Talk:Aircraft maintenance

Picture
I like the picture that is included with the article, except for one detail: there is a minivan in the shot. Ideally, I would like to avoid and potential confusion as to what is going on. So, is there perhaps an alternative picture that would work better? 70.250.179.129 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the minivan is integral to the scene as that was being used to carry tools and parts for the field maintenance work being done. It is almost impossible to have field maintenance without a vehicle present. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the van is integral to the picture, then why not mention its role in the caption in order to clarify? It certainly is possible to do aircraft maintenance without another vehicle present, such as in a hangar.  70.250.179.129 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Done! - Ahunt (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So what function related to maintenance is the van performing? Supplying spare parts, providing power for test equipment, transporting technicians between several aircraft?  You haven't at all addressed a maintenance function or why it is integral, as mentioned above.  70.250.179.129 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better. Appreciate it.  70.250.179.129 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing Definition
A number of articles say "XYZ provides depot-level aircraft maintenance," but this term is nowhere defined. This article would be an obvious place to put this definition, if anyone can write one... Donfbreed (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition of maintenance
To make such sweeping statements that maintenance does not include the maintenance of an aircraft seems a bit silly to me. ANY task carried out to ensure airworthiness or good order of an aircraft IS maintenance!--Petebutt (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you get that interpretation. The CARs definition includes all work done on an aircraft, but it does exclude some things like washing the windows plus the original manufacturing, which most people would not consider "maintenance". - Ahunt (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Even washing windows is maintenance. If it wasn't done could the aircraft become un-safe to fly? The answer is yes. therefore it is maintenance. Scheduled maintenance is a different kettle of fish. Maybe the author was confusing scheduled maintenance with ordinary everyday maintenance.--Petebutt (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that varies from country to country. In Canada washing windows is "serving", while removing and replacing tires is "elementary work" which means that the owner can do it and it doesn't require a maintenance release signed by an engineer. If it was "maintenance" then it would require an AME's signature. The same goes for washing the aircraft, putting air in the tires, adding fuel and oil, etc. It all depends on what is meant by "maintenance". Now Canada follows ICAO definitions fairly closely, so I am sure many other nations use similar criteria, but if you can find refs that indicate it is different in other countries by all means add them and we'll describe that what constitutes "maintenance" varies from country to country. We can only state what we have refs to show. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aircraft maintenance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227092905/http://www.tc.gc.ca:80/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part1-subpart1-1104.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part1-subpart1-1104.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aircraft maintenance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part1-subpart1-1104.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518090436/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-593s-1829.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-standards-593s-1829.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516113339/http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-571-234.htm to http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part5-571-234.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Current ext. links looks like ad. I would delete that section until valuable links will be proposed. Any suggestions? Apetrov09703 (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

merge from Power by the Hour
Power by the Hour is a bit of an orphan, and its subject is a subset of aircraft maintenance : merging would avoid duplicate information and maintainability problems.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a pretty small topic, it makes sense to merge it here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional article to merge
I would suggest to incorporate (as a section) also material from the Aircraft maintenance checks (think subject is not so important to be separate article) Apetrov09703 (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. I think the subject is important enough to be given its own separate page. The Russian system might differ significantly from the emerging ICAO-WTO consensus model. It is better to explain this costly and largely unseen system for the general reader in order to elicit his or her approval and support. Magnoffiq (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Be sure there is no mysterious Russian system in aircraft maintenance :) If you have a look at ICAO standards (Annexes 6 and 8 to Chicago Convention of 1944) there is no any mention of ABC checks organisation of required maintenance (its up to a state of aircraft registry and particular operator of that aircraft). So, you can form the ABC pyramid or (alternatively) equalize maintenance forming the maintenance tasks packages of suitable amount of man-hours per selected interval(s). That is why, having in mind encyclopaedic principles, the material of the Aircraft maintenance checks article can easily be limited in volume and would better be integrated in section 5 of this one (Aircraft maintenance) Apetrov09703 (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Right now Aircraft maintenance checks seems to be a notable topic on its own. It has enough text and many refs to support keeping it as a separate article, plus the potential for expansion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing, given that the discussion is stale with uncontested objections. Klbrain (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Maintenance (technical) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem with engine overhaul cost paragraph
The engine overhaul costs are given with the time interval but it does not specify that this is per engine (which I think it is) rather than cost per aircraft for both/all engines. The reference is also paywalled so it is impossible to trace the figures and check. Can anyone resolve this? I don't want to change anything without confirming with a source that these are per engine. 86.31.71.9 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this up! As per the Wikipedia policy WP:NOPRICES this has all been removed, so now . The policy says An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Competitive dynamics in the MRO market
I added a new section on the competitive dynamics of the MRO market. The current section on the MRO market is a bit disorganized as it currently has numbers and numbers quantifying how big is the market but without a coherent narrative. Perhaps we should shorten the Engines and and Aircraft sections and instead explain how exactly this MRO market works? MexFin (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed the lot, I am afraid. It was heavy with jargon but said only that this market is competitive. Well, yeah, that's what a market is; I saw nothing that makes MRO any different. Also, the supply diagram was trivial while the drone image had nothing to do with the engine section it got moved to. None of this added anything to our encyclopedia. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)