Menu AIRCRAFT Search

Home Newsroom Intermittent repetitive failure

15 December 2022
FAST

Intermittent repetitive failure

Find it, fix it!

Identifying, analysing, then fixing a failure is the standard

troubleshooting scenario.
Share
However, how can you ensure that an intermittent failure is
adequately fixed, to prevent undesired consequences?

A case of reversion to alternate

law Keywords
Publication FAST Services
On several successive flights, A320 flight crew noted an ECAM
Maintenance
warning F/CTL ELAC 1 PITCH FAULT. They informed the maintenance
team who then investigated. However, the fault did not show up
during any of the ground checks. The aircraft was systematically
released back into service by using ELAC resets and without further Latest FAST articles
troubleshooting.

After several flights, the aircraft experienced a F/CTL ELAC 2 PITCH

FAULT which when combined with the latent F/CTL ELAC 1 PITCH
FAULT led to the loss of flight control normal law and to a reversion to
alternate law* F/CTL ALTN LAW. The crew landed safely, although
extra monitoring was required in addition to their standard tasks.

FAST 08 March 2023

Turbulence
alert - The
collaborative…
The case above is a typical example of a repetitive failure combined network
Turbulence can put stress on
passengers, crew and aircraft. In
with another single failure leading to more severe consequences on worst cases, it can also lead to
the aircraft systems and handling in flight. Limiting repetitive failures injuries as well as aircraft damage.
is key to prevent potentially aggravating situations. That is What if pilots had more advance
why repetitive failures should not be ignored and require an efficient warning and more precise data
about upcoming turbulence thanks
monitoring process.
to a collaborative digital solution?
What if they could prepare
* Reversion to alternate law means all protections, except manoeuvre
themselves and their passengers
protections, are lost. Refer to FCOM PRO-ABN-F_CTL and even avoid the zone
altogether?

Why spotting intermittent

Read more
repetitive failures can be difficult
An intermittent failure is one that the maintenance team may not
confirm on the ground when performing the fault confirmation test
from the troubleshooting manual (TSM). This may be because the
failure is only triggered during certain flight conditions (flight phase,
humidity, temperature, …).

An intermittent failure becomes repetitive if not identified and fixed.

The notion of repetition applies to failures that appear on a particular
aircraft during the same or on different flights, and not necessarily
consecutively. This may be despite maintenance actions being
carried out as rectification attempts.

Maintenance teams may be tempted to try to « fix » a failure by

resetting computers. However, this may only clear the indication, with
FAST 15 December 2022
the failure remaining latent.

Inappropriate system resets may seem to be a "quick-fix" on the Intermittent

ground to dispatch the aircraft. But they are not consistent with TSM
recommendations and are outside the scope of the applicable repetitive
published Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). These
resets can lead to hidden deteriorating conditions of the system and failure
to unexpected side effects. Identifying, analysing, then fixing a
failure is the standard
More on resets: Safety First article “System Reset: Use with Caution troubleshooting scenario.
” - July 2021
However, how can you ensure that
an intermittent failure is adequately
fixed, to prevent undesired
consequences?

Read more

FAST 07 November 2022

End-of-life
Reusing,
recycling,…
rethinking
Have you ever wondered how much
recycled material is used in the
A320 breakers building of Airbus aircraft and how
much of the aircraft can be
A320 circuit breakers used for computer reset. recycled?
Reusing and recycling have been
The difficulty also lies in identifying a failure which does not have a part of this industry for years.
set timely pattern. It may keep happening but irregularly, and maybe However, with today’s spotlight
not even on successive flights. firmly focussed on sustainability,
aviation must deliver noticeable
results, show engagement and

3 keys to addressing repetitive sometimes even completely rethink

materials and ways of working.

failures What options should operators

consider today for an aircraft at the
end of its flying life, and what is
 Report failures around the corner for becoming
even more sustainable?
A failure not recorded by flight crew and not properly investigated by
maintenance teams may, over time, combine with other independent
failure, leading to a possible NO GO situation or to severe operational Read more
consequences.

Any failure should be recorded by the flight crew or the maintenance

personnel. This includes:

- failures not monitored by systems, like noises or vibrations, as

they will not trigger any ECAM alert or PFR record allowing
maintenance to identify a repetition.

- any reset of any computer as repetitive resets could indicate a

permanent failure.

Proper reporting associated with an accurate review of maintenance

history will allow efficient monitoring for identification of those
failures to be considered as repetitive.

2. Adopt an efficient system for monitoring

Setting the thresholds

Depending on regulation and depending on local authorities’
requirements, airlines may be required to put in place a system for
detecting and managing repetitive failures in order to fix them as
early as possible to ensure safety objectives are met.

The repetition, and the timeframe of repetition are the two main
drivers. The key for successful monitoring is to understand where to
set the associated threshold. Several factors need to be considered
and adapted to the context. Some examples are:

frequency of the failure compared to the number of flights

aircraft configuration (MOD embodied, open MMEL items, …)
affected aircraft systems
potential spurious indications using CMS filter, TFU, ISI, …
engineering experience

The monitoring system should be able to cover events occurring over

both short and long-term periods. Priority should be given to short-
term monitoring to address frequent, repetitive failures and catch
them as early as possible. For short-term monitoring, using a rolling-
period is recommended as it is continuous and consequently much
more accurate.

However, the frequency of intermittent failures may start accelerating

over time as the faulty equipment/part condition deteriorates. Long-
term monitoring can be beneficial to detect increasing trends earlier,
allowing teams to anticipate troubleshooting slots and resources.

Using an adapted monitoring tool

Airbus recommends maintenance teams carry out daily monitoring by

using the aircraft data, logbook entries and associated maintenance
actions. However, for longer-term monitoring, an adapted tool
connected to raw data is a key enabler, such as the Airbus Skywise
Health Monitoring (SHM) or a maintenance information system as this
will automate the identification of repetitions.

Finally, the monitoring system has to be constantly challenged to

confirm the selected monitoring thresholds are still appropriate to
identify the targeted repetitions.

EFCS graph 2

This example shows a failure which increased over a long period. A

monitoring tool would have identified the trend much earlier.

3. Troubleshoot on the ground

When a fault or a crew observation is reported, the first step of

troubleshooting for the maintenance teams is to confirm the failure
on the ground by testing the system or reproducing it.

The risk is that, in some instances, intermittent failures might not be

confirmed and may be perceived as a spurious or as an isolated case
and not further investigated. This risk is even more present if there
are time or operational constraints.

In all cases, after three occurrences of a failure, even if it is still not

confirmed, the Airbus troubleshooting manual (TSM) recommends
applying the fault isolation steps until the failure has been resolved.

An appropriate monitoring also allows detecting an equipment that

experiences a similar failure scenario after repeated short service
periods, also called a rogue unit. Such parts are likely returned as
NFF from the shop. If a failure condition has not been identified and
such a part is installed on aircraft, it may contribute to leave latent
failure on aircraft.

Refer to AirbusWorld > Content Library > Supplier Support >

Contracts > No Fault Found Policies for more information on rogue
units and NFF policies.

By strictly conforming to regulations and to published procedures,

flight crew and maintenance teams can limit exposure time to
repetitive failures - crucial to ensure aircraft safety.

Such failures require specific attention as they are difficult to

identify and to troubleshoot.

Airbus recommends flight operations and maintenance teams:

systematically report occurrences and maintenance actions,

including resets
identify repetitive failures, using appropriate monitoring
always keep in mind that troubleshooting can start with
authorised resets but should not end there. The appropriate
troubleshooting actions, recording and proper monitoring
should always follow.

Your contact

Cyril Montoya Jean-François

Maintenance Safety Enhancement
Bourchanin
Manager
Expert Operations Flight Controls
cyril.c.montoya@airbus.com
jean-
francois.bourchanin@airbus.c
om

FAST Online
The Airbus technical magazine FAST
(Flight, Airworthiness, Support and
Technology)

Read more

Airbus Aircraft Airbus Services Customer Care

A220 Train Customer Care Experience

Let's stay in touch A320 Operate Aircraft Entry Into Service

A330 Maintain AOG and Aircraft Care

A350 Enhance Fleet Wide Care

A380 Expand Customer Care Interfaces

Freighters
Contact us
Airspace

Useful Links

AirbusWorld

NAVBLUE

Satair

Testia

Skywise

TechRequest

Airbus Corporate

Privacy policy Terms of use Contact us © AIRBUS 2024.

Accessibility: Partially Compliant Cookie Settings