Abstract:
A method for automating tracking of an effectiveness of fault repairs. The method may involve defining a unique fault code for each one of a plurality of different faults; cataloging faults that are repaired according to their respective fault codes and storing each cataloged fault in a fix effectiveness subsystem; placing the fix effectiveness subsystem in communication with an electronic logbook (ELB) system that is able to populate the fix effectiveness subsystem with additional fault information; providing a user interface to enable a user to access said ELB system to obtain information on a specific fault condition that was previously stored on the fix effectiveness subsystem; and presenting a fault history to the user from information stored in the fix effectiveness subsystem that enables the user to select a repair procedure for correcting the specific fault condition.

Description:
FIELD 
     The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for logging defect reports, and more particularly to a system and method for electronically logging defect reports so that the effectiveness of repair actions can be tracked over time and displayed when addressing a subsequent occurrence of a defect. 
     BACKGROUND 
     The statements in this section merely provide background information related to the present disclosure and may not constitute prior art. 
     In commercial aircraft maintenance operations, current fault isolation and troubleshooting procedures provide some guidance to an airline by recommending procedures for a maintenance person to follow, based on a variety of observations. These procedures are developed during initial design and certification of an aircraft and often provide a variety of ways to address a fault condition. 
     Of the variety of ways, it is left to the experience of the airline mechanic to decide what course of repair action to follow. This can lead to repeated “shotgun maintenance” where parts are removed/replaced with the hope that a fault condition is repaired. Knowledge of previous fault observations and the outcome of the repair attempts made to address the fault condition will help improve choosing the maintenance task/action when a defect occurs again. 
     Current tracking of fix effectiveness is performed on aircraft monitored faults. This occurs when fault conditions that an aircraft subsystem detects are reported automatically to a central maintenance computing function. The reports are then collected by an aircraft fault monitoring and fix effectiveness tracking tool. However, the current “automatic” fault recording does not extend to human observed and reported defects, which can be termed “non-monitored defects”. For non-monitored faults, airlines rely on fixed fault isolation procedures supplemented by informal experience based knowledge of line mechanics and maintenance control personnel. Knowledge of historical fix effectiveness and use of this information to select a proper course of action is significantly influenced by individual experience. 
     The existing use of informal knowledge based on past experience allows for only very limited “learning” of what is the best course of corrective action to take for a specific, given fault observation. Thus, the probability of the maintenance technician selecting a repair action that corrects the fault condition immediately on the first repair attempt is expected to be lower with the current experience-based methods, when compared to an automated and data driven repair effectiveness tracking method. Furthermore, while the mechanic and/or maintenance experience may be effective in some instances in quickly identifying the proper repair action, it still does not allow a maintenance organization to learn effectively from the experience of its individual members. Nor does it facilitate using the accumulated knowledge of individual maintenance persons by an airline or the larger aviation community. 
     SUMMARY 
     In one aspect the present disclosure relates to a method for automating tracking of an effectiveness of fault repairs. The method may comprise defining a unique fault code for each one of a plurality of different faults. Faults that are repaired are catalogued according to their respective fault codes and each cataloged fault is stored in a fix effectiveness subsystem. The fix effectiveness subsystem is placed in communication with an electronic logbook (ELB) system that is able to populate the fix effectiveness subsystem with additional fault information. A user interface is provided to enable a user to access the ELB system to obtain information on a specific fault condition that was previously stored on the fix effectiveness subsystem. A fault history is then presented to the user from information stored in the fix effectiveness subsystem that enables the user to select a repair procedure that has an increased likelihood of correcting the specific fault condition. 
     In another aspect the present disclosure relates to a method for automating tracking of an effectiveness of fault repairs. The method may comprise defining a unique fault code for each one of a plurality of different fault conditions. Faults that are repaired are then catalogued according to their respective fault codes and each cataloged fault is stored in a fix effectiveness database. The fix effectiveness database is placed in communication with an electronic logbook (ELB) system that is able to populate the fix effectiveness database with additional fault information from at least one external source. A user is provided with an interface to enable the user to access the ELB system to obtain information on a specific fault condition that was previously stored on the fix effectiveness database. A fault history is presented to the user from information stored in the fix effectiveness database that enables the user to select a repair procedure that has an increased likelihood of correcting the specific fault condition. The user interface enables the user to input information concerning a repair procedure performed and parts removed and replaced by the user to remove the specific fault condition, into a fix effectiveness tool in communication with the fixed effectiveness database. The inputted information is stored as a codified defect report for future access in the fix effectiveness database. 
     In still another aspect the present disclosure relates to a system for automating tracking of an effectiveness of fault repairs. The system may comprise an electronic logbook (ELB) system for generating fault repair information. A fix effectiveness subsystem is in communication with the ELB system and used for cataloging faults that are repaired according to specific fault codes, and storing each cataloged fault as a codified defect report. The ELB system is able to populate the fix effectiveness subsystem. A user interface enables a user to access the ELB system to obtain information on a specific fault condition that was previously stored on the fix effectiveness subsystem. The user interface includes a visual display that presents a fault history report comprised of a plurality of previously stored codified defect reports to the user from information stored in the fix effectiveness subsystem. The fault history report enables the user to select a repair procedure that has an increased likelihood of ameliorating the specific fault condition. 
     Further areas of applicability will become apparent from the description provided herein. It should be understood that the description and specific examples are intended for purposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The drawings described herein are for illustration purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present disclosure in any way. 
         FIG. 1  is a block diagram of a system in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure; 
         FIG. 2  is a flowchart illustrating operational steps in preparing the system  10  for use; and 
         FIG. 3  is a flowchart illustrating operations performed by the system in monitoring the effectiveness of a repair operation taken by a user. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     The following description is merely exemplary in nature and is not intended to limit the present disclosure, application, or uses. It should be understood that throughout the drawings, corresponding reference numerals indicate like or corresponding parts and features. 
     Referring to  FIG. 1 , a system  10  for tracking the effectiveness of maintenance and/or repair operations is shown in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. The system  10  may be used with a mobile platform, for example an aircraft  12 , an airline  14  operating the aircraft, and other aviation entities within an aviation community  16  (e.g., other airlines or maintenance organizations). However, it will be appreciated that the system  10  is not limited to use with only mobile platforms. The system  10  is expected to find utility in any application where it is desirable to track the effectiveness of repair and/or maintenance operations. Such other applications might involve, for example, the maintenance of complex machinery or computer systems within a factory environment. Alternatively, the system  10  could just as readily be implemented in connection with the repair and/or maintenance of marine vessels, spacecraft, land vehicles, under water vessels, etc. 
     In this example the system  10  is used with the aircraft  12 , with the aircraft  12  having an on-board electronic logbook (“ELB”) system  18 . The system  10  itself may include a ground based ELB administration system  20  (hereinafter simply the “ground based ELB system  20 ”) that is in bidirectional communication with a fix effectiveness subsystem  21  having a fixed effectiveness database  22  and a fix effectiveness tracking tool  24 . The fix effectiveness database  22  and tracking tool  24  are both in bidirectional communication with a user interface formed by a computer terminal  26 , via the ground based ELB system  20 . The user computer terminal  26  in this example has a keyboard  28 , a processor  30  and a display terminal  32 . A user  34 , who may be associated with the airline  14  or another entity connected with the aviation community  16 , may input fault, repair or maintenance information to the ground based ELB system  20  via the keyboard  28 . The user  34  may view fault history, repair history and fix effectiveness information stored in the fix effectiveness database  22  via the display terminal  32 . Alternatively, the fix effectiveness database  22  and the fix effectiveness tracking tool  24  could form a portion of a separate aircraft health maintenance software application that the system  10  is interfaced to. 
     In general, the on-board ELB system  18  communicates with the ground based ELB system  20  of the system  10 . The ground based ELB system  20  may also receive repair or fault history information updates from either the airline  14  or the aviation community  16 . The ground based ELB system  20  may provide fault history updates to the fix effectiveness database  22 . The ground based ELB may also obtain fault history information stored in the fix effectiveness database and may forward same to the airline  14  and the aviation community  16 . Thus, the fix effectiveness database  22  may be populated by information input by the user  34  as well as information originating from the on-board ELB system  18 , the ground based ELB system  20 , the airline  14 , the aviation community  16  or any other entity having valuable repair/maintenance information that would be advantageous to maintenance persons and/or mechanics. The fix effectiveness tracking tool  24  may be formed by a system or database that tracks information concerning specific repair actions taken and any follow up repair actions for the same problems, or the absence of follow up actions for a specific repair action taken. 
     Fault or maintenance information is stored in the fix effectiveness database  22  through the creation of codified defect reports and codified maintenance actions and part replacements. A specific codified defect report, for example, may include information concerning a specific fault that was encountered by a maintenance person, a specific fault object (e.g., a particular sensor, valve, etc.) existing on the aircraft  12 , a specific condition of the object found (or believed) to be at fault, and a specific location of the object. The codified defect report may also include a date on which the repair action was performed, as well as the name of the maintenance individual that created the report. The fault may be assigned a specific fault code (e.g., a number or alphanumeric) that represents the fault and enables the codified defect report to be cataloged in, and retrieved quickly from, the fix effectiveness database  22 . Similarly, a codified maintenance action may include information on a part that has been replaced as well as any specific tasks performed as part of a maintenance action (e.g., recalibration or alignment of a subsystem after installing the new part). 
     Within the fix effectiveness database  22  various codified defect reports or codified maintenance actions may be grouped to form a fault history report or a maintenance history report. Either report may be displayed on the display terminal  32 . The fault history report may present all of the codified defect reports relating to a specific part that has been replaced, or a specific fault condition. The maintenance history report may similarly include a listing of all of the codified maintenance reports concerning the maintenance of a specific component or subsystem, for example what parts were replaced and on what date, any adjustments, alignments. calibrations, cleanings, or other maintenance operations that were performed in connection with the replaced part or maintenance operation. Thus, it will be appreciated that a maintenance operation may or may not involve the replacement of a particular component part; nevertheless, the codified maintenance report created will include the pertinent information concerning the just-performed maintenance action. 
     The user  34  may retrieve a fault and/or repair history from the fix effectiveness database  22  by using any suitable input device, for example a keyboard  28 . The use of keyboard  28  enables the inputting of words via the keyboard  28  that either describe the fault condition or the suspected faulty part, or by a part number of a suspected (or known) faulty part, or by a predetermined fault code associated with the specific fault condition. It may also be possible use a mouse and a menu tree to enable the user to input specific part numbers, fault codes, etc. The ground based ELB system  20  uses the inputted information to construct the fault history report using previously stored fault information in the fix effectiveness database  22 . 
     The ground based ELB system  20  (or the alternative aircraft health management application  25 ) may also monitor new codified defect reports entered into the fix effectiveness database  22  and updates each newly entered report with a “successful” designation if no subsequent codified defect report is entered for the exact same component within a predetermined time interval, for example 15 days. Thus, a maintenance person who has pulled up codified defect reports (pertaining to a specific object and specific fault condition) will see previously performed repair actions and/or part replacements by other maintenance persons and information on the rate of accomplishing a successful repair via those specific repair actions and/or parts replaced. This display of information may provide a ranked order indicating first the most successful repair options followed by less successful options. 
     The use of codified defect reports also makes it easy to generate reports concerning the repair effectiveness of specific repair procedures relative to specific components. The system  10  (with or without the use of the aircraft health maintenance application  25 ) accomplishes this by determining the percentage of successful repairs when a specific repair action is performed on a specific component a number of times over a given time period. For example, the system  10  can generate an error report showing that replacement of a specific valve in response to a specific type of fault condition will result in a 99% repair success rate. 
     Turning now to  FIG. 2 , a flowchart  100  is shown that sets forth exemplary operations in forming and preparing the system  10  for use. At operation  102 , all fault codes are defined, including the name of the component, the defective conditions for the component and the possible locations of the component, for each fault to be tracked by the fix effectiveness database  22 . At operation  104  all fault codes are loaded into the ground based ELB system  20 . At operation  106  the fix effectiveness database  22  is exported (i.e., populated with fault codes and available repair options and their fix effectiveness rating). At operation  108  the fix effectiveness database  22  is imported into the ground based ELB system  20 . At operation  110  the combined fault code and fix effectiveness database is built from the ELB system  20  and deployed to the ELB system for offline use. 
     Referring to the flowchart  200  of  FIG. 3 , a sequence of operations will be described in using the system  10 . At operation  210  a maintenance person analyzes a fault, for example a suspected faulty component or subsystem, and initially uses the computer system  26  to pull up any available fault history information data stored in the fix effectiveness database  22 , as indicated at operation  212 , that is available for offline use by the maintenance person. This may involve the ground based ELB system  20  checking the fix effectiveness database  22  to see if any pertinent fault history information is available. If such fault history information is available, then the information is displayed on the display terminal  32  for the user to view, as indicated at operation  114 . The maintenance person considers the available fault history information before deciding on a specific course of repair (e.g., replacing a specific component). The maintenance person then proceeds with performing a specific repair or corrective action, as indicated at operation  214 . The maintenance person then documents the corrective action at operation  216 . This may involve documenting specific tasks performed and/or specific parts removed and replaced through a maintenance action completion record generated by the maintenance person. The maintenance action completion record may include specific tasks performed (by task number) and part numbers changed. These task numbers performed and part numbers changed (which may be viewed as “codes”) may be used as the basis for tracking fix effectiveness. In addition to this, maintenance action documentation may typically include an overall maintenance action code, but this would not necessarily help fix effectiveness tracking as it would indicate “part changed” or “adjusted”, but may not specify in sufficient detail what specific action was performed. At this point the work of the maintenance person is finished, as indicated at operation  218 . However, operation of the system  10  continues with the ELB ground based system  20  sending corrective action information to the fix effectiveness tracking tool  24  ( FIG. 1 ) as indicated at operation  220 . 
     The task of starting the processing of maintenance actions and monitoring of success of the repair/maintenance action (using the fix effectiveness tool  24 ) is indicated at operation  222 . This process begins by the fix effectiveness tool  24  receiving fault information and related corrective action information taken from the ELB ground based system  20 , as indicated at operation  224 . The fix effectiveness tracking tool  24  monitors for the recurrence of a fault so that it can make an assessment of whether a successful repair action was been taken, as indicated at operation  226 . At a point in time after the repair action was taken, the fix effectiveness tool  24  marks the correction action taken as a success or a failure, as indicated at operation  228 . The fix effectiveness database  22  is then updated with this information, as indicated at operation  230 . 
     The codified defect reports stored in the fix effectiveness database  22  can be used by the ground based ELB  20  to generate repair effectiveness reports for repairs performed on each given aircraft in the airline&#39;s  14  fleet, or for repairs performed within a given date range. Most importantly, the system  10  allows accumulated knowledge of specific individual maintenance persons and mechanics to be easily shared by other maintenance persons and individuals. The system  10  thus allows a knowledge “store” or repository to be created that is available to all individuals using the system  10 . Thus, the knowledge base of each individual maintenance person using the system  10  is significantly enhanced. In effect, each maintenance person has the benefit of access to information concerning repair operations previously performed by other maintenance persons, and can use this repair/maintenance history information to make a more fully informed decision on which type of repair action to perform first when attempting to remedy a fault condition. 
     The system  10  also provides the advantage of improving the repair recommendations made available to the maintenance/repair person as the system  10  collects, analyzes and codifies greater and greater amounts of historical repair and fault information. In effect, the system  10  “knowledge” or “learning” increases over time as more and more repair/fault information is collected, and thus the system  10  is able to provide more and more accurate and useful repair/fault recommendations to each user as time goes on. Also, as more and more users access the system  10  and provide fault/repair/maintenance that is analyzed and codified by the system, the system  10  recommendations will be become even more helpful and even more accurate. 
     While various embodiments have been described, those skilled in the art will recognize modifications or variations which might be made without departing from the present disclosure. The examples illustrate the various embodiments and are not intended to limit the present disclosure. Therefore, the description and claims should be interpreted liberally with only such limitation as is necessary in view of the pertinent prior art.