4.
Kinnison, H. A., & Siddiqui, T. (2013). Aviation maintenance management (2nd ed.). . McGraw-Hill Education, ISBN 978-0-07-180502-5.
Lagos, C., Delgado, F., & Klapp, M. A. (2020). Dynamic optimization for airline maintenance operations. Transportation Science, 54(4), 998–1015. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2020.0984.
Lampe, M., Strassner, M., & Fleisch, E. (2024). A ubiquitous computing environment for aircraft maintenance. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC '04), (pp. 1586–1592). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/967900.968217.
Lercel, D., Patankar, M., & Steckel, R. (2024). Assessing past airworthiness directives and how safety management systems may benefit aviation product design and manufacturing. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research, 33(2), Article
Mitchell, S., O'Sullivan, M., & Dunning, I. (2011). PuLP: A linear programming toolkit for Python. . Department of Engineering Science, The University of Auckland.
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302.
Qin, Y., Zhang, J. H., Chan, F. T., Chung, S. H., Niu, B., & Qu, T. (2020). A two-stage optimization approach for aircraft hangar maintenance planning and staff assignment problems under MRO outsourcing mode. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 146, 106607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106607.
Ramco Systems. (2026). How agentic AI for aviation maintenance transforms SB & AD processing [Vendor article]. https://www.ramco.com/blog/aviation/agentic-ai-foraviation-maintenance.
S1000D Steering Committee (ASD, AIA & ATA). (2024). S1000D: International specification for technical publications using a common source database (Issue 6). https://www.s-series.org/s1000d/.
SAE International. (2019). Configuration management standard (SAE EIA-649C). SAE International.
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907313077.
Shaukat, S., Katscher, M., Wu, C. L., Delgado, F., & Larrain, H. (2020). Aircraft line maintenance scheduling and optimisation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, 101914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101914.
Sriram, C., & Haghani, A. (2003). An optimization model for aircraft maintenance scheduling and re-assignment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 37(1), 29– 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(02)00004-6.
Swiss AviationSoftware. (2025). AMOS Engineering module; AMOS Modification Control – Part 1 (training course description). https://swiss-as.com/modules/engineering; https://www.swiss-as.com/public/training/AMOS_Modification_Control_Part_1.pdf.
The Boeing Company. (2022). Alert Service Bulletin 737-25A1544, Revision 4 (15 February 2022). . Placed in FAA docket FAA-2023-1886. https://downloads.regulations.gov/FAA-2023-1886-0002/attachment_1.pdf.
Witteman, M., Deng, Q., & Santos, B. F. (2021). A bin packing approach to solve the aircraft maintenance task allocation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 294(1), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.01.027.
Yue, S., Xiao, L., Li, J., & Wang, N. (2022). Research on application of knowledge graph for aircraft maintenance. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 14(7), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/16878132221107429.
