by order of the commander air education and training - AF.mil

Loading...

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND

AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND INSTRUCTION 21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 Maintenance LOGISTICS PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORTING PROCEDURES

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS INSTRUCTION IS MANDATORY ACCESSIBILITY: Publication is available on the e-publishing website at www.e-publishing.af.mil for downloading. RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.

OPR: HQ AETC/A4MMA Supersedes:

AETCI21-105, 18 Mar 2013

Certified by: HQ AETC/A4M (Col Brian Beers) Pages: 30

This instruction implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 21-1, Maintenance of Military Materiel and aligns with AFI 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management. It establishes requirements and provides procedures for reporting aircraft performance measures for all assigned aircraft. This instruction, coupled with regular internal performance reviews by AETC and subordinate units, supports the goal of measuring and evaluating maintenance performance and improving capability. This instruction defines logistics performance terms and has reporting and review procedures to enable AETC to manage by fact. It. This instruction applies to all Air Education and Training Command (AETC) flying training activities. It does not apply to AETC-gained Air Force Reserve Command or Air National Guard units. This publication may be supplemented at any level, but all direct Supplements must be routed to the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) of this publication prior to certification and approval in accordance with AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management. (Note: This requirement does not apply to local maintenance operating instructions.) After final publication, units will provide copies of their unit supplements to the Maintenance Division (HQ AETC/A4M). Refer recommended changes to this publication to the OPR using the AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF Form 847 from the field through the appropriate functional chain of command. Submit requests for waivers using AF Form 679, Air Force Publication Compliance Item Waiver Request/Approval through the chain of command to the appropriate Tier waiver approval authority, or alternately, to the Publication OPR for non-tiered compliance items. Ensure that all records created as a result of processes prescribed in this publication are maintained in accordance with AFMAN 33-363, Management of Records, and disposed of in

2

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

accordance with the Air Force Records Information Management System (AFRIMS) Records Disposition Schedule (RDS). See Attachment 1 for a glossary of references, abbreviations and acronyms and terms. See Attachment 4 for required formulas applicable to this instruction. SUMMARY OF CHANGES This document has been substantially revised and must be completely reviewed. Reporting of some information has been changed from monthly to quarterly. Several acronyms and definitions have been added. Several tables in Attachment 2 have been corrected. Several formulas in Attachment 4 have been deleted and others added. 1.

Objective. ................................................................................................................

2

2.

Applicability. ..........................................................................................................

3

3.

Responsibility. ........................................................................................................

3

4.

Overview. ................................................................................................................

3

5.

Method and Frequency of Reporting. .....................................................................

3

6.

Report Preparation and Format. ..............................................................................

4

7.

Analysis Comments. ...............................................................................................

4

8.

Coordination Requirements and Correction Procedures. ........................................

5

9.

Special Request for Logistics Data. ........................................................................

5

10.

AETC Logistics Standards......................................................................................

5

Logistics Indicators. ................................................................................................

6

Figure 1.

Attachment 1— GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

8

Attachment 2— ANALYSIS COMMENTS FORMAT

15

Attachment 3— PERCENT MC AIRCRAFT SCHEDULED WORKSHEET

24

Attachment 4— FORMULAS

25

1. Objective. The objective of the Monthly Logistics Indicators Report (MLIR) is to evaluate unit performance in an effort to improve efficiency and effectiveness. An essential element for this evaluation is the metrics contained in the MLIR. The metrics are a tool for gauging where focus needs to be directed. The result of compliance with this instruction should be the accurate portrayal of unit performance and the identification of areas which may require improvement or further investigation as well as identification of support problems beyond the scope of the unit. (T-2)

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

3

1.1. Each unit must emphasize the continual, in-depth analysis of aircraft maintenance processes, the integrity of aircraft maintenance documentation methods, timeliness in reporting, and comprehensive remarks describing particular unit support issues requiring further analysis and action. 1.2. The role of the headquarters is to assess how well the unit is meeting mission requirements, improving equipment performance, identifying emerging support problems, and projecting trends. Maintenance performance is assessed through evaluation of MLIR data and comments provided by senior leaders, maintenance personnel and unit level maintenance analysts. 2. Applicability. All AETC units possessing or supporting aircraft will report their data as specified in this instruction, unless they are specifically exempted. Units which possess more than one mission design series (MDS) aircraft will list them separately; however, separate reports are not required. (T-2) 3. Responsibility. Wing, maintenance group (MXG or equivalent), and unit commanders are responsible for compliance. Each wing commander or designated representative will ensure all reports cited in this instruction are prepared and transmitted as prescribed. The preparing agency and office of primary responsibility (OPR) is the Maintenance Management Analysis (MMA) Section or equivalent in civil service/contractor activities based on organizational alignment. Commanders will review the accuracy of the information required by this instruction and take action to improve deficiencies. Units will notify HQ AETC/A4MMA when the monthly report cannot be submitted on time. (T-2) 4. Overview. This section describes overall base-to-headquarters reporting concepts and requirements. The data provided in the MLIR is used to provide the AETC Commander, directorates, and various divisions with an overall assessment of unit and fleet health. It also provides data used to create and validate maximum sustainable Utilization (UTE) rates and to build future flying hour programs. (T-2) 4.1. F-16 aircraft (F-16C/D models) are considered one MDS for reporting purposes however, submit data by block numbers and for the fleet. 4.2. AETC-possessed C-130 variants at Kirtland AFB, NM, will be reported separately on the MLIR spreadsheet. 4.3. T-38C units will report Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and Introduction to Fighter Fundamental (IFF) data separately on the MLIR. UPT includes: Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT), Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) and Pilot Instructor Training (PIT). 4.4. F-35A data will be reported on AETC assigned aircraft only. 5. Method and Frequency of Reporting. Units will submit their MLIR via e-mail to [email protected] (AETC/A4MMA in the Global Address List (GAL)). 5.1. Monthly Reporting Requirements. Three portions of the MLIR are required to be submitted monthly – the numbers spreadsheet, the Senior Leader Comments and the Hangar Queen information. (T-2) 5.1.1. Numbers spreadsheet. Units will only use the MLIR spreadsheet provided to each unit. A new spreadsheet will be sent to each unit before the beginning of each new

4

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 fiscal year. Ensure any links established or developed locally to populate the MLIR spreadsheet are broken prior to transmission. Transmit this portion to arrive no later than 1600 CST/CDT the seventh calendar day following the month being reported. If the seventh calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday, transmit theses portions to arrive no later than 1200 CST/CDT the next workday. 5.1.2. Senior Leader Comments. The report requires senior leader comments to address an overall assessment of unit, fleet, and maintenance health. The maintenance group commander (or equivalent) will provide the unit and fleet health assessment. Information in these comments is used to brief AETC leadership and other agencies. It is suggested units address major programs, concerns and areas of interest within the maintenance group or wing. Provide the big picture, group or wing perspective. Maintenance leaders are encouraged to use these comments as a communication tool to the HQ AETC staff. Transmit this portion to arrive no later than 1600 CST/CDT the tenth calendar day following the month being reported. If the tenth calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday, transmit the report to arrive no later than 1200 CST/CDT the next workday. 5.1.3. Hangar Queen Information. Hangar Queens are a Command special interest item. It is imperative that accurate information be provided. Transmit this portion to arrive no later than 1600 CST/CDT the tenth calendar day following the month being reported. If the tenth calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday, transmit the report to arrive no later than 1200 CST/CDT the next workday. 5.2. Quarterly Reporting Requirements. Following the last month of each quarter (March, June, September and December) in addition to the three portions required every month, submit the analysis narratives using the formats specified in Attachment 2. Transmit this portion to arrive no later than 1600 CST/CDT the tenth calendar day following the month being reported. If the tenth calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday, transmit the report to arrive no later than 1200 CST/CDT the next workday.

6. Report Preparation and Format. Unit commanders will ensure all portions of the MLIR are submitted IAW the suspenses and guidance provided in this Instruction to the Maintenance Management Branch, Analysis Section (HQ AETC/A4MMA). (T-2) 7. Analysis Comments. The analysis comments consist of two components: the driver information and the analysis narratives. Both components will be provided when key indicators do not meet established AETC standards. AETC has established standards for Aircraft Availability (AA), Mission Capable (MC), Total Not Mission Capable Maintenance (TNMCM), Total Not Mission Capable Supply (TNMCS), Cannibalization (CANN), Sortie Scheduling Effectiveness (SSE), Abort (total), Break, Fix, Maintenance Scheduling Effectiveness (MSE), Average Fleet Time, Repeat and Recur rates. (T-2) 7.1. Driver Information. In the driver component, units will provide detailed information on items that did not meet the established AETC standard. Prepare the driver information in accordance with attachment 2, Analysis Comments Format. Driver information is intended to explain what drove an out-of-standard logistics indicator. Ensure all acronyms are spelled out the first time they are used.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

5

7.2. Analysis Narratives. In the analysis narrative component, provide narrative comments on items that did not meet the established AETC standard. Prepare analysis narratives in accordance with attachment 2, Analysis Comments Format. Narratives are intended to help explain the “why” for the out-of-standard indicator. Ensure all acronyms are spelled out the first time they are used. 8. Coordination Requirements and Correction Procedures. The Maintenance Group Commander (or civil service/contract equivalent) will establish internal unit coordination requirements/procedures to ensure an accurate report is released on time. Corrections to monthly reports will be submitted by separate e-mail with reference to the incorrect or amended data. Each unit maintenance analysis section (or civil service/contract equivalent) will maintain copies of monthly reports for at least two fiscal years. File copies can be maintained electronically. (T2) 8.1. Supply Coordination. Coordinate all TNMCS and CANN drivers and narratives through both maintenance and supply. 9. Special Request for Logistics Data. Instances may arise where recurring short-term special reports may be required. Periodic requirements exist for collecting data to support special projects or track specific maintenance information. A special request for logistics data e-mail, from HQ AETC/A4MMA, to the unit analysis section, will be used to task units. All efforts will be made to obtain information from enterprise systems, however, when necessary, units will be required to provide data/information. (T-2) 9.1. Applicability. All AETC units possessing or supporting aircraft are subject to special requests for logistics data. 9.2. Method and Frequency of Reporting. HQ AETC/A4MMA will provide submission instructions and frequency requirements in the tasking e-mail. 9.3. Report Format. HQ AETC/A4MMA will specify report format in the tasking e-mail. Instructions will specify content, procedures for data collection, and report termination date. 10. AETC Logistics Standards. Standards are set for logistics indicators to a level appropriate to the tasking of the unit and the capability of the weapon system. Logistics standards are established by MDS and may be further established by mission within a specific MDS. Standards are used to keep leadership apprised of overall force readiness, identify and isolate breakdowns in logistics processes and help determine if resources outside the unit’s control are needed. Standards also aid in identifying units that need further examination and assistance. 10.1. Logistics Indicators. Logistics indicators are used to measure the health of a unit’s operation. Achieving established standards should aid in meeting flying training requirements. The Director of Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection (HQ AETC/A4) may also develop standards for other metrics as needed. Standards are developed for the following logistics indicators:

6

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

Figure 1. Logistics Indicators. Aircraft Availability (AA) Aircraft Availability (AA) Commitment rate Mission Capable (MC) rate Total Not Mission Capable Maintenance (TNMCM) rate Total Not Mission Capable Supply (TNMCS) rate Cannibalization (CANN) rate Sortie Scheduling Effectiveness (SSE) rate Flying Scheduling Effectiveness (FSE) rate (only for F-35 aircraft) Total Abort rate Code-3 Break rate 8/12-Hour Fix rate Maintenance Scheduling Effectiveness (MSE) rate Repeat rate Recur rate 10.1.1. Aircraft Availability (AA). AETC utilizes the formula in AFI 21-103, Equipment Inventory, Status and Utilization Reporting, Attachment 25 to calculate each unit’s AA standards. AA standards will vary by unit; therefore, they are not published in the annual logistics standards/goals document. 10.2. Modeling Process. A modeling process, as well as inputs from maintenance and supply functional managers, is used to help determine the correct values for realistic, requirements-based standards. No model reflects reality perfectly. If experience or a revised mission tasking reveals a need for adjustment of any standard, an out-of-cycle review can be initiated by HQ AETC/A4M. 10.3. Standards and Goals Review and Development Process. Standards and goals serve as thresholds for further analysis. They should be challenging and tough, but attainable. If they are set too loose, unit capability may be degraded; if too tight, analysis tends to “chase ghosts,” and, if out of reach, they become irrelevant and demoralizing. The review process is accomplished annually, usually during the July to August timeframe, utilizing historical data and projected flying hour requirements. Each review involves the following basic steps: 10.3.1. AETC analysts collect and analyze historical statistical data. AETC functional managers (maintenance and supply) review the historical data and analysis. The standard or goal for each indicator is evaluated to include current average, unit and fleet trends and frequency units meet the current standard. AETC analysts and functional managers then assess short-term and long-term support issues and make recommendations for changes, if needed.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

7

10.3.2. Historical statistical data and fiscal year projections are combined with all inputs and evaluated. AETC analysts develop a detailed briefing and recommendations for adjustments are presented to HQ AETC/A4 for approval. 10.3.3. The HQ AETC/A4-approved standards are distributed to all AETC flying units. 10.3.4. This review process does not preclude units from developing local standards or goals for other metrics as deemed necessary by their leadership.

GILBERT J. MONTOYA, SES Director of Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection

8

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 Attachment 1 GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

References AFI 16-402, Aerospace Vehicle Programming, Assignment, Distribution, Accounting and Termination, 30 May 2013 AFPD 21-1, Maintenance of Military Materiel, 25 February 2003 AFI 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management, 21 May 2015, AETC Supplement, 18 September 2015 AFI 21-103, Equipment Inventory, Status and Utilization Reporting, 26 January 2012 AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management AFMAN 33-363, Management of Records Adopted Forms AF Form 679, Air Force Publication Compliance Item Waiver Request/Approval AF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication Abbreviations and Acronyms AAS—Aircraft Availability Standard AA—Aircraft Availability A/A—Air Abort AETC—Air Education and Training Command AMD—Average Mission Duration ASD—Average Sortie Duration AWM—Awaiting Maintenance AWP—Awaiting Parts A/R—Attrition Reserve BAI—Backup Aircraft Inventory CDT—Central Daylight Time CST—Central Standard Time COMBS—Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply DD—Delayed or Deferred Discrepancy EOM—End Of Month FCF—Functional Check Flight FMC—Fully Mission Capable

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 FSE—Flying Scheduling Effectiveness (for F-35 aircraft only) G/A—Ground Abort IMDS—Integrated Maintenance Data System MC—Mission Capable MDS—Mission Design Series MESL—Minimum Essential Subsystems List MICAP—Mission Impaired Capability Awaiting Parts MLIR—Monthly Logistics Indicators Report MSE—Maintenance Scheduling Effectiveness MXG—Maintenance Group NMC—Not Mission Capable NMCB—Not Mission Capable Both (maintenance and supply) NMCM—Not Mission Capable Maintenance NMCS—Not Mission Capable Supply NSN—National Stock Number OCF—Operational Check Flight PAI—Primary Aircraft Inventory PE—Periodic Inspection PMCB—Partially Mission Capable Both (maintenance and supply) PMCM—Partially Mission Capable Maintenance PMCS—Partially Mission Capable Supply PRD—Pilot Reported Discrepancy SGEM—Sortie Generation Estimation Model SSE—Sortie Scheduling Effectiveness TAI—Total Aircraft Inventory TCTO—Time Compliance Technical Order TDI—Time Distribution Inspection TNMCM—Total Not Mission Capable Maintenance TNMCS—Total Not Mission Capable Supply UTE—Utilization WUC—Work Unit Code

9

10

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

Terms Aircraft Availability Standard (AAS)—AAS represents the number of MC aircraft (or the percentage of TAI) needed to fly the required annual Flying Hour Program (FHP). In AETC, the AAS will normally be expressed in numbers of MC aircraft required. The formula for calculating the AAS is contained in AFI 21-103, Equipment Inventory, Status and Utilization Reporting, attachment 25. Aircraft Availability (AA)—The number of MC aircraft that were available for a specified time period. Aircraft Availability Rate (AA%)—The percentage of TAI that was available for a specified time period. Aircraft Availability Commitment Target—The number of aircraft a unit requires to be MC to meet daily flying requirements. AA commitment targets are computed for each unit by MDS and adjusted annually. Actual Utilization (UTE) Rate—The average number of sorties or hours flown per PAI (or average possessed aircraft, if below PAI). See UTE Rate for formula. Air Abort (A/A) Rate—The total number of air aborts per 100 sorties flown. The purpose of this rate is to reflect the percentage of aborted missions/sorties once the aircraft is airborne. Declaration of an air abort is an operations call. Include air aborts for maintenance causes only. Attrition Rates—The total number of sorties lost (due to various reasons) per 100 local sorties scheduled. Attrition rates are used primarily for two purposes. Programmatically, they are used to forecast the number of scheduled sorties or missions needed to meet the requirement. During program execution, attrition rates help to pinpoint where the flying schedule is deviating from the plan and where to focus management actions. Attrition Reserve (A/R) Aircraft—Aircraft procured to replace anticipated losses of PAI due to peacetime accidents or wartime attrition. (See AFI 16-402 for more details.) Average Fleet Time—The average number of flying hours available per possessed aircraft until the next periodic or phase inspection. Fleet time is the prime leading logistics indicator that identifies a unit’s ability to maintain future flying and dock flow requirements. Fleet time is only tracked for those aircraft using the periodic or phase inspection system. The IMDS product normally used to do this is the Time Distribution Inspection (TDI). Extract the total time remaining in hours and the total number of aircraft from the TDI. Subtract out the hours and number of aircraft for aircraft not in possession codes CA, CB, TF or ZB at the time the product was run. Average Mission Duration—The average number of flying hours per mission flown. AMDs are normally used only for larger aircraft. Average Sortie Duration—The average number of flying hours per sortie flown. ASDs are normally used only for smaller aircraft. Average Possessed Aircraft—Possessed aircraft are available to accomplish the primary mission of the unit. Aircraft with a possession code of CA, CB, TF or ZB are considered possessed. Possessed aircraft hours are the key elements in calculating aircraft status.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

11

Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI)—Aircraft over-and-above the PAI to permit scheduled and unscheduled depot level maintenance, modifications, inspections, and repair without a reduction of aircraft for the assigned mission. (See AFI 16-402 for more details.) Break Rate—The percentage of aircraft that land in “Code-3” (“Alpha-3” for Mobility Air Force) status (unable to complete at least one of its primary missions IAW the MESL.) This metric primarily indicates aircraft system reliability. It acts as an early warning indicator, which can lead to a lower MC rate and focuses on the quality of aircraft maintenance and parts. Do not count Functional Check Flight (FCF) or Operational Check Flight (OCF) code-3 landings as breaks. CANN Rate—The number of aircraft-to-aircraft or engine-to-aircraft cannibalization actions per 100 total sorties flown. The purpose of the CANN rate is to highlight what part of the sortie generation effort is expended removing and replacing parts from one aircraft (or engine) to another aircraft for the specific purpose of making the latter mission capable. CANN actions will be counted against the end item that required the canned part. CANNs are reported during the month the removal action is completed. Note: A demand must first be placed on the supply system, which subsequently could not be filled. Chargeable Deviation:—A flying schedule deviation attributable to Maintenance, Operations or Supply. Delayed (or Deferred) Discrepancy (DD) Rate—The average number of delayed/deferred discrepancies per possessed aircraft. Sometimes minor maintenance actions must be deferred to a more opportune time. DDs fall into two categories; Awaiting Maintenance (AWM) or Awaiting Parts (AWP). Discrepancies that are deferred AWP must have a valid off-base requisition number. Supply should maintain an aggressive follow-up program to keep visibility on those parts ordered for AWP deferred discrepancies. Units will take three measurements before the EOM (with a minimum of 7 days between each measurement), and take one final measurement on the last duty day of the month. Only count DDs against currently possessed aircraft when calculating the DD rate. Fix Rate—The percentage of code-3 breaks fixed within 12 hours (8 hours for fighter aircraft.) Time stops when all code-3 discrepancies are fixed and the aircraft returns to an MC condition. Problems found by maintenance after the aircraft lands (ground found) are not considered in the fix time. Do not count discrepancies found on ground aborts. (They are not code-3 landings.) Fully Mission Capable (FMC) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are fully mission capable (can fly all required missions.) Functional Check Flight (FCF) Release Rate—The percentage of aircraft that successfully complete an FCF versus the total number of FCFs attempted. (Attempts must log flight time.) Check flights are performed to ensure an aircraft is airworthy and/or capable of accomplishing its mission. The FCF release rate helps monitor the quality of maintenance performed following the repair of critical components or systems. Ground Abort (G/A) Rate—The total number of ground aborts per 100 local sorties attempted (local sorties flown plus number of ground aborts) Multiple ground aborts recorded against a single line will be included in the number of ground aborts.

12

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

Maintenance Cancellation Rate—The number of maintenance cancels per 100 local sorties (or missions) scheduled. It highlights the capability of maintenance to provide aircraft to meet the needs of the daily flying schedule. Maintenance Man-hour per Flying Hour—The average number of maintenance man-hours required to support each flying hour. Include all direct man-hours documented against the aircraft MDS and its engines. Units with T-1, T-6, T-38, TH-1, UH-1 or HH-60 aircraft should also include all man-hours earned through Sortie Generation Estimation Models (SGEM). Maintenance Scheduling Effectiveness (MSE) Rate—The percentage of scheduled aircraft maintenance actions that were completed on or prior to the scheduled date printed in the weekly schedule. The purpose of the MSE rate is to measure the success of a unit in executing its planned maintenance schedule. (A low MSE rate may indicate a unit is experiencing turbulence on the flight line or in the back shops.) Scheduled actions and their respective weighted factor points will be used to compute the MSE rate. Use the event completion month as the basis for when to report points possible and earned. Refer to AFI 21-101, AETCSUP for additional details on computing MSE. Mission Capable (MC) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are mission capable (either fully mission capable or partially mission capable). Non-chargeable Ground Abort—Ground aborts that do not count as chargeable deviations toward the SSE rate. However, they are still included in the ground abort rate. (EXAMPLE: The prime and spare aircraft both ground abort against a single line; the first abort is non- chargeable for SSE, but still counts toward the abort rate. Spared ground aborts are non-chargeable for SSE.) Not Mission Capable Both Maintenance and Supply (NMCB) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are not mission capable due to both maintenance and supply. Not Mission Capable Maintenance (NMCM) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are not mission capable due to maintenance. Not Mission Capable Supply (NMCS) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are not mission capable due to supply. Operations Cancellation Rate—The number of operations cancels per 100 local sorties (or missions) scheduled. It highlights the capability of operations to provide aircrews to meet the needs of the daily flying schedule. Partially Mission Capable Both Maintenance and Supply (PMCB) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are partially mission capable for both maintenance and supply reasons. Partially Mission Capable Maintenance (PMCM) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are partially mission capable for maintenance reasons only. Partially Mission Capable Supply (PMCS) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are partially mission capable due to supply reasons only. Percent MC Scheduled—The percentage of MC aircraft that are dedicated to the daily flying schedule, either as a prime flyer (front line) or as a spare. This rate may indicate overcommitment by a unit and can lead to diminished fleet health over time. The raw data and rates will be reported in the MLIR for each day with scheduled flying. (See Attachment 3 for format.)

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

13

Note: The number of MC aircraft measurement will be taken one hour prior to the first launch of the day. Primary Aircraft Inventory (PAI)—Aircraft assigned to meet a unit’s primary mission requirement. (See AFI 16-402 for more details.) Programmed Allocation (PA) document—The document published by AETC/A3RA annually that prescribes PAI, programmed UTE rates, programmed ASD/AMDs, and programmed flying hours for each MDS assigned to each unit. Programmed Hours—The number of flying hours that are programmed to be flown as specified in the PA document. Programmed Sorties—The number of sorties that are programmed to be flown as specified in the PA document. Programmed UTE Rate—The average number of sorties or hours per PAI that are programmed to be flown. (See UTE Rate for formula.) Recur Discrepancy—A Pilot Reported Discrepancy (PRD) that occurs on the second, third, fourth or fifth sortie (or attempted sortie) after corrective action has been taken and the system or sub-system indicates the same malfunction when operated. Recur Discrepancy Rate—This metric is a leading indicator. It is the total number of recur discrepancies compared to the total number of PRDs. Recur malfunctions indicate a problem with either troubleshooting or system maintainability. Do not count recurs on FCFs, OCFs, operational checks or ground-found problems. Repeat Discrepancy—A PRD that occurs on the next sortie (or attempted sortie) after corrective action has been taken and the system or subsystem indicates the same malfunction when operated. Repeat Discrepancy Rate—This metric is a leading indicator. It is the total number of repeat discrepancies compared to the total number of PRDs. Like recurs, repeat malfunctions indicate a problem with either troubleshooting or system maintainability. Do not count repeats on FCFs, OCFs, operational checks or ground-found problems. Sortie Attempted—Local sorties flown plus ground aborts. Sortie Generation Estimation Model (SGEM)—SGEMs are a simple, easy way to account for manhours expended for routine flightline tasks. Their use negates the need to document these tasks in the MIS, thus relieving flightline maintenance personnel from this requirement. The models use job standards that take into account how long each task takes, the crew size required and the frequency of the task. Examples of typical tasks in the models are launch and recovery of aircraft, servicing, cleaning, inspections (pre-flights, thru-flights and post-flights, not phase inspections), FOD walks and daily computer use. Each task constitutes a reasonable average across the Command and are vetted by applicable maintenance functional managers and maintenance contract monitors. At the end of each month, unit analysts input factors into the models (O&M days, sorties flown, hours flown and average possessed aircraft) and add the results to the manhours extracted from the MIS to report total manhours expended in the MLIR. Sortie Scheduling Effectiveness (SSE) Rate—The percentage of scheduled sorties a unit successfully launches as published in the weekly flying schedule. Schedule deviations are broken

14

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

down into two categories: non-chargeable and chargeable (see AFI 21-101, AETCSUP for a detailed listing.) Non-chargeable deviations are used to adjust the flying schedule to factor out uncontrollable elements. Chargeable deviations are then measured in relation to the adjusted schedule to compute SSE. (Air aborts are not considered flying schedule deviations and are not used in computing SSE rates.) To accurately measure SSE, first reconcile sorties flown with local sorties scheduled. (The formula in Attachment 4 can be used to accomplish the reconciliation of local sorties scheduled to local sorties flown. Local sorties are defined in AFI 21-101, AETCSUP.) The flying schedule sets the pace for the entire wing. It must be built on sound principles that are clearly articulated and vigorously defended by wing leadership. The flying schedule is the focal point of the Wing and drives consumption of Air Force resources. Spare Factor—The percentage of aircraft committed to the daily flying schedule as spare aircraft. Supply Cancellation Rate—The number of supply cancels per 100 local sorties (or missions) scheduled. It highlights the capability of supply to provide spare parts to meet the needs of the daily flying schedule. Total Aircraft Inventory (TAI)—Total aircraft assigned to a unit. (PAI + BAI + AR) (See AFI 16-402 for more details.) Total Abort Rate—The total number of aborts (air and ground) per 100 local sortie attempts. Total Not Mission Capable Maintenance (TNMCM) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are not mission capable for maintenance (NMCM + NMCB). The purpose of TNMCM is to quantify how much aircraft downtime is attributable to maintenance and focuses on the effectiveness of the maintenance workforce. Total Not Mission Capable Supply (TNMCS) Rate—The percentage of possessed aircraft that are not mission capable for supply (NMCS + NMCB). The purpose of TNMCS is to quantify how many aircraft are not mission capable for lack of parts and focuses on the effectiveness of the supply system. Utilization (UTE) Rate—The average sorties or hours flown (planned or actual) per PAI or average possessed aircraft. (When a unit’s average possessed aircraft for the month is less than the established PAI, the average possessed aircraft for the month will be used to compute UTE rates.) The purpose of UTE rates is to establish the primary performance standard that measures a wing’s ability to meet its flying objective as well as the prime mechanism in resource allocation.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

15 Attachment 2

ANALYSIS COMMENTS FORMAT A2.1. Analysis Comments. Detailed analysis comments are required for the following rates that miss their standard/goal/target for the quarter: AA, MC, TNMCM, TNMCS, SSE, Total Abort, MSE, CANN, Break, Fix, Repeat and Recur. Address the root cause or causes for the missed standard. Explain your analysis of top drivers, problem systems, problem aircraft, trends, or any other factors affecting the indicator. Narratives must provide important details explaining why an item drove unit performance. Analyze the data. Long-term and short-term trends are important. Do not focus solely on the current quarter's data to determine if a trend exists. Look at the entire picture to make those determinations. The question “why” must be addressed throughout the remarks. The remarks section should be tailored to each situation. A2.2. AA Commitment Target. When the established AA commitment target is not met, a narrative explanation is required. However, if it was missed due to a substandard MC rate, a statement of “see MC rate” is acceptable. If it was not met because the average number of possessed aircraft was below PAI, explain why aircraft were in non-possessed statuses. A2.2.1. AA Commitment Target Narrative Example. “The AA commitment target of 68 aircraft was missed due to 10 aircraft being at Ogden for a major avionics upgrade. Additionally, four aircraft were non-possessed while the wing attachments were replaced by a Contract Field Team (CFT). During the quarter we possessed 90 aircraft, five below our PAI of 95.” A2.3. MC Rate. List the reasons that contributed to the MC rate missing the standard for the quarter. If it was attributed to the TNMCM and/or TNMCS rate(s) just state “see TNMCM and/or TNMCS rate”. A2.4. TNMCM Rate Narrative Example. “Two aircraft with cracks caused the windshield NMC time during the month. The downtime was extended due to a bad (also cracked) windshield received from the manufacturer. A second windshield was ordered and received to replace the bad one. The NMCB time on aircraft 0298 was due to maintenance working delayed discrepancies while waiting for the second windshield to arrive. The installation of both windshields was normal with most (150 hours) of the time consumed during rigging. Both aircraft repairs have been completed. Fuel system time was up for the quarter because of one aircraft (595 hours) with fuel leaks. The majority of the NMC time (395 hours) was for a main cell. The installation and leak checks took approximately 8 days. The repairs were completed on 29 March and no other leaks have developed on that aircraft. Phase time was significantly lower than normal due to two fewer phases than usual (4 versus 6) being accomplished.” A2.4.1. TNMCM Driver Information. List the top three systems driving the TNMCM time. Within each system, list the top three component drivers. In addition, list the quarterly average for the previous four quarters for each system. If the top three systems are average and do not explain why the standard was not met, list any systems that varied significantly from their 4-quarter average and explain each. Explain anything that was out of the norm. List the system and WUC details using the following format (round off all hours, no decimals.)

16

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 A2.4.2. TNMCM Driver Example. “Power Plant (71x) racked up 270 TNMCM hours. A0028 was responsible for 67 TNMCM hours against this system for the right engine power assurance check being low. They performed a compressor wash, but that did not solve the problem. An engine change was required. Nacelle (54x) accumulated 155 TNMCM hours. A0027 was the leading acft with 156 TNMCM hours against this system for a CANN of the left forward nacelle blower to A0029. Time Limits (Phase Insp) (13x) accumulated 103 TNMCM hours, all on A0030 in an A-phase.”

Table A2.1. System 71 – Power Plant – 270 TNMCM Hours. WUC* 719604 71217005

NOUN PAC low Left engine gimbal mount bolt cracked

TNMCM 67 53

71960862

Right engine wingtip drain valve leak

49

Note: Repeat this structure for each of the top three TNMCM driving systems. * LCN for F-35s, UNS for CV-22s, Ref/Des for C-17s, WUC for all other MDSs Table A2.2. 4 Quarter History. System/Noun Current Quarter TNMCM Hrs Previous 4-Quarter Avg Hrs 53/Fuselage 995 705 54/Nacelle 1215 1485

Diff +/ +290 -270

Note: Use this format to list all systems that vary significantly from their average. A2.5. TNMCS Driver Information. List the top three systems driving the TNMCS rate. Within each system, list the top three component drivers. Include the NSN for all NMCS or NMCB status entries. For units supported by both COMBS and the standard base supply system, include the number of TNMCS hours attributable to COMBS and the number of TNMCS hours attributable to the standard base supply system separately. These units will also report all COMBS parts that took longer than the contractual standard to deliver when those parts caused a TNMCS status on the aircraft, including the number of TNMCS hours attributed to each part. List the system and end item details using the following format (round off all hours, no decimals.) A2.5.1. TNMCS Rate Narrative Example. “The supply standard was missed for the second straight quarter. Two MICAPs accounted for 41% of the TNMCS time. The leading supply driver was a Structural Beam. (269 MICAP hours) It was a first-time demand at Base X. Assets were in restricted stock at DLA and required coordination with the item manager. The asset was released and trucked to the base. Assets are currently on hand at the DLA and at the base. Electro-Hydraulic (33x) accumulated 2215 TNMCS hours. A3717, A3822, A3546 and A3577 required props. They are not available because COMBS is waiting for Per-Occurrence overhaul Government funding. Government did not forecast these overhauls. Flight Controls (14x) accumulated 1145 TNMCS hours. A3920, A3785, and A3736 are all AWP for a control stick and there is a 30-day turn-over with many in the repair pipeline. A3557 is also AWP for a pedal assembly. The item was received on 21 March, but the bushing was stuck and the item was re-ordered.”

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

17

Table A2.3. System 33 – Electro-Hydraulic – 2215 TNMCS Hours WUC* 33AAA

Noun/NSN Propeller/1234-56-789-1234

TNMCS 2215

Note: Repeat this structure for each of the top three TNMCS driving systems. *LCN for F-35s, UNS for CV-22s, Ref/Des for C-17s, WUC for all other MDSs A2.6. SSE Rate. Address themes and trends in current quarter’s deviations as well as trends in deviations over the last 4 quarters. Concentrate on the underlying causes for not meeting the SSE standard. Analyze operations verses maintenance deviations. State how aircraft breaks or aborts led to a lack of available MC aircraft, which led to maintenance cancels, etc. Identify any breakdowns in the scheduling process. Provide an analysis of the deviations. A2.6.1. SSE Narrative Example. “Last quarter, there were 222 chargeable deviations, including 169 for ops (98 cancels for scheduling conflicts and pilot non-availability, 71 cancels to reduce the number of frontlines required, and 23 adds for out-and-back conversions and adding cross-countries.) There were also 28 ground aborts (9 for engines: 2 PMU, 1 amp, 1 no start, 1 speedbrake, 1 fuel leak, 1 generator, 1 grinding noise, 1 tail pipe crack; 5 for instruments: 2 altimeters, 1 engine data manager, 1 engine instrumentation display, 1 primary engine digital display; 4 for airframe: 2 canopy won’t lock, 1 hyd service door latch worn, 1 canopy test light inop) and two maintenance cancels.” A2.6.2. SSE Table. List the details for all chargeable deviations using the table format below. Spell out all acronyms the first time they are used. Narratives under the discrepancy and corrective action columns must be detailed enough to fully explain the deviation. Narratives such as “ground abort,” “no acft,” or “ops add” are not sufficient to explain the reason for the deviation. Provide noun of part and NSN for supply non-deliveries. Note: For maintenance deviations, indicate any repeats or recurs, and identify the original discrepancy. Following the table, list the total number of deviations by type IAW the example below. Table A2.4. SSE Table. ACFT

DATE

DEV

WUC*

0024

1 Mar

AD/OPS

PFT Requirement/advance time-line

0024

12 Mar

AD/OPS

PFT requirement/advance time-line

0024

1 Mar

CX/MTX

660000

DISCREPANCY

Blade fold wing stow posted multiple times

CORRECTIVE ACTION

R2 left white blade de-ice

18

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 in park

distributor

0024

1 Mar

CX/MTX

660000

Blade fold wing stow posted multiple times in park

R2 left white blade de-ice distributor

0024

15 Mar

CX/MTX

632100

Control display unit indicated left PropRotor Gear Box (PRGB) chips

R2 left PRGB assembly

0026

15 Mar

GA/GAC

321001

Left MLG strut leaking (Original)

R2 left MLG shock strut

0026

18 Mar

GA/GAC

321001

Left MLG strut leaking (Repeat)

R2 left MLG shock strut

*LCN for F-35s, UNS for CV-22s, Ref/Des for C-17s, WUC for all other MDSs Numbers of deviations and type: 71 Ops Canx 23 Ops Adds 2 MX Canx 28 Ground Aborts A2.7. Total Abort Rate. Address themes and trends in the current quarter’s aborts as well as trends over the last 4 quarters. Although the statement “No Trends Noted” is completely valid, do not use it lightly. Concentrate on the underlying causes for not meeting the abort standard. Determine if specific systems failed during the quarter or if certain aircraft were primary contributors. Evaluate aborts from a preventable or non-preventable viewpoint. Did more aborts occur on first launches? Are there problems with preflight procedures? Is there a problem trouble-shooting and turning aircraft? Aborts that are repeats/recurs require a full history of all discrepancies back to the original write-up. This history will include discrepancy, corrective action, and number of sorties flown without the same problem since the last abort. A2.7.1. Abort Rate Narrative Example. “The fleet missed its abort standard for the third straight quarter. In the most recent quarter, auxiliary power was the leading driver with 17, that’s nearly double the average. (12-month average = 9) JFS no-starts were the leading discrepancy accounting for 70 percent of those; including a recur on one aircraft. (A5507, original, 7 Feb, JFS no start X2/R2 JFS door switch adjuster….Recur, 10 Feb, R2 thermo relief valve, 12 good sorties since). Auxiliary power, specifically JFS no-starts, have been identified as a seasonal trend with December through February being the highest months, which accounts for the spike last quarter. We expect JFS no-starts to decline next quarter as temperatures increase.”

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

19

A2.7.2. Abort Table. List details on all aborts in the format below. Spell out all acronyms the first time they are used. Narratives under the discrepancy and corrective action columns must fully explain the abort. Narratives, such as “ground abort” or “engines,” do not provide a sufficient level of detail. The format for listing details will closely match that of the SSE rate section. Table A2.5. Abort Table. ACFT

DATE

DEV

WUC* DISCREPANCY

CORRECTIVE A CTION

0024

28-Mar AA/MTN 275000

Left inboard swashplate actuator fault (Original)

CND

0024

29-Mar AA/MTN 275000

Left inboard swashplate actuator fault (Repeat)

Reseated loose connector

*LCN for F-35s, UNS for CV-22s, Ref/Des for C-17s, WUC for all other MDSs Note: Identify any repeats/recurs and the original discrepancy in the table. A2.7.3. Abort Drivers. List the highest three systems and the top three common discrepancies within each system. Also report the total number of aborts for each of the high three drivers for the previous 4 quarters. A2.8. MSE Rate. Explain all scheduled events that were not completed as scheduled when the MSE standard was not met. If required, address actions taken to prevent delay in accomplishing scheduled maintenance actions in the future. A2.8.1. MSE Rate Narrative Example. “The MSE standard was missed for the second straight quarter. In this quarter, there were 16 events not completed as scheduled. Ten were because aircraft were undergoing other maintenance; the other six were done, but not signed off in IMDS.” A2.8.2. MSE Rate Table. List all actions that were not completed as scheduled and reason for not completing the scheduled maintenance action. Details will be provided in a table format as the example below. Table A2.6. MSE Rate Table. ACFT

EVENT

REASON MISSED

0123

SCH DATE 4 Jun

18-month gun insp

Not signed off in IMDS

CURRENT STATUS C/W 5 Jun

2134

29 Jun

Egress insp

5678

10 Jun

30-day acft wash

In fuels maintenance, not power capable In O2 mod

Rescheduled 2 Jul C/W 11 Jun

A2.9. CANN Rate. Address reasons for cannibalizations. Identify parts continually canned and projected get well date(s). Determine why the parts were unavailable. Also, address any trends in canned items over the last 2-4 quarters.

20

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 A2.9.1. CANN Rate Narrative Example. “The fleet had 12 canns, three of which were for a radar display monitor. The display monitor is normally a low demand item and is not authorized stock. Two were ordered on 4 Oct and both were received on 6 Oct.” A2.9.2. CANN Rate Table. List the top five canned items using the format below. List in order of most frequently canned parts to least frequently canned items.

Table A2.7. CANN Rate Table. WUC* Noun NSN Number of CANNS 22BLN Torque Power Unit 1234-00-567-6789 4 *LCN for F-35s, UNS for CV-22s, Ref/Des for C-17s, WUC for all other MDSs A2.10. Break Rate. Address common themes in current quarter’s breaks. Identify common write-ups within high driving systems or aircraft. Look for and comment on trends beyond the current quarter’s data. A2.10.1. Break Rate Narrative Example. “The break rate standard was missed for the second time in the last four quarters. They had 19 breaks in this quarter; four of those were for EAPS blower failures on one aircraft, including two repeats, (A0026, left inboard EAPS blower failed periodic built in test/bled #3 system and left blower inboard fail/tightened cannon plug, 16 good sorties since) and four of them were for right engines with low power.” Table A2.8. Break Rate Table. ACFT

DATE

UNS*

DISCREPANCY

0024

5-Apr

290000

#2 hydraulic reservoir low

CORRECTIVE ACTION Serviced #2

0026

4-Apr

718100

Left inboard Engine Air Particle

hydraulic reservoir R2 EAPS start valve

Bled #3 system

0026

4-Apr

718103

Separator (EAPS) blower failed periodic built-in test Left inboard EAPS blower failed periodic built-in test (REPEAT)

0026

6-Apr

718103

Left inboard EAPS blower failed

Tightened cannon plug on left inboard (REPEAT) EAPS flow switch *LCN for F-35s, UNS for CV-22s, Ref/Des for C-17s, WUC for all other MDSs Note: Identify any repeats/recurs and the original discrepancy in the table. A2.10.2. Break Drivers. List details on all breaks in the format below. Provide rollup for the top three systems and top three aircraft after details. Under the top three high driving systems, list the top three common discrepancies within each system. Also report the total number of breaks for each of the high three for the previous 4 quarters by quarter.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

21

Figure A2.1. Break drivers. Top three high driving systems: System 13 (Landing Gear): 12 breaks: --- Red light in gear handle (4) --- Aircraft pulled during taxi (3) --- Steering actuator leak (2) --- Landing Gear break history: Oct-Dec: 18, Jan-Mar: 13, Apr-Jun: 27, Jul-Sep: 31 System 23 (Engines): 11 breaks: --- No start (5) --- A/B no light (3) --- Hot start (2) --- Engine break history: Oct-Dec: 12, Jan-Mar: 16, Apr-Jun: 21, Jul-Sep: 18 System 14 (Flight Controls): 8 breaks: --- Flap malfunction (5) --- Roll (2) --- Aileron inop (2) --- Flight Control break history: Oct-Dec: 16, Jan-Mar: 12, Apr-Jun: 33, Jul-Sep: 17

A2.11. Fix Rate. Address common themes in the current quarter’s fixes. Identify common write-ups within high driving systems or aircraft. Look for and comment on trends beyond the current quarter’s data. A2.11.1. Fix Rate Narrative Example. “The fix rate standard was missed for the fourth consecutive quarter. They had 19 breaks this quarter and only ten of those were fixed within 12 hours. Six of those not fixed within 12 hours were fuel leaks that were awaiting sealant cure time. Two were awaiting aileron actuators that were MICAP. The remaining break not fixed within 12 hours was a cockpit leak check that had to sit overnight.” Table A2.9. Fix Rate Table. ACFT DATE FIX WUC TIME A0348 8-Jun

55.8

DISCREPANCY

CORRECTIVE ACTION

13ACA Right MLG unsafe condition (RECUR)

R2 down-lock release actuator

A0335 13-Jun 25.5

41BB0

Aux A/C inop

R2 VCCS module

A0335 17-Jun 101.7

13EC0

Anti-skid required excess pressure (RECUR)

R2 wheel-speed transducer

22

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

A0087 20-Jun 27.3

14DEB

Pitch trim inop, nose-up, pilot & co-pilot

R2 actuator

A0355 26-Jun 38.1

13BB0

Acft rocked right on landing

Serviced right strut

A0640 23-Jun INW

41AC0

Aux cool uncommanded shutdown

IN WORK

A2.11.2. Fix Drivers. List details on all over-8/12-hour fixes in the format below. Provide rollup for top three systems and top three aircraft after details. Under the top three high driving systems, list the top three common discrepancies within each system. Also report the total number of breaks for each of the high three for the previous 4 quarters by quarter. A2.12. Repeat Rate. Address common themes in the current quarter’s repeats. Identify common write-ups within high driving systems or aircraft. Look for and comment on trends beyond the current quarter’s data. A2.12.1. Repeat Rate Narrative Example. “They missed the repeat rate standard for the fourth consecutive quarter. They had 11 repeats this quarter, 8 for FDR failures. Two aircraft accounted for 7 of the 8. Six of those were corrected by replacing a wiring harness. Both aircraft have now flown at least 10 good sorties.” Table A2.10. Repeat Rate Narrative Table.

A2.13. Recur Rate. Address the same way as repeats. A2.13.1. Recur Rate Narrative Example. Address the same way as repeats. A2.14. Hangar Queen Data. Report data on all Hangar Queen Aircraft in the following format: (See AFI 21-101 for Hangar Queen guidance and criteria.) Under “DRIVERS”, list each discrepancy followed by the corrective action for that discrepancy.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

23

Table A2.11. Sample Hangar Queen Worksheet. BASE

Last Flew

Date Flown

MDS / TAIL

COL

DRIVERS

# HQ Days

30 60 90 23 Nov

T-6/003593

X

Eng time change (MICAP Eng, EDD UNK), TCTO 776 (C/W), Hyd Leak (MICAP/R2 Union Swivel)

190

X

PE (C/W), egress time changes (MICAP/R2 Egress Comp)

110

Rudder trailing edge cracked, BQ 27 Mar-22 Apr for -107 Response, BU 23-30 Apr

75

Acft would not get 28 Volts (MICAP 2 Wire Harnesses, No EDD)

37

10 Feb

30 May

T-6/993562

23 Feb

12 Jun

T-1/900412

X

IFF

24 Apr

T-1/91- X 0075

UPT

19 Jan

T38/610911

X

PE (in work), Fuel Cell Crk (Repaired), T-5 Amp Inop (MICAP/R2 Amp), BQ 30-31 May, ETIC 25 Jul

131

UPT

23 Feb

23 May

T38/668359

X

PE (C/W), EED Sensor Fail (R2 F/F Fuse), Cabin Air Supply Duct Shroud Crk (MICAP/R2 Shroud)

90

IFF

9 Mar

8 May

T38/688208

Fuel Flow Indication Problems (CND After Extensive Troubleshooting)

60

UPT

2 Apr

30 May

T38/638184

PE (C/W), Right Gearbox Fail (R2 Right Generator & Right Gearbox)

58

X

X

CAT Totals

I

II

III ALL

2

2

4

8

24

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 Attachment 3 PERCENT MC AIRCRAFT SCHEDULED WORKSHEET

A3.1. Sample Worksheet. This is a sample worksheet used to collect information for the MLIR. Table A3.1. Sample MC Aircraft Scheduled Worksheet. MDS: T Date 1-Jan 2-Jan 3-Jan 4-Jan 5-Jan 6-Jan 7-Jan 8-Jan 9-Jan 10-Jan 11-Jan 12-Jan 13-Jan 14-Jan 15-Jan 16-Jan 17-Jan 18-Jan 19-Jan 20-Jan 21-Jan 22-Jan 23-Jan 24-Jan 25-Jan 26-Jan 27-Jan 28-Jan 29-Jan 30-Jan 31-Jan Overall

Day of Week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday

T-38 SUPT # Acft # MC Acft (1 Possessed Hr prior to Sched # First Launch Prime

Sched # % MC Acft Committed Spares to Schedule

Spare Factor

Flyers 62 64 63 63

53 55 56 59

26 28 28 26

4 4 4 4

56.6 58.2 57.1 50.8

13.3 12.5 12.5 13.3

63 63 63 64 63

59 52 54 55 59

26 28 28 26 28

4 4 4 4 4

50.8 61.5 59.3 54.5 54.2

13.3 12.5 12.5 13.3 12.5

63 63 63 63

60 59 58 56

28 28 28 19

4 4 4 4

53.3 54.2 55.2 41.1

12.5 12.5 12.5 17.4

63 63 63 63 61

54 54 54 55 51

28 28 27 27 28

4 4 4 4 4

59.3 59.3 57.4 56.4 62.7

12.5 12.5 12.9 12.9 12.5

62 62

51 51

28 28

4 4 80

62.7 62.7 56.2

12.5 12.5 12.9

1257

1105

541

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

25 Attachment 4 FORMULAS

Figure A4.1. Aircraft Availability Rate (AA).

Figure A4.2. Air Abort (A/A) Rate.

Figure A4.3. Attrition Rates.

Figure A4.4. Average Fleet Time.

Figure A4.5. Average Possessed Aircraft.

26 Figure A4.6. Awaiting Maintenance Rate.

Figure A4.7. Awaiting Parts Rate.

Figure A4.8. Break Rate.

Figure A4.9. CANN Rate.

Figure A4.10. Calculating DD Rates.

Figure A4.11. Cancellation Rates.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 Figure A4.12. Fix Rate.

Figure A4.13. Fully Mission Capable (FMC) Rate.

Figure A4.14. Functional Check Flight (FCF) Release Rate.

Figure A4.15. Ground Abort (G/A) Rate.

Figure A4.16. Maintenance Man-hour per Flying Hour.

Figure A4.17. Maintenance Scheduling Effectiveness (MSE) Rate.

Figure A4.18. Mission Capable (MC) Rate.

Figure A4.19. Not Mission Capable Both Maintenance and Supply (NMCB) Rate.

Figure A4.20. Not Mission Capable Maintenance (NMCM) Rate.

27

28

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

Figure A4.21. Not Mission Capable Supply (NMCS) Rate.

Figure A4.22. Partially Mission Capable Both Maintenance and Supply (PMCB) Rate.

Figure A4.23. Partially Mission Capable Maintenance (PMCM) Rate.

Figure A4.24. Partially Mission Capable Supply (PMCS) Rate.

Figure A4.25. Percent MC Scheduled.

Figure A4.26. Recur Discrepancy Rate.

Figure A4.27. Repeat Discrepancy Rate.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 Figure A4.28. Sortie Scheduling Effectiveness (SSE) Rate.

Figure A4.29. Spare Factor (Actual).

Figure A4.30. Total Abort Rate.

Figure A4.31. Total Not Mission Capable Maintenance (TNMCM) Rate.

Figure A4.32. Total Not Mission Capable Supply (TNMCS) Rate.

29

30 Figure A4.33. UTE Rate.

AETCI21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017

Loading...

by order of the commander air education and training - AF.mil

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND INSTRUCTION 21-105 22 FEBRUARY 2017 Maintenance LOGIS...

731KB Sizes 44 Downloads 29 Views

Recommend Documents

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER OF BEALE AIR FORCE - AF.mil
Jan 19, 2017 - Pages: 28. This publication implements Air Force Instruction 31-218, Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision. I

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR FORCE MATERIEL - AF.mil
Jun 17, 2014 - instruction incorporate all approved in-practice processes not included in the 2006 edition and ...... si

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR MOBILITY - AF.mil
Jan 30, 2014 - 24-101, VOLUME 13. 30 JANUARY 2014. Transportation. 463L PALLET AND NET MANAGEMENT. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR MOBILITY - AF.mil
Dec 23, 2009 - 101, Volume 14 reference; paragraph 5.4.2. activated the referenced web link; paragraph 4.3.4.2. changed

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR MOBILITY - AF.mil
Jan 24, 2017 - This instruction implements publications, AFI 24-101, Passenger Movement and AFI 24-114,. Air Transportat

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR MOBILITY - AF.mil
Jun 15, 2017 - AMCI 24-101, Volume 7, CL-2, C-5 APEX Load Directors Checklist, 01 Aug 2013. AMCI 24-101, Volume 9, Air T

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR COMBAT COMMAND - AF.mil
Apr 19, 2017 - AFI 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management, 21 May 2015, is supplemented as follows. This

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER 633 AIR BASE WING - AF.mil
Feb 23, 2017 - This publication implements Air Force Instruction (AFI) 31-218, Motor Vehicle Traffic. Supervision. The s

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER AIR FORCE MATERIEL - AF.mil
Jan 16, 2014 - 2.8.25. Develop and review AF and AFMC logistics plans, objectives, procedures, and operating .... The AF

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER RAF LAKENHEATH - AF.mil
Feb 3, 2017 - Low Fly NOTAMS: When planning to low fly in UK Low Fly Areas (LFA), aircrew will ensure they are in posses