ADOPTION OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING FOR AIRCRAFT

MAINTENANCE IN NIGERIA

INTRODUCTION
Aim

To proffer an effective way Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology can be adopted

by airlines and maintenance organizations aircraft in Nigeria.

Objectives

1) To establish how airlines and maintenance organizations in Nigeria can benefit

from additive manufacturing technology.
2) To establish the regulatory and certification requirements for the use of aircraft
parts and tools manufactured in Nigeria using additive manufacturing technology.
3) To research possible challenges surrounding Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) proprietary rights, standardization and production of aircraft parts and
tools using additive manufacturing technology in Nigeria
4) To develop a strategy for the establishment of an additive manufacturing
technology facility for airlines and maintenance organizations in Nigeria.
BACKGROUND

Additive Manufacturing (AM) also referred to as 3D printing (Cotteleer, et al., 2021) is a

process whereby a three-dimensional object is created by addition of materials layer
by layer by the using of Computer-Aided-Design (CAD) tools or 3D scanning tools and
specialized printers. In contrast, subtractive manufacturing involves the production of
objects by applying techniques such as machining, grinding, milling that cut off, piece
by piece, parts of the object to arrive at a final product.

The advent of additive manufacturing in 1984 (Fig 1.0), with the introduction of
Stereolithography (SLA) saw a new dimension of manufacturing process to
complement the traditional processes already existing. This was used for rapid
prototyping in creating prototypes before the production of the final product using
traditional methods (Sculpteo, 2022). Other 3D printer techniques were also patented
along with SLA, the major techniques include Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) patented
by Carl Deckard and Fused Deposition Method patented by Scott Crump (BCN3D,
2020). Today, there are several applications include 3D printing in aerospace,
engineering, medical, military and sports.
 Figure 1.0. Timeline of Additive Manufacturing (Santosh & Rajkumar, 2022)

An overview of the 3D printing production process is depicted in Fig 2.0. Each step is
unique in terms of the resources, material, and equipment utilized.
 Figure 2.0. Additive Manufacturing product process (Cotteleer, et al., 2021)

Design Phase

The initial step is based on the purpose for the creation of design and eventual
application. Some common 3D printing applications include rapid prototyping, rapid
tooling, and parts productions (Stratasys , 2022).

Rapid prototyping (Fig 3.0) involves generating prototypes of objects through the
process of iteration to make improvements and changes before producing the final
product. With 3D printing, rapid prototyping (Fig 4.0) can be achieved quickly relative
to traditional methods which could takes weeks (Ponce, 2019)

Figure 3.0. Rapid Prototyping process

 Figure 4.0. Rapid prototyping (Ponce, 2019)

Rapid Tooling using different additive manufacturing techniques to produce the

moulds and dies (Fig 5.0) used in traditional manufacturing process to produce the
final products.

Figure 5.0. Moulds made using rapid tooling with 3D printing (RAPIDMADE , n.d.)
 The final aim could be to manufacture a part quickly, hence the term 3D rapid
manufacturing which describes the process of utilizing additive manufacturing
techniques in producing final products in low volumes and not just prototypes.

Figure 6.0. General Electric’s 3D printed T25 sensor housing (ZALESKI, 2015)

The creation of the design would require utilizing a 3D design and slicing software. For
remote printing capability, another software would be required as well.

For design software, several versions and types of CAD software exists so proper
research should be carried out before selecting one. Among the popular CAD software
for 3D printing include AUTOCAD, Fusion360, 3Ds Max, TinkerCAD, Solidworks
(Roberson, 2022)

Slicing Phase

To prepare the 3D design for printing, a Slicing tool or 3D printing software (Roberson,
2022) is required. The 3D printing software converts the CAD design STL
(Stereolithography) file into a format that the 3D printer would recognize. Examples of
slicing tools include Cura, Slic3r, KISSlicer, RepSnapper (Baumann, et al., 2015)
 Figure 7.0. 3D CAD design (left), Slicing software (right) and final printed product (held) (Roberson, 2021)

Additive Manufacturing Process Phase

The 3D printing process to adopt depends on several factors which would be

considered before an appropriate technique and process can be adopted. In terms of
classification of the different additive manufacturing process, According to American
Society for testing and Materials (ASTM), there are seven (7) additive manufacturing
classifications namely Binder Jetting, Directed Energy Deposition, Material Extrusion,
Material Jetting, Powder Bed Fusion, Sheet Lamination, and Vat Photopolymerization
(SME, 2022). Additive manufacturing could also be classified based on the state of
material used Liquid, Powder or Solid as depicted in fig (Ribeiro et al., 2020).
 Figure 8.0. Classification of Additive Manufacturing processes by material state (Ribeiro et al., 2020)

Powder Based Process

Powder Bed Fusion

This process (Fig 9.0) utilizes laser beams as a source of thermal energy to sinter the
powder material layer by layer which melts and fuses to produce the final product
from the 3D CAD file. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Electron Beam Melting (EBM)
are examples of Powder Bed Fusion process.
 Figure 9.0. Powder Bed Fusion process (Sun, et al., 2016)

Binding Jetting

In Binding Jetting process (Fig 10), a binding agent is introduced selectively to the
powder material which could be metal, ceramic or composite during the printing
process.

Figure 10.0. Binding Jetting process (Wu, 2017)

Solid Based Process

Sheet Lamination

In this additive manufacturing process (Fig 11.0), thin sheets of metal are repetitively
stacked, laminated, and bound using energy sources like laser and ultrasonic energy to
produce the product that cut to the final product using methods such as laser cutting.

Figure 11.0. Sheet Lamination method. (Mercado & Arciniegas, 2020)

Directed Energy Deposition

Directed Energy Deposition process involves the creating of 3D objects by applying a

thermal source usually laser, electric arc and electron beam which melts the metal or
powder feedstock layer by layer to get the product (TWI , 2022). Due to the ability to
use powder feedstocks, Directed Energy Deposition can also be described as a powder
based additive manufacturing process.
 Figure 12.0. Directed Energy Deposition (Sing, et al., 2019)

Liquid Based Process

VAT Photo-Polymerization uses an Ultra-Violet (UV) light source to selectively cure a

photopolymer (the build material) in a reservoir/vat to produce a 3D object.
Stereolithography is an example of a VAT photopolymerization process (Rivera &
Arciniegas, 2020)
 Figure 13.0. VAT Photopolymerization process (Lee, et al., 2018)

Material Extrusion

In this additive manufacturing process, heated thermoplastic material is passed

through a nozzle and selectively fed onto the printing platform to generate the 3D
object. Examples of material extrusion process is the Fused Deposition Modelling
(FDM)
 Figure 14.0. Material Extrusion process ( Evonik Industries AG, 2020)

Material Jetting

Material Jetting is another liquid base additive manufacturing process that selectively
deposits drops of photopolymer material on the 3D print platform while curing it with
a UV light source to form the 3D object. Examples include Multi Jet Modelling (MJM)
(Cotteleer, et al., 2021)
Figure 15.0. Material Jetting process. (Sireesha, et al., 2018)
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a research gap for the project topic.
Consequently, it was important to critically review various literature on the application
of Additive Manufacturing (AM) in aircraft maintenance operations and hence develop
a research case to investigate the viability of effectively adopting AM in the Nigeria
MRO industry. Each literature was reviewed based on the following areas of
considerations.

 What are possible applications of AM in the airline MRO industry? Emphasis

was placed on what 3D printing technique and parts of the aircraft would be
best suited for AM.
 How will regulation and standardization of AM parts be carried? The European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA)
regulation were used as references.
 What are the challenges of proprietary rights of Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEM) on AM parts and what solutions have been proffered?
 Finally, a look into the key challenges faced by airlines and MROs in Nigeria.
The bottlenecks in supply chain as relates to importation of aircraft spares and
tools in Nigeria was also reviewed.

Application of Additive Manufacturing in the airline MRO industry.

Additive Manufacturing also referred to as 3D printing, (European Aviation Safety

Agency, 2017) has continued to grow through the years impacting the way
manufacturing processes have been carried out. Michael E. Kenney further describes
additive manufacturing as a rapid prototyping process alongside subtractive and
formative manufacturing processes in which prototypes are generated quickly.
(Kenney, 2013) in another perspective, Manda, et al defines AM as the printing of a
three (3) dimensional object digital file or a scanned version of the object. (Manda, et
al., 2018, p. 1). Several types of AM processes exist with each exhibiting peculiarity in
material type used and application some of which include fused deposition modelling
(FDM), stereolithographic (SL), laminated object manufacturing (LOM), selective laser
sintering (SLS), electron beam melting (EBM) (Kamber, 2019). For aerospace
applications, Uriondo, et al highlights Selective Laser melting (SLM), Electron Beam
melting (EBM), Laser Metal Deposition (LMD) and Wire and arc additive manufacturing
(WAAM) as the most applicable AM processes but these are peculiar to metal 3D
printed parts (Uriondo, et al., 2015). In contrast to Uriondo et el, Fused Deposition
method (FDM) is seen as the most popular 3D printing technique (Pervaiz, et al., 2021).
FDM utilizes polymers to produce composites parts (Pervaiz, et al., 2021) which would
equally have great applications in 3D printing aircraft parts in addition to the metal 3D
printing techniques mentioned by Uriondo et el. parts a well. Fehmihan Kamber, in
answering his research question on the differences and types of AM types commonly
utilized in aviation (AIQS2), used a pie chart (Fig 1.0) to depict the results of his
findings. His results support the inclination of the author that for aerospace AM
application FDM, EBM, WAAM, SLM and LMD are the keys techniques to adopt.
 Figure 16.0 Frequency of AM types commonly used in aviation (Kamber, 2019)

In terms of aerospace application, Yu-Cheng Wang, Toly Chen and Yung-Lan Yeh
mentioned three (3) processes in which 3D printing can be applied namely (i) Rapid
prototyping (ii) Rapid tooling and (iii) Rapid manufacturing (Wang, et al., 2018). They
described rapid prototyping as a process producing a prototype from a Computer
Aided Design (CAD) file at the design or development phase. While Rapid tooling and
manufacturing are used in the manufacturing stages to produce tools (mainly for
injection molding or die casting operations) or a product using additive manufacturing
(Wang, et al., 2018). These have several applications in 3D printing aircraft parts
(Table 1.0)
 Table 1.0. Application of 3D printing on aircrafts (Wang, et al., 2018)

The rapid manufacturing classification from table 1.0 supports the research interest of
the author as it covers manufacturing spare parts for aircraft maintenance and well as
creation of supply chain parts using 3D printing.

3D printing practices have been observed in use by major manufacturers with Boeing,
Airbus and General Electric (GE) used as examples by Wang, et al. They pointed out
that Boeing had already printied several aircraft parts and components using 3D
printing and GE used 3D printing technology to print the first metal fuel nozzle used on
the Airbus A320Neo LEAP-1A engine as well as on the Boeing 737Max (Wang, et al.,
2018). Fehmihan Kamber(2019) equally cites GE’s metal fuel nozzle as an example of
manufacturers applying 3D printing but specifically as a metal direct manufacturing
process and not generalized as Wang, et al. GE’s 3D printed fuel nozzles were
produced using the Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) on EOS printers (Kamber,
2019), this example is also illustrated by Fu et al in Fig 2.0 (Fu, et al., 2022). Kamber
further provides more 3D printing applications in Safran’s 3D printed front bearing
used on its Trent XWB 97 engine using Electron Beam Melting (EBM).
 Figure 17.0. GE’s 3D printed Fuel nozzles for the LEAP 1A engine (Fu, et al., 2022

Some Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) organizations commonly utilizes

Power Bed Fusion of metals, Selective Laser Melting (SLM) and Electron Beam Melting
(EBM) to 3D print machine parts while non-heavy loaded parts utilize Fused Deposition
Modelling (FDM) (W.Wits, et al., 2016, pp. 693-698). Notably, Etihad Engineering, in
collaboration with EOS and BigRep, produces 3D printed aircraft cabin parts using
Powder Bed Fusion techniques (Etihad, 2019). Air France/ KLM, in 2019, were granted
approval from EASA to use additive manufactured parts which in 2017 was accepted
and approved to be used on its A321 fleet (Chandavarkar, 2020). More evidence that
certain parts of the aircraft can be 3D printed are presented by Stratasys, SIA
Engineering and Additive Flight Solutions depicted in Fig 3.0. With the FDM technique,
they have produced over 5000 aircraft cabin parts. Some of the parts includes
bathroom sanitizer and soap holders, underside of cabin seat, emergency door safety
level catch used on the Boeing 787 (AMFG, 2020).
 Figure 18.0 Parts of an aircraft that can be 3D printed (AMFG, 2020)

It can be inferred that a lot of progress have been made in adopting various AM
techniques in the aerospace and specifically in the MRO industry. This is not the same
for the Nigerian, as AM is still in its development phase and hence yet to make a
significant impact in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria (O.Inoma, et al., 2020). The
author was unable to find relevant data on the application of AM in the Nigerian
Aviation industry. It is on this technological gap that the author’s research is based on.

CERTIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION OF 3D PRINTED AIRCRAFT PARTS

Qualification ensures that a prototype design, product, or material meets the specific
requirement during the design phase while Certification ensures the finished product,
material or component complies with set out technical specifications (DNV GL AS,
2017)

Chen et al. (2022) sees certification as put in place to fulfil the requirements of
certification authorities or organizations (Chen, et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2022)
mentions standards, rules, and regulations as the three (3) pillars of qualification and
certification. An overview of qualification and certification flowchart in Fig 4.0 for
metal AM was presented. (Chen, et al., 2022).

Figure 19.0 An overview of qualification and standardization of Metal Additive Manufacturing (Chen, et al., 2022)

Standards was categorized as the requirements of organizations such as American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), Aerospace Materials Society (AMS) which are working on a
standard for AM. (Chen, et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2022) describes rules as industry
practice and regulations as directives and statues backed up by law. EASA and FAA are
examples of regulatory bodies for the aerospace industry responsible for regulation,
certification, and safety standards. Fehmihan Kamber (2019) and Chen et al. (2022)
describe most AM standards as still in the developmental phase. However, EASA and
FAA have been working in collaboration with various organizations such as ASTM, ISO,
and SAE to come up with standards policies, and guidelines for the application of AM in
aircraft components maintenance and manufacturing (Singamneni, et al., 2019).
Singamneni et al. (2019). Singamneni et al explains standardization from another
perspective using Fig 5.0. where standards are group from top-level AM general
standards to material and process specific AM standards (finished parts, feedstock
materials and process). Standards that pertain to AM raw materials and how they are
produced are equally grouped together. Finally, the outer ring categorizes various AM
standards by industry (Singamneni, et al., 2019).

Figure 20.0 Classification of the standards (Singamneni, et al., 2019, p. 9)

In the aerospace industry, regulatory bodies have made efforts to establish a

framework for the certification of AM aircraft parts through collaborative efforts with
industry experts.
Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) Working Group for Additive Manufacturing
collaborated with the FAA to generate a report that addressing the certification of AM
components for aerospace use (Aerospace Industries Association, 2020). This report
outlines the requirements a Design Approval Holder (DAH) would have to satisfy when
seeking FAA certification for AM aircraft parts. It however focuses on metal AM using
Fused Deposition method (FDM) and Direct Energy Deposition (DED) techniques
(Aerospace Industries Association, 2020). But Mohd Yusuf, Cutler, and Gao (2019)
mentions specific standards that have already been developed for metal AM parts.
Some include ISO/ASTM52900-15 for AM standard terminology, ASTM F3122-14
established for mechanical properties of metal AM parts, ASTM F3049-14 created to
evaluate the characteristics of metal powders used for AM processes, MSFC-STD-3716
used for Spaceflight hardware fabricated by Laser Powder Bed metal AM, SAE AS9100
addresses Quality Management System for Space and Defence organizations (Mohd
Yusuf, Cutler, and Gao, 2019).

According to EASA Certification memorandum (CM) Additive manufacturing issue 03

(EASA CM No.: CM-S-008 Issue 03), all aircraft parts and products are required to meet
with certification specifications which include fulfilment of minimum performance
standards (flammability, strength, durability) as outlined by European Technical
Standard Order (ETSO). (EASA, 2021). This CM-S-008 issue 03 provides complementary
guidance on the use and introduction of AM to parts (aircrafts, rotorcrafts, and
propulsion) and products subject to EASA Type certification (EASA, 2021).

For Design Organization Approval (DOA) holders, EASA envisages that there would be a
higher level of involvement in compliance verification hence, DOA holders are advised
to consult with the agency (EASA) at the early stages of AM development and
implementation as it may invariably trigger a change in the design assurance system of
the DOA holder (EASA, 2021). Production Organization Approval holders on the other
are required to comply with design data issued by the DOA and would be required to
inform the regulatory as well of any implementation of AM (EASA, 2021). To avoid
non-compliance with EASA Part 21 Subpart G (European Union, 2022), POA and DOA
are advised to ensure establish strong communication links which extends to material
suppliers and any other sub-contractor that may be impacted by any change because
of AM implementation (EASA, 2021). The EASA CM-S-008 Issue 03 document also
highlights the oversight responsibility of the DOA to ensure that AM production
methods and processes adopted by POA are carried out in accordance with the design
data provided by the DOA as they as ultimately responsible (EASA, 2021).

In Nigeria, the Civil Aviation industry regulation (NCAA, 2015) refers to Title 14-part 21
Subpart G of the Code of Federal Regulation-14 CFR: 21, Subpart G (FAA, 2021) for the
requirements of production certification documentation for any part intended to be
used on any aircraft registered in Nigeria. These rules go on further to highlight the
status of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) as a non-State of Design or
Manufacturer and as such will certification of products for the use of aircraft repair,
alteration and rebuilding will be by a Production Approval Holder (PAH) issued by the
State of Manufacturer using the applicable airworthiness tag (NCAA, 2015). Although
the author was unable to find any literature on regulatory provision specific to 3D
printed aircraft parts, can it then be assumed that the NCAA would equally accept 3D
printed aircraft parts if the part is accompanied with a required certification and
documentation from the PAH or POA in the case of EASA? This is a research question
the author aims to find answers as it would create a basis to establish any framework
for the use of 3D printed parts on aircrafts registered in Nigeria.

PROPRIETARY RIGHTS, ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER (OEM)

AND 3D PRINTED PARTS

Reiner Rohr of BASF SE paints a future that presents an opportunity where intellectual
data (3D CAD files) is purchased rather than the actual spares as one way to approach
proprietary rights in the future. (Geissbauer, et al., 2017). Importantly, the 3D CAD file
would convey all the required information such material composition and process
parameters before it can be a reality (Geissbauer, et al., 2017). This is however not as
straight forward as it seems, survey results conducted by Geissbauer et al (2017) using
a mix of participants from spare parts suppliers and customers shown in Fig 6.0
suggests there are varying opinions on the application and scope of proprietary rights
of a spare part. The opinion from the survey shows a clear divide between those who
know and those who do not; almost 50-50 split. They expressed concerns of the threat
to Intellectual property (IP) that manufacturers have and as such should be addressed
if progress is to be made. In an interview conducted by PWC Strategy& Germany,
Professor Claus Emmelmann was for his opinion on issues surrounding copyrights and
Intellectual property (IP) of spare parts, his response expresses the optimism that such
would not be a major challenge in future as there is already collaboration between
OEM and suppliers especially for new parts (Geissbauer, et al., 2017).

Figure 21.0 Survey on the awareness of copyright laws related to spare parts (Geissbauer, et al., 2017)
Intellectual properties (IP) could be further broken to include patents, trademarks,
copyrights, and design rights). Depending on which applies to the part to be produced,
3D scanning and reverse engineering a part, reproducing or customizing it could
potentially lead to a host of intellectual property (IP) and originality concerns (Reeves
and Mendis, 2015). According to Reeves and Mendis (2015), simply 3D scanning and
reverse engineering a part with the trademark of the manufacture imbedded becomes
an infringement of trademark law. The Boeing Company Chicago, in its patent
US2015/0064299A (Koreis, 2015) made some provision for the authorization design
files to be purchased and 3D printed as outlined in the flowchart (Fig 7.0). This could
be viewed as another approach towards bridging the gap on challenges surrounding IP
and proprietary rights.
 Figure 22.0 Flowchart of a process for authorizing the 3D printing of a part (Koreis, 2015)

Shell Plc approaches intellectual property (IP) consideration with a different approach,
they majorly collaborate with various OEMs to provide 3D parts. In situations where
OEMs are not available, the parts are reversed engineered using 3D scanning
techniques and the 3D model sent to a commercial supplier to print; however, this is
carried in compliance with intellectual property (IP) laws. In rare cases, the parts are
printed in- house if IP laws are not violated (Van Keulen, 2021). Though this not the
aviation sector, but this approach has helped Shell make remarkable savings in its
Nigeria offshore operations. Notably, their Nigerian team were able to produce an
obsolete part on its mooring buoy of an offshore structure. Since they were able to
replace it without shutting down production, they were able to make 90% saving in
cost and on good time of 2 weeks against the 16 weeks if the conventional
replacement of the entire assembly was followed (Van Keulen, 2021).

Further research on ways proprietary rights and intellectual property issues peculiar to
the aerospace industry can be surmounted for the purpose of adopting AM technology
in Nigeria.

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CHALLENGES IN NIGERIA

Over the years, the maintenance of aircrafts in Nigeria has encountered several
challenges that has considerably increased the airline maintenance cost (Daramola and
Fagbemi, 2019). Captain Rabiu Yadudu, managing director of The Federal Airport
Authority of Nigeria (FAAN)said a key contributory cost factor was outsourced
Maintenance, Overhaul and Repairs (MRO) cost which in 2021 was approximately 2.5
billion USD (Ejike, 2022). These high costs of maintenance have pushed airlines in
Nigeria to consider establishing more MROs, Mr. Obi Mbanuzuo, Chief Operating
Officer of DANA airlines said they were looking into establishing one (Ch-aviation,
2021). Some airlines and firms already have established their MROs in Nigeria. Aero
contractors, one of the indigenous airlines has its MRO that’s offers categories A, B and
C checks for B737 (THISDAY Newspaper, 2021), EAN Aviation Ltd, an Approved
Maintenance Organization (AMO) in Nigeria for wheels and brakes for a variety of
aircraft types including B737, B777, EMB145 and a lot more (EAN Aviation Limited,
2022). Recently, 7Star Global Hangar Ltd is another example of MROs in Nigeria
(Olatunji, 2022). In the rotary wing industry, Caverton Maintenance, a subsidiary of
Caverton Offshore Group has capabilities to provide MRO services for helicopters
(Caverton Offshore Support Group, 2021) as well as Bristow Helicopters Nig. Ltd.
(BusinessDay, 2014).

Despite these capabilities to provide MRO services, these airlines and operators still
struggle with several challenges in keeping aircrafts airworthy. Adebukola Daramola
and Tunde Fagbemi (2019) in describing the constraints of airline operations
mentioned high maintenance cost which was attributed to rising foreign exchange
rate. On the other hand, Amos Akpan, Managing Director of Flight Logistics Solutions
agrees and further emphasises that Nigeria does not have the capacity to produce or
fabricate aircraft parts yet hence the need to import (THISDAY Newspaper, 2021).

On the importation of aircrafts into Nigeria, the issue of Valued Added Tax (VAT) is still
a concern for concern. Even though the Government in a bid to reduce the financial
pressure on airlines operating in Nigeria by exempting aircraft and its spare sparts from
VAT, Wole Oyebade, The Guardian newspaper, reported that 3 months after the
directive was issued the Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) had re-introduced 7.5% VAT as
well as other sundry services. He, however, also reported if prior notice was given to
the NCS before importation of the aircraft part then the exemption could be applied
via the Import Duty Exemption Certificate (IDEC). In the same report, a former Director
General of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA), Benedict Adeyileka described it
this approach as unrealistic as no operator could envisage a snag and notify the NCS
ahead of the possible failure of the part to get the IDEC before importing the part
(Oyebade, 2021). In contrast, Simon Echewofun Sunday, Daily Trust Newspaper,
reported the position of the NCS stating the against the notion that VAT and import
duty duties were collected from airlines operating in Nigeria, it only collected the
ECOWAS Trade Liberalization Scheme (ETLS) and Comprehensive Imports Supervision
Scheme (CISS) charges (Sunday, 2021).

The researcher views the situation as one that poses considerably financially
challenges for airline operators and MROs in Nigeria. Research on possible ways to
reduce this financial burden of import duties and various charges as a result on heavy
reliance on imported aircraft parts and tools are expedient and hence a key driver for
this research.

RESEARCH GAP

The literature review highlights several areas where additive manufacturing can be
applied and consequently offer cost and time saving options for airlines and MROs. The
review has equally established significant strides made towards certification and
proprietary issues surrounding aircraft parts manufactured by additive manufacturing.

The Nigerian aviation industry as the focus of this research is faced with numerous
challenges with sustaining the airworthiness state of aircrafts operated locally by
airlines and aircraft maintenance organizations. A major factor established from the
review was cost of aircraft spares and accompanies logistics. This challenge poses an
opportunity for research in new ways and strategy that can be adopted to reduce
these costs. Research in adopting additive manufacturing for aircraft spares have been
made; however no significant research has been made on how this technology can be
adopted in the Nigerian aviation industry. Closing this research gap is the objective of
this research work.
METHODOLOGY

To gain insight on the viability of adoption of additive manufacturing technology in a

Nigerian aircraft maintenance environment in line with the research objectives, the
author employed primary and secondary research methods.

The primary research method involved qualitative and quantitative research methods
which would address the research objectives set out in this research.

The qualitative research was carried out by sending a set of interview questions, via
emails, individuals from backgrounds in aircraft maintenance management, supply
chain, 3D printing, OEM and the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA). The interview
questions (see appendix) for aircraft management and supply chain were sent to
Bristow Helicopters, questions for Original Equipment Manufacturer were sent to a
representative of Sikorsky Helicopters, an Aviation Safety Inspector responded to
questions on the Nigerian regulations while the Managing Director of CADworks, a 3D
printing firm based in Nigeria, responded to questions on 3D printing/ Additive
manufacturing.

The quantitative research was carried out by using an online survey (see appendix)
comprising twenty-six (26) questions primarily focused on individuals in aircraft
maintenance, supply chain and 3D printing based in Nigeria. The online survey was
sent out via links to 120 individuals on WhatsApp and LinkedIn platforms, out of which
forty-four (44) participants responded to the twenty-six (26) survey questions (see
appendix ----). Forty-three (43) participants were majorly aircraft maintenance
engineers, while the rest were from supply chain (1) and 3D printing industry (1). The
purpose of the survey was to gain insight into the awareness of additive manufacturing
in the Nigeria aviation industry. Results from the survey would help establish to some
extent the viability and level of acceptance for adopting additive manufacturing for
aircraft maintenance in Nigeria.
The secondary research methods were utilized to investigate the key benefits of
adopting additive manufacturing technology in the Nigerian aviation industry, the
regulatory framework provided by EASA and FAA for designing and manufacturing
aircraft parts using additive manufacturing. The author also reviewed the current
regulatory provisions in the Nigerian Civil Aviation regulation (NCARs) as it relates to
the use of aeronautical parts on aircraft operating in Nigeria with an intent to establish
if the NCARs makes provision for the use and manufacture of aircrafts parts using 3D
printing.
SECONDARY RESEARCH METHODS

Benefits Of Adopting Additive Manufacturing Technology for Aircraft Maintenance in

Nigeria

Over the decades, the use of additive manufacturing (AM) technology has continued to
grow especially in the aerospace industry. As with most industries, cost is a key factor
in the actualization of profit. The adoption of AM has helped airlines and maintenance
organizations around the world find innovative ways to reduce these costs. Some of
these innovations have been highlighted in the literature review. The target of airlines
would be to reduce any event that leads to unavailability of a scheduled flight as it
translates to compensations to passenger for delays, or extra expense in providing a
spare aircraft, spares and generally an increase in operating cost (Kählert, 2017). These
chapter shall examine some of the key benefits for airlines and maintenance
organizations in Nigeria who adopt AM in terms of cost, time, and design flexibility.

Cost advantage

Import duties has been identified in the literature review as a major challenge faced by
airline operators when importing aircraft parts into Nigeria. The adoption of additive
manufacturing technology would help reduce this burden as some of these parts could
be produced in-country (Fig 23) using 3D printing. The ability to remotely print (Fig 24)
out some types of 3D parts on-demand from digital CAD files sent from the
manufacturer (Attaran, 2017) reduces the exposure to import duties and equally
logistics cost on these 3D printable parts as there are no border crossing of aircraft
parts. This could be further reduced if the 3D printing facility has the regulatory design
and production approvals to print aircraft parts in Nigeria.

Delays in parts from OEM can lead to grounding of an aircraft, some of these may be
caused by backlogs of orders or in extreme cases where the parts are no longer
manufactured by the OEM. Some of these parts can be 3D printed in country via
remotely printing the digital file or producing it using Design Organization Approval
and Production Organization Approval. By using additive manufacturing technology,
inventory cost is reduced as required parts can be 3D printed on-demand (AMFG,
2020).

Figure 23. Remote printing capability of 3D printing (National Board of Trade, 2016)
 Figure 24. 3D printing process overview (Surmen, et al., 2020)

Time Advantage

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a lot of disruptions in the Nigerian aviation industry,
and this led to delays in the acquisition and receipt of aircraft spares (Williams, n.d.).
Aside the pandemic, there are several challenges peculiar to Nigeria that adversely
affect the time frame in which aircraft spares are received. Some include poor road
networks, fuel scarcity, the terrorist threat by Boko Haram as depicted in Fig 25. With
additive manufacturing, the time frame in which parts are received can be reduced as
the technology potentially overcomes some of these bottlenecks.
 Fuel
scarcity
Insecurity Nigerian
(Boko Custom
Haram) Service

Received
Poor road
Aircraft Pandemic
networks Spares

Figure 25. Factors that delay the receipt of aircraft parts in Nigeria

Design Flexibility

Additive manufacturing enables airline in Nigeria to carry out modification on their

fleet especially fabrication that are approved under their Aircraft Maintenance
Organisation (AMO) approval. The OEM allows for some level of fabrication locally in
accordance with the applicable maintenance manual or structural repair manual.
Lufthansa Technic used additive manufacturing to 3D print a damaged ventilation duct
in the cockpit of a Boeing 747, this certified part saved cost in terms maintenance and
manufacturing time and lead times (GRIFFITHS, n.d.). As regards tools required to carry
out maintenance task, special tooling can be created using 3D printing for specific tasks
that required tools with complex orientation. Using a special 3D scanner as depicted in
Fig 24, basic tools can be scanned, transferred to the applicable CAD software where it
can be redesigned for the intended task and 3D printed.
Regulations, Certification and Approvals of 3D printed aircraft parts.

As the aviation industry is highly regulated, several regulatory requirements must be

met before an aircraft can be deemed airworthy. A key component of the
airworthiness of an aircraft is the certification of parts used on the aircraft. To have a
general overview of the aircraft parts certification, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) approach to certification of aircraft parts shall be examined. This would
provide the foundation to ascertain and evaluate the regulatory requirements and
certification options to consider for 3D printed aircraft parts in Nigeria.

An Overview of the Certification of Aeronautical parts by European Aviation Safety

Agency (EASA)

According to EASA easy access rules for Airworthiness and Environmental certification
commission regulation EU 748/2012 (European Union, 2022), organizations involved in
the design, repair, and modification of aircrafts as well as its parts and appliances must
meet the requirements as stipulated in Annex 1 (Part 21 Subpart J) of EU 748/2012
regulation. A Design Organization Approval (DOA) is required before the issuance of a
Type Certificate (TC) or a Supplementary Type Certificate (STC) (Kun & Cunxi, 2011).
For the manufacture of aeronautical parts and appliances, manufacturing
organizations would require a Production Organizational Approval (POA) in accordance
with Part 21 Subpart G of the EU 748/2012 regulation and in conformity with approved
design data from holders of DOA, TC, STC, European Technical Standard Order (ETSO)
approvals as depicted in Fig 26.0. Parts manufactured by the POA holder would come
with an authorized release certificate (EASA Form 1) document (Fig 27.0) which
certifies that the part conforms to approved design data (European Union Aviation
Safety Agency, 2015).
The Part 145 maintenance organization are allowed to fabricate parts for internal use
during maintenance activities under certain conditions as laid out by the competent
authority in accordance with EASA PART 145.A.42 (c) (European Aviation Safety
Agency, 2015). These fabricated parts should be non-critical, non-primary structural
element and not prototype parts among other restrictions imposed by the regulatory
authority.

Type Certificate (TC)

holder

Supplementary Type
Part 21 Subpart J Certificate (STC)
Design Organization holder
Part 21
Approval (DOA)
European Technical
Standard Order (ETSO)

Major Design approval

Figure 26.0. EASA aeronautical part design certification overview

Part 21
Subpart G Production Approved
Part 21 Organization
Design Data
EASA Form 1
Approval (DOA)

Figure 27.0. EASA Certification of manufactured parts

EASA certification of 3D printed aircraft parts and components

To provide more information as regards aeronautical parts produced using additive

manufacturing technology, a Certification Memorandum (CM-S-008) ( European Union
Aviation Safety Agency, 2021) was produced to provide guidance on the introduction
of additive manufactured parts requiring EASA certification. The CM-S-008 document
should be used in combination with Recommended Guidance for Certification of AM
Component produced by Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) Additive
Manufacturing Working Group (Aerospace Industries Association, 2020) as directed by
EASA. It is however, not to be used as Guidance Material (GM) or Acceptable Means of
Compliance (AMC) ( European Union Aviation Safety Agency, 2021). For AM
certification process monitoring (Fig 28), DOA and POA would have to involve EASA
during the developmental and implementation phases of additive manufacturing to
ensure compliance. The level of compliance would relate to approved design data, raw
material specification, production methods and other parameters which EASA expects
compliance.
 EASA

DOA POA

Raw
Materials

Figure 28.0. EASA compliance monitoring strategy for AM implementation

An Overview of the Certification of Aeronautical parts by Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA)

In the United States, the Federal Aviation Authority regulations uses the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14 to regulate areas that cover aeronautics and space in
which it issues out Design Certificates, Production Certificates and Airworthiness
certificates. Part 21 Subchapter C of the CFR Title 14 regulation focuses on the
certification procedures for products and parts (govinfo, 2021). An overview of the FAA
regulations is depicted in Fig 29.

Design certificates are issued in forms of Type Certificates (TC), Supplementary Type
Certificates (STC), Technical Standard Order Authorisation (TSOA), Letter of Design
Authorisation (LODA), Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA).
Production certificates are issued as Production certificates, Production under Type
certificate. Some applicable subparts of Part 21 are depicted in table 2.0.

Part 21 - Subparts
Subpart A – General
Subpart B – Type Certificates
Subpart C – Provisional Type Certificates
Subpart D – Changes to Type Certificates
Subpart E – Supplemental Type Certificates
Subpart F – Production Under Type Certificate Only
Subpart G – Production Certificates
Subpart H – Airworthiness Certificates

Table 2.0. Some FAA Part 21 Subparts

The FAA bears similarities to the EASA certification system, however some differences
exist notably in the certification of PMA parts. The FAA allows aftermarket parts for
modification or replacement to be designed and manufactured for use on type
certificated parts even though the manufacturer is not the Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM). These PMA parts, which are approved by EASA via Bilateral
agreement (UK CAA, 1995) with the FAA, can be sold as alternates to OEM parts on the
aircrafts.
 Figure 29.0. Overview of the FAA regulation (Flight Mechanics, n.d.)

The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) approach to certification of 3D aeronautical

parts

The FAA process for certifying aeronautical parts follow the same laid out standards in
line with CFR 14 Part 21. However, due to the novel nature of AM, special attention is
placed on the manufacturing processes to determine that final product meet approved
design data specification. The FAA, in developing an accepted means of compliance for
the use of AM parts, has continued to invest in research, collaborate with various
institutions, working groups on AM in line with its performance-based strategy. This
approach would potentially allow AM applicants demonstrate regulatory compliance
by fulfilling agreed standard and industry best practices developed by various working
groups on AM (FAA, 2018). In certifying the part, a risk-based approach is adopted by
the FAA in which application for the use AM in the design and production aeronautical
components are shared the FAA AM specialists. AM application with higher risk is
monitored by the Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) (FAA, 2018).

An overview on the use of aeronautical parts in the Nigerian Aviation Industry

The civil aviation regulator in Nigeria is the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA)
established under the Civil Aviation Act of 2006 (NCAA, 2006) tasked with the statutory
responsibility of ensuring regulation, promotion, and monitoring of civil aviation in
Nigeria. The NCAA carries out its functions as described in the Nigeria Civil Aviation
Regulations (NCARs) 2015, which has twenty (20) parts outlined below (Federal
Government of Nigeria, 2015).

 Part 1—General Policies, Procedures and Definitions

 Part 2—Personnel Licensing
 Part 3—Approved Training Organization
 Part 4—Aircraft Registration and Marking
 Part 5—Airworthiness
 Part 6—Approved Maintenance Organization
 Part 7—Instrument and Equipment
 Part 8—Operations
  Part 9—Air Operator Certification and Administration
 Part 10—Commercial Air Transport by Foreign Air Operators within Nigeria
 Part 11—Aerial Works
 Part 12—Aerodrome Regulations
 Part 14—Air Navigation Services Regulations
 Part 15—The Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air Regulations
 Part 16—Environmental Protection Regulations
 Part 17—Aviation Security Regulations
 Part 18—Economic Regulations
 Part 19—Consumer Protection Regulations
 Part 20—Safety Management

Currently, the Nigeria is not a State of Design or Manufacture; hence, it cannot issue its
own Type Certificate. However, airworthiness rules pertaining to the use of
aeronautical parts are covered in Part 5 of the NCARs 2015 which requires any aircraft
and aeronautical product therein operating within Nigeria to have a Type certificate or
a Production approval certificate issued by the State of Manufacture and State of
Manufacture respectively.

For the use of 3D printed aeronautical parts, the NCAA are yet to develop any
guidelines on the use of 3D printed aeronautical parts use in Nigeria this could be
attributed to the fact of Nigeria not being a State of Design or Manufacture. With the
increasing use of 3D printed parts in the aviation industry, it is a question of time
before the need to develop some form of guidelines for airlines and Maintenance
organisations who intend to manufacture, fabricate, or even design their own parts
using additive manufacturing in the nearest future.

As it stands, the use of additive manufacturing technology to manufacture

aeronautical parts in Nigeria, would require collaboration with a 3D firm that possess a
Production Approval Certificate or in terms of EASA context, a Parts Manufacturer
Approval (PMA). This would not be the case if AM aeronautical parts are manufactured
abroad and imported into Nigeria under same collaboration arrangement which still
saves downtime and reduces inventory cost.
PRIMARY RESEARCH ANALYSIS

Relevant data derived from the survey outcome (see appendix ---) are analysed by
author as follows:

Q2 - What would you say are the major cost elements in Aircraft maintenance
operations in Nigeria? Arrange in order of cost from biggest to smallest.

Analysis: From the responses (Fig 30), aircraft spares and Logistics are seen as the
major cost elements in aircraft maintenance operations in Nigeria. In the literature
review chapter of this research, airlines complained of the effect of high cost of spares
and challenges with import duties and port delays. This aligns with the survey results
and hence substantiate the need to find ways to reduce these cost elements; an area
AM could proffer solutions.
 Figure 30.0. Survey on the major cost elements of aircraft maintenance operation in Nigeria

Q3 - What are the major factors peculiar to Nigeria that increases these cost
elements? Arrange from highest to lowest.

Analysis: The Pie chart reveals 41.46 % of the response see foreign exchange rates as
the biggest factor that increases the maintenance cost elements identified in Q1.
Interestingly, 36.59% equally believe that foreign exchange rate high as the next
biggest factor while 31.71% view import duties on aviation parts as another key
contributor to increase in maintenance cost. Foreign exchange rate remains a
challenge for airline and maintenance organizations in Nigeria with the Naira further
weakening against the Dollar as depicted in Table 3.0 for official rates and exchanging
for as much as 700 NGN to the dollar on the parallel market (Curran, 2022). This
further place emphasis on the need to research into producing aircraft parts locally
which will ultimately reduce the burden on the Naira.
 Figure 31.0. Survey results on the key factors that increase maintenance cost elements

Date Currency Buying(NGN) Central(NGN) Selling(NGN)

8/5/2022 US DOLLAR 417.47 417.97 418.47

8/5/2022 POUNDS STERLING 506.8086 507.4156 508.0226

8/5/2022 EURO 427.1971 427.7087 428.2204

8/5/2022 SWISS FRANC 436.9126 437.4359 437.9592

8/5/2022 YEN 3.1339 3.1377 3.1414

8/5/2022 CFA 0.6281 0.6381 0.6481

8/5/2022 WAUA 549.9836 550.6423 551.301

 Date Currency Buying(NGN) Central(NGN) Selling(NGN)

8/5/2022 YUAN/RENMINBI 61.8373 61.9119 61.9864

8/5/2022 RIYAL 111.0883 111.2214 111.3544

8/5/2022 SOUTH AFRICAN RAND 25.0695 25.0995 25.1296

Date Currency Buying(NGN) Central(NGN) Selling(NGN)

Table 3.0. Official Foreign exchange rates of Naira to other currency (CBN, 2020)

Q5 - How knowledgeable would you say you are on the applications of 3D printing?

Analysis: From Fig 32.0, slightly over 50% of responders have a basic knowledge of 3D
printing. This helps the responders better evaluate the viability of adopting this
technology as compared to a scenario where over 50% did not have any knowledge of
3D printing.
 Figure 32.0. Survey results on the knowledge of 3D printing

Q6 - Is your company currently using or plans to use 3D printing technology for the
production of aircraft spares and tools?

Analysis: The results shows that most airlines and maintenance are not adopting 3D
technology except the 7.14% who are knowledgeable on the use of 3D printing as
shown in Fig 32.0. These group are likely to be 3D printing professionals who could
already have plans to delve into the aviation space having already adopted 3D printing
technology in other areas besides aviation. This is still a novel technology in the
Nigerian Aviation industry.

Figure 33.0. Survey results on whether companies are using or plan to use 3D printing

Q7 - Do you think 3D firms in Nigeria can handle printing of aircrafts parts and tools
using 3D printing?
Analysis: The results here (Fig 34) show majority of participant are not certain that 3D
firms can handle the manufacture of aircraft parts using 3D printing technology. This
may be because of the fact that there is no specific regulatory framework for the
manufacture of aircraft parts using additive manufacturing technology in Nigeria hence
3D firms in Nigeria would be constrained in providing such services to the airlines and
maintenance organization in Nigeria.

Figure 34.0. Survey results on confidence in local 3D firms to handle aircraft parts manufacture

Q8 - What do you think are the advantages of adopting 3D printing into aircraft
maintenance? Rank from biggest to smallest

Analysis: According to the survey results for Q8, the main advantages of adopting 3D
printing into aircraft maintenance are reduced cost, reduced downtime, and
production on demand respectively. These results further establishing the need for the
adoption of 3D printing for aircraft maintenance operations.

Figure 35.0. Key advantages of adopting 3D printing in aircraft maintenance

Q9 - What are the likely challenges with the adoption of 3D printing for airlines and
maintenance organizations operating in Nigeria? Rank from biggest to smallest.

Analysis: Regulation and certification is seen as the major challenge likely to hinder the
successful adoption of 3D printing; OEM proprietary rights comes next along with
initial set-up cost for a 3D printing facility. The issue of regulation and certification of
3D printed parts is a global challenge; the Nigerian regulator would have come up with
guidelines and specific regulations pertaining to the use of additive manufacturing to
produce aircraft parts. More research would be required on how Nigeria can attain a
State of Manufacture of Design to ease the implementation of additive manufacturing
technology for aircraft maintenance in Nigeria. On proprietary rights, negotiation is key
to solving this challenge. Collaborative efforts with foreign 3D printing firms with
design and production approvals could provide alternative options to airlines and
maintenance organisations in Nigeria in producing 3D printed without reliance on the
OEM.
 Figure 36.0. Survey results on the major challenges to adopting 3D printing

Q10 - Which classification of aircraft components and parts should 3D be applied?

Analysis: Clearly survey results reveal the choice of non-critical aircraft components
and parts as where 3D printing should be applied. Being a relatively new technology, it
would seem less complicated in manufacturing non-critical parts using additive
manufacturing technology.
 Figure 37.0. Survey results on whether to adopt 3D printing on critical or non-critical parts

Q11 - Realistically, what part of the aircraft in your opinion would be best suited for
3D printing for a start?

Analysis: Clearly Cabin interiors is the most preferred choice (Fig 38.0) for a start for
any organization planning to adopt 3D printing to manufacture aircraft parts. This has
been the approach of many airlines and MRO around the world who have adopted 3D
printing. Cabin interiors, mainly plastics and polymers would pose a lesser regulatory
hurdle to scale and would be easier to manufacture compared to metal parts
(GRIFFITHS, 2018)
 Figure 38.0. Survey results on what part of the aircraft should 3D printing be applied for a start

Q14 - Do you think investing in additive manufacturing technology for aircraft

maintenance would be viable in Nigeria?

Analysis: On the viability, the response (Fig 39.0) on whether adopting 3D printing
would be viable is split at 48.78% between those who believe it would be and those
would are not certain it would be. However, the results still indicate that majority
believe that adopting 3D printing has some potential to be viable to invest.

Figure 39.0. Survey results on whether 3D printing is viable

Q15 - Do you think airlines and maintenance organizations in Nigeria would be
willing to invest in additive manufacturing/3D printing?

Analysis: Generally, most respondents agree that airlines and maintenance

organisations in Nigeria would be willing to invest in AM especially if the right
regulatory framework and technical expertise are available.

Figure 40.0. Survey results on whether companies will invest in 3D printing

Q16 - How do you think airlines and maintenance organizations in Nigeria can
successfully adopt additive manufacturing into their operations?

Analysis: As depicted in Fig 41.0, 62.50% of the responders believe that airlines and
maintenance organizations should explore collaboration with a notable 3D printing
firm to accomplish the adoption of 3D printing for the manufacture of aircraft parts
and special tools. Many airlines and MROs have explored the route notably Etihad
Engineering, BigRep and EOS partnership earlier mentioned in the literature review of
this research.

Figure 41.0. Survey results on the implementation strategy for 3D printing

Q17 - If a maintenance organisation or an airline in Nigeria was willing to invest,

what should be their primary scope in terms 3D printing capability?

Analysis: All the responders believe the primary scope in terms of 3D printing
capability should be under a Production Organization approval (POA). This would
however be in collaboration with a 3D firm with this approval. In the implementation,
the NCAA should be involved from the onset, and they should provide guidelines on
the use of 3D printed aircraft parts. Efforts towards attaining a State of Design or
Manufacture would be further encourage the use of additive manufacturing
technology in Nigeria.
 Figure 42.0. Survey results on the choice of Production or Design approvals.

Q18 - In terms of inventory procurement methods, what method is experience or

adopted in your company?

Analysis: Drop shipping is a supply chain model where the customer places an order
for a product on a seller’s website and gets the product delivered by the supplier or
manufacturer.
 Figure 43.0. Drop shipping model

Over 50% of the respondents say that their company use this supply chain model
which as with all supply chain would have both pros and cons. One of these cons could
arise if there are large backup logs of orders on the part of the seller or delays in
delivery on the part of the supplier; the customer has little of no control on the time
and availability of the parts ordered. Adopting additive manufacturing techniques
could give some sort of control over the parts availability and delivery time frame to
the customer especially in Nigeria.

Figure 44.0. Survey results on what supply chain model companies use when ordering parts
Q19 - How much do you think it will cost your airline per hour in terms of losses if one
of its aircraft was grounded (AOG) as a result of lack/ delay aircraft spares in
Nigeria?

Q20 - Are there any parts of the aircraft (including special tools) that are fabricated
in-house in your company using traditional methods such as sheet metal etc.?

Analysis: The results reveal that most airlines and maintenance organizations in
Nigeria already carry out in house repairs and fabrication using sheet metal
techniques. This could be seen as a good framework towards the introduction of
additive manufacturing within their approval capability. It also makes it easier to build
the additive manufacturing expertise in-house.
 Figure 45.0. Survey results on how many companies fabricate in house using sheet metal techniques

Q26 - In terms of cost saving, how much do you envisaged a maintenance

organization or airline can save if it adopts 3D printing technology?

Analysis: As with any new technology, the viability of the technology hinges on factors
such as projected cost savings. More than 50% of the responders believe that adopting
3D printing would amount to more than 20% cost saving. This optimistic viewpoint
gives a positive outlook on how people view the benefits of 3D printing. Further
analysis would be required to substantiate this projection as regards actual cost saving
in the Nigerian aviation industry.
 Figure 46.0. Survey results on the projected cost saving from 3D printing

Qualitative Research Report and Analysis

Responses from the set of questions (appendix) sent out would give more details on
the following aspects:

 The position of the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) on the use of
additive manufacturing technology to produce aircraft parts in Nigeria.
 The view of airlines and maintenance organizations senior management on the
use and adoption of additive manufacturing
 The response of the OEMs on the issue of proprietary rights and any other legal
issues
 How 3D printing companies in Nigeria can collaborate with airlines and
maintenance organizations as regards the use of additive manufacturing for
aircraft maintenance in Nigeria.
Summary of Response from the Airline’s Engineering Management

A set of questions was sent to a senior engineering management personnel at Bristow

Helicopters Nigeria; details of response to question are provided in the Appendix

On the issue of cost, he revealed labour, aircraft parts and shipping as the major cost
elements for Bristow Helicopters in Nigeria. This is consistent with financial challenges
faced by Nigerian airlines as mentioned in the literature review section of this
research.

Reacting to the question on the potential of using 3D printing in the company, he

experienced concerns on the liability responsibility in an event of component failure
and the lack of regulatory guidelines for the use of this technology. These may hinder
the future possibility of using 3D printing.

Finally, he shared same position as majority of the participants of the survey on the
need for collaboration with a reputable 3D firm.

Summary of Response from the Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA)

An NCAA Aviation Safety Inspector of the Airworthiness Directorate responded to the

questions on Nigerian regulations. Details of his response are found in Appendix

The NCAA requires all parts to be installed on aircrafts operating in Nigeria to be

accompanied with an EASA Form 1 or FAA 8130 authorisation certificate and must be
traceable. Despite there being no provisions in the regulation that specifically
addresses the use of 3D printed aircraft parts, the installation of aircraft parts which
were manufactured using additive manufacturing technology can be used as long the
parts have met the certification requirement from the State of Design and are
accompanied with either an EASA form 1 or FAA 8130 certificates. For the actual
production of aircraft parts using additive manufacturing technology in Nigeria, there is
no framework within the NCARs that addresses this. This is a potential research area in
the future as having a framework for organizations interested in 3D printing its aircraft
parts to adopt would go a long way in addressing the numerous challenges operators
in Nigeria faced as highlighted in the literature review of this research. From the
response of the NCAA staff, though 3D printing aircraft parts in Nigeria would be
challenge, aircraft parts that are 3D printed can be used if the certification documents
accompany the items.

Airlines and maintenance organizations in Nigeria can collaborate with a DOA/POA to

design and produce aircraft parts and have them shipped in. This strategy would yield
some benefits such as time savings, cost, and design flexibility. Ultimately, the NCAA
would have to work towards attaining State of Manufacture or Design status before
the full benefits of adopting 3D printing be actualised.
INVENTORY COST OPTIMIZATION USING 3D PRINTING
A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE ADOPTION OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

The final part of this research proposes a strategic plan which can be employed by
airlines and maintenance organizations in Nigeria interested in adopting additive
manufacturing technology (3D printing) into their operations. The author has
developed a strategic plan guide as depicted in Fig 47.0 which addresses key elements
that have be accomplished for the adoption of additive manufacturing technology.
 Figure 47.0. Strategic plan guide for Additive Manufacturing adoption

Assumptions

 Collaborative agreements have been made with a Production Organisation

Approval (POA), applicable OEM and Design Organization Approval (DOA)
holders issued by EASA or the FAA equivalent.
 The POA has the capability of producing aircraft parts and tools using additive
manufacturing technology.
 Application of additive manufacturing shall focus on cabin interiors parts
 The organizations have all the Quality and Safety management system in place.

Strategic Plan Overview

The strategic plan gives a roadmap for the actualization of incorporating additive
manufacturing into maintenance operations with the primary purpose of reducing
maintenance cost. The plan shall cover several key areas such as resources
requirements, documents and contracts, analysis, and organizational structures. The
primary focus shall be on the production of non-critical parts such cabin interiors and
maintenance tools. Based on the results of the survey, the author recommends a
collaborative partnership with a POA with 3D printing capabilities certified by either
EASA or FAA. The flowchart (Fig 48.0) highlights the key inter-relational processes from
the aircraft part requisition stage through the supply chain spares planning network to
the production of the part using additive manufacturing.

The core of the implementation plan would hinge on the spares inventory plan set up
by the organization’s supply chain in conjunction with the various stakeholders. The
overall goal would be to find a balance between parts availability and total cost where
parts are availability when required but at the lowest possible cost. In the spares
inventory plan, the organization should also determine what part would be ordered via
suppliers and what parts would be 3D print on-demand. Professor Jing-Sheng Song of
Duke University designed a mathematical model that could assist companies decide on
what to stock and what to 3D print (Song and Zhang, 2016).

Figure 48.0. Strategic Plan process

There are several parts of the aircraft interior that can be 3D printed whether it’s a
fixed wing, Rotary, or other types of aircrafts. The POA which the airline or
maintenance organization intends to collaborate will need to have an interface
agreement with the DOA holder having the sole design privileges as stated in EASA
part 21A (EASA, 2003). In terms of printing options; a few options could be explored as
detailed in fig….. and ……..