FAA's Proposed Plan for Implementing a Reliability Centered Maintenance Process for Air Traffic Control Equipment
Gao ID: GAO-07-81R November 9, 2006The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is responsible for maintaining approximately 40,000 pieces of air traffic control equipment, such as radars, navigation beacons, communication systems, and instrument landing systems that are essential to the safe operation of the national airspace system (NAS). Currently, ATO engineers and technicians conduct routine maintenance, periodic inspections, and performance checks on air traffic control equipment to ensure that it functions properly. Recently, ATO identified another process called reliability centered maintenance (RCM) that it plans to add to the other methods it uses to maintain the equipment. RCM is a data-driven, analytical process used to determine the most value-added maintenance requirements that are needed to keep equipment functioning properly. RCM processes are used by federal and private organizations because they reduce unnecessary maintenance. ATO believes that RCM's data-driven analyses for identifying maintenance needs, combined with the equipment manufacturers' maintenance recommendations and engineers' knowledge of the air traffic control equipment, will enhance the ways that ATO maintains the equipment. Senate Report 109-109, which accompanied the Fiscal Year 2006 Appropriations Act for the Department of Transportation, asked us to analyze FAA's plans to develop an RCM process and the impact of these plans. Since FAA is just beginning to define its approach to RCM, we could not address the specific request. However, as agreed with Congressional offices, we are reporting on (1) what RCM is and where it is being used and (2) the status of ATO's plan for developing and implementing an RCM process for maintaining air traffic control equipment.
RCM is a data-driven, analytical process used to determine the most value-added maintenance requirements that are needed to keep equipment functioning properly. It requires that data be collected and analyzed on the causes and consequences of failures, in order to determine the maintenance needed to prevent future failures. For example, performance data can be analyzed to determine whether a particular component wears out with age or fails randomly--key information for deciding the maintenance approach most appropriate for that item. Generally, RCM analyses are used to identify which of three approaches is most appropriate for preventing equipment failures: (1) periodic maintenance, meaning procedures are performed at regular intervals (for example, monthly); (2) condition-based maintenance, meaning equipment is monitored but only serviced when potential problems warrant it; and (3) run-to-fault maintenance, meaning equipment is allowed to fail because maintenance would have no effect on whether (and when) equipment fails. Both federal agencies and private industry utilize RCM for their equipment maintenance. Leading organizations that introduce new processes, like RCM, develop strategic implementation plans that articulate program objectives and timetables, and commit resources for training, data collection and analysis, and other costs. ATO has announced that it intends to add an RCM process to its current methods of maintaining air traffic control equipment, which rely on recommendations made by equipment manufacturers and ATO's own expertise. Currently, ATO is in the early planning phase. At the time of our review, ATO had not yet developed a plan or identified resources for implementing an RCM process for maintaining air traffic control equipment. ATO officials told us that they hope to complete a number of steps within the next year, such as designating the ATO offices to be responsible for implementing RCM maintenance policy and procedures, providing appropriate RCM training to ATO engineers and technicians, and having ATO engineers begin using RCM to update equipment maintenance handbooks. ATO officials estimate that it will take at least 10 years before RCM can be fully implemented as part of ATO's maintenance process because more than 300 system maintenance handbooks will have to be updated. ATO officials are aware that the unions representing the agency's engineers and technicians are concerned that an RCM process will lead to unsafe air traffic control equipment. This concern has arisen, in part, because FAA experimented several years ago with a different maintenance process that union officials have criticized as unsafe, and because ATO has not explained its vision of an RCM process. ATO officials told us that they intend to work with the unions as they implement an RCM process.
GAO-07-81R, FAA's Proposed Plan for Implementing a Reliability Centered Maintenance Process for Air Traffic Control Equipment
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-81R
entitled 'FAA's Proposed Plan for Implementing a Reliability Centered
Maintenance Process for Air Traffic Control Equipment' which was
released on November 9, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
November 9, 2006:
The Honorable Christopher Bond:
Chairman:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joe Knollenberg:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia and Independent
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: FAA's Proposed Plan for Implementing a Reliability Centered
Maintenance Process for Air Traffic Control Equipment:
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Air Traffic Organization
(ATO) is responsible for maintaining approximately 40,000 pieces of air
traffic control equipment, such as radars, navigation beacons,
communication systems, and instrument landing systems that are
essential to the safe operation of the national airspace system (NAS).
Currently, ATO engineers and technicians conduct routine maintenance,
periodic inspections, and performance checks on air traffic control
equipment to ensure that it functions properly. Recently, ATO
identified another process called reliability centered maintenance
(RCM) that it plans to add to the other methods it uses to maintain the
equipment. RCM is a data-driven, analytical process used to determine
the most value-added maintenance requirements that are needed to keep
equipment functioning properly. RCM processes are used by federal and
private organizations because they reduce unnecessary maintenance. ATO
believes that RCM's data-driven analyses for identifying maintenance
needs, combined with the equipment manufacturers' maintenance
recommendations and engineers' knowledge of the air traffic control
equipment, will enhance the ways that ATO maintains the equipment.
Senate Report 109- 109, which accompanied the Fiscal Year 2006
Appropriations Act for the Department of Transportation,[Footnote 1]
asked us to analyze FAA's plans to develop an RCM process and the
impact of these plans. Since FAA is just beginning to define its
approach to RCM, we could not address the specific request. However, as
agreed with your offices, we are reporting on (1) what RCM is and where
it is being used and (2) the status of ATO's plan for developing and
implementing an RCM process for maintaining air traffic control
equipment.
To address these questions, we interviewed ATO officials assigned to
FAA offices in Washington, D.C., and in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma,[Footnote 2] and reviewed their operating procedures and
maintenance documents. We also interviewed, and obtained documents
from, officials of the FAA employee unions that represent ATO
technicians and engineers, the Professional Airways Systems Specialists
(PASS), and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA),
respectively. In addition, we interviewed officials of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of
Defense (DOD) about their agencies' RCM initiatives. Finally, we
reviewed pertinent documents, books, and our prior reports on FAA
maintenance procedures for air traffic control equipment, RCM, and
planning strategies of leading organizations. (See encl. I for
additional information on our methodology.) We conducted our work from
May 2006 through October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Summary:
RCM is a data-driven, analytical process used to determine the most
value-added maintenance requirements that are needed to keep equipment
functioning properly. It requires that data be collected and analyzed
on the causes and consequences of failures, in order to determine the
maintenance needed to prevent future failures. For example, performance
data can be analyzed to determine whether a particular component wears
out with age or fails randomly--key information for deciding the
maintenance approach most appropriate for that item. Generally, RCM
analyses are used to identify which of three approaches is most
appropriate for preventing equipment failures: (1) periodic
maintenance, meaning procedures are performed at regular intervals (for
example, monthly); (2) condition-based maintenance, meaning equipment
is monitored but only serviced when potential problems warrant it; and
(3) run-to-fault maintenance, meaning equipment is allowed to fail
because maintenance would have no effect on whether (and when)
equipment fails. Both federal agencies and private industry utilize RCM
for their equipment maintenance. Leading organizations that introduce
new processes, like RCM, develop strategic implementation plans that
articulate program objectives and timetables, and commit resources for
training, data collection and analysis, and other costs.
ATO has announced that it intends to add an RCM process to its current
methods of maintaining air traffic control equipment, which rely on
recommendations made by equipment manufacturers and ATO's own
expertise. Currently, ATO is in the early planning phase. At the time
of our review, ATO had not yet developed a plan or identified resources
for implementing an RCM process for maintaining air traffic control
equipment. ATO officials told us that they hope to complete a number of
steps within the next year, such as designating the ATO offices to be
responsible for implementing RCM maintenance policy and procedures,
providing appropriate RCM training to ATO engineers and technicians,
and having ATO engineers begin using RCM to update equipment
maintenance handbooks. ATO officials estimate that it will take at
least 10 years before RCM can be fully implemented as part of ATO's
maintenance process because more than 300 system maintenance handbooks
will have to be updated. ATO officials are aware that the unions
representing the agency's engineers and technicians are concerned that
an RCM process will lead to unsafe air traffic control equipment. This
concern has arisen, in part, because FAA experimented several years ago
with a different maintenance process that union officials have
criticized as unsafe, and because ATO has not explained its vision of
an RCM process. ATO officials told us that they intend to work with the
unions as they implement an RCM process.
The Department of Transportation provided technical comments on a draft
of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
A complex array of primarily ground-based navigation and communication
equipment facilitates the safe and efficient movement of aircraft
throughout the NAS. The NAS infrastructure includes information
technology systems and equipment, including radar installations, signal
beacons, and communication towers. Maintaining this equipment is the
responsibility of the FAA's Technical Operation Services unit, within
the agency's ATO. With an annual budget of over $1.86 billion,
Technical Operations Services has about 6,300 systems specialists and
engineers to maintain approximately 40,000 pieces of NAS equipment. ATO
engineering offices responsible for developing ATO equipment
maintenance approaches and procedures are located in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, and Atlantic City, New Jersey.
FAA's interest in improving maintenance of air traffic control
equipment is part of a broader agency initiative to improve the way it
provides air traffic services. As early as 1997, the National Civil
Aviation Review Commission recommended that FAA's air traffic control
operations be consolidated under a performance-based
organization.[Footnote 3] By 2004, FAA reorganized all areas of its air
traffic control program under the Air Traffic Organization, and
established an office goal of providing customer service at lower cost
by incorporating leading industry practices and procedures, where
applicable, in a way that would ensure safety equal to or better than
before.
The RCM approach to maintenance began to develop in the late 1960s,
when a joint FAA and commercial airline industry task force
investigated the periodic-maintenance approach then widely used to
ensure aircraft safety. In 1968, the task force created a handbook that
was applied to the Boeing 747. The handbook called for a reduction in
the requirements established for maintenance and overhauls of
equipment, while increasing reliability and safety.[Footnote 4]
Subsequently, in the 1970s, DOD hired United Airlines to study the
relationship between maintenance, reliability, and safety. In 1978,
United Airlines staff produced a document entitled "Reliability-
Centered Maintenance." This document differed from the 1968 handbook in
that it expanded certain points and called for a more rigorous analysis
of scheduled maintenance programs. Different versions of RCM have
evolved from the original 1978 process. RCM processes are highly
regarded by several different industries and are used worldwide.
Currently, engineers in ATO's Technical Operation Services unit rely on
instructions provided by equipment manufacturers and their own
expertise to write handbooks detailing the procedures that technicians
should use to maintain about 40,000 pieces of air traffic control
equipment. In October 2004, ATO officials formed a committee to examine
new practices that could improve their maintenance of air traffic
control equipment. Committee members included representatives of FAA's
PASS and NATCA unions, as well as additional engineers and maintenance
office managers. The committee generally favored incorporating an RCM
process into ATO's maintenance process, although the union
representatives opposed it. PASS and NATCA believed that RCM resembled
another maintenance approach that FAA had previously pilot-tested--a
process that deferred maintenance and led the unions to question the
safety of air traffic control equipment. PASS withdrew from the
committee in March 2005. ATO planned to proceed with development of an
RCM process, as announced by a formal vision document issued in
September 2005.
RCM Is a Data-Driven, Analytical Process That Is Used to Determine
Appropriate Maintenance Approaches:
The RCM process requires an analysis of equipment function and
performance data to determine the most appropriate method and timing
for conducting maintenance activities. It requires data on the function
and performance of specific equipment to be collected and analyzed,
including data on the causes and consequences of failure, in order to
determine the maintenance needed to prevent future failures. For
example, analysis of performance data can determine whether a
particular component wears out with age or fails randomly--key
information for deciding the maintenance approach most appropriate for
that item. The goals of an RCM process are to reduce equipment-caused
delays, eliminate ineffective maintenance, keep maintenance costs to a
minimum, and preserve the functioning of an entire system rather than
its individual components. RCM does not guarantee that a system will
not fail; instead, it seeks to mitigate the impact of a failure on
safety through the selection of an appropriate maintenance approach
indicated by an analysis of the relevant data.
Steps in the RCM Process:
No single RCM process is recognized throughout government and private
industry. However, a widely recognized set of RCM standards or steps
was developed in 1999 by the Society of Automotive Engineers[Footnote
5] (SAE), and updated in 2002,[Footnote 6] for use by organizations
that have, or make use of, physical assets or systems. The SAE steps
shown in figure 1 below contain the minimum questions that a
maintenance process must answer in order to be an RCM process.
Figure 1: Basic Steps for Developing an RCM Equipment Maintenance
Procedure:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO.
[End of Figure]
The first steps in a typical RCM process involve collecting and
analyzing data on the function and performance of each piece of
equipment. Performance information is found in databases that record
how long equipment operates and under what conditions it fails. In
addition, staff use their knowledge of the equipment's operation to
supplement performance data. The data are then analyzed according to
the steps shown in figure 1 for each piece of equipment.
Using the results of the analysis, staff then decide what maintenance
approaches will best ensure that equipment will perform properly
without undergoing unnecessary maintenance. Generally, RCM approaches
to preventing equipment failures include performing (1) periodic
maintenance, such as inspections, repairs, and performance checks
(which are performed at specific intervals); (2) condition-based
maintenance, which is performed to prevent or predict equipment
failures; and (3) run-to-fault maintenance, under which equipment is
allowed to fail because it is not possible or prudent to avoid failures
or extend the life of the equipment through maintenance. Changing the
battery in a smoke detector every 6 months illustrates a typical
household example of periodic maintenance. Checking tire treads for
excessive wear illustrates a condition-based maintenance procedure. Run-
to-fault maintenance could be illustrated, for example, by light
fixtures in halls, cafeterias, and lounges, where bulbs are only
replaced as they burn out because an outage would not generally disrupt
use of the facility or pose a safety hazard. A hypothetical RCM-based
analysis of the performance data for a radar system might show that a
particular component causes outages most often after 2 years of use.
Engineering analysis could show that monthly maintenance procedures for
that component are excessive to protect equipment against a biennial
outage and that quarterly procedures would be more effective. (See
encl. II for a flowchart showing the types of questions that can
identify the most appropriate approaches.)
RCM Is Used in the Federal Government and Private Industry:
Both federal agencies and private industry utilize RCM for their
equipment maintenance. For example, the Naval Air Systems Command
(NAVAIR) under the DOD has been using RCM approaches on its systems
since 1972, and NASA started using RCM in 1995 at its laboratory
facilities. Organizations such as commercial airlines, electric power
companies,[Footnote 7] and chemical processors also use RCM-based
approaches to maintain equipment that is essential for their
industries. RCM is considered such an effective way for organizations
to maintain their physical assets that many professional maintenance
training and certification programs have incorporated it in their
curriculums. For example, the Society for Maintenance and Reliability
Professionals requires candidates for professional certification to
become familiar with RCM, and several universities operate maintenance
management certificate programs that introduce RCM to participants.
RCM Requires Organizations to Plan and Commit Resources:
Implementing an RCM process demands a certain level of commitment for
most organizations. We reported in an earlier study that leading
organizations rarely make major changes to their processes without
first developing strategic plans to guide their
implementation.[Footnote 8] Strategic planning can be defined as a
structured process through which an organization translates a vision
and makes fundamental decisions that shape and guide what the
organization is and what it does. Since RCM is a data- driven process,
an organization planning to adopt it must usually dedicate resources to
pay for items necessary to support it. Costs could include items such
as acquiring a computerized maintenance management system to collect
performance data on equipment, training staff in RCM, and covering
higher labor costs during the initial analyses to identify maintenance
approaches and specific maintenance procedures. However, these costs
may be mitigated by savings after organizations implement an RCM
process, according to literature on the subject.
ATO Has Not Developed Plans for Implementing RCM:
ATO is in the early planning phase of developing an RCM process for
maintaining air traffic control equipment. At the time of our review,
ATO had developed a draft order that calls for using RCM as part of its
maintenance process because ATO engineers believe that the newer
technology of air traffic control equipment requires less maintenance
than what is currently being performed, and because RCM will make
maintenance decisions more transparent. However, ATO has not yet
developed a plan for implementing an RCM process. ATO officials told us
that they envision using RCM in conjunction with the maintenance
recommendations supplied by equipment manufacturers, and the expertise
of its engineers and technicians to form a complete maintenance program
for air traffic control equipment. ATO officials estimated that, for
RCM to be implemented, over 300 system maintenance handbooks would have
to be updated over a period of at least 10 years. However, basic issues
about the RCM process that ATO wants to develop remain undecided. For
instance, ATO has not decided whether the data now collected will be
sufficient for RCM analysis, or what RCM training will be provided for
its staff.
ATO officials have identified certain decisions they need to make
before an RCM plan can be established. These officials told us that
they plan to complete several steps within the next year that will
signal their commitment to eventually using an RCM approach for
maintenance, including (1) designating the ATO offices that will be
responsible for implementing RCM policy and procedures, (2) providing
appropriate RCM training to ATO engineers and technicians, and (3)
having ATO engineers use RCM to update equipment maintenance handbooks.
However, as discussed, implementing an RCM process usually requires an
organization to plan its development and commit resources for training,
equipment, and labor costs--steps that ATO has not yet taken.
Currently, ATO oversees the functioning of NAS equipment by using a
maintenance process, primarily based on periodic maintenance
activities, including preventative maintenance inspections, performance
checks, and routine maintenance. For example, ATO currently maintains
its instrument landing system (ILS) equipment against failure through
periodic maintenance that includes monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and
annual service for the system's components. However, an RCM process
would generally indicate the appropriateness of using one or more of
three approaches for preventing equipment failures: (1) periodic
maintenance, (2) condition-based maintenance, and (3) run-to-fault
maintenance. Therefore, under RCM, some periodic tasks for maintaining
the ILS might remain unchanged while other tasks might be rescheduled
for new intervals, replaced by monitoring tasks, or dropped altogether,
depending on the results of engineering analyses. For example, an ILS
component that currently receives quarterly maintenance could be found,
through an engineering analysis, to need only annual maintenance.
Furthermore, a study of a different ILS component could show that it
needs no planned maintenance, so the run-to-fault maintenance approach
should apply. Display monitors in air traffic control towers illustrate
a different type of equipment that could qualify for run-to-fault
maintenance, according to ATO officials. In one failure mode, these
monitors gradually develop alignment problems over time, but are still
useable. When a monitor finally becomes unusable, towers use backup
monitors while the unusable monitor is repaired. ATO officials told us
that, for this type of failure, they could allow a monitor to run-to-
fault because a failed monitor would pose no operational issues and
repairing the monitor after a failure would not be costly. An ATO
official told us that once an RCM process is implemented, staff will be
able to expand the selection of maintenance approaches by incorporating
those shown in table 1.
Table 1: FAA's Potential RCM Maintenance Approaches:
Maintenance approach: Periodic maintenance;
Description: Scheduled maintenance performed at set time intervals,
regardless of equipment condition. Maintenance can include inspection,
adjustments, cleaning, lubrication, parts replacement, calibration, and
repair. If failures are unrelated to equipment age, periodic
maintenance can be unnecessary. Possible application: radar antenna
drive motors.
Maintenance approach: Condition-based maintenance;
Description: Condition-based monitoring forecasts time when maintenance
should be performed. Predictive testing and inspections eliminate
unnecessary maintenance and extend equipment life. Also includes cycle-
based and performance-hour procedures. Possible applications:
replacement of digital audio tapes after a certain number of recording
cycles; maintenance of emergency power generators after a certain
number of hours of operation.
Maintenance approach: Run-to-fault maintenance;
Description: No maintenance is planned for equipment because it would
not reduce the probability of failure or extend equipment life. Backup
equipment may be needed to reduce the risk and cost of failure.
Possible application: flat panel displays.
Source: FAA.
[End of table]
ATO pilot-tested the development of RCM procedures in 2006 when it
assigned a team of engineers to update maintenance procedures for ILSs.
The team drafted new procedures that combined the use of periodic,
condition-based, and run-to-fault maintenance for various components of
the systems. However, ATO did not consider these to be true RCM
procedures because the team arrived at its results without
systematically examining the function and performance information
essential to the RCM process. As a result, the team provided no RCM
analytical documentation when the pilot ended, and ATO officials
concluded that staff needed more training in the RCM process than the
RCM familiarization course that ATO had supplied. During our review, we
were told that ATO was contacting NAVAIR about the possibility of using
its RCM training as a model for future ATO training. Despite the
challenge shown by ATO's initial attempt to develop a procedure, an ATO
official told us that the first RCM system maintenance handbook for
certain aircraft navigation beacons, known as very high frequency
omnidirectional range systems, would be developed by 2007.
Concerns about RCM Are Based on Failed Alaskan Pilot Maintenance
Program:
Union officials told us that RCM appears to be no different from an
Alaskan pilot program that limited the use of periodic maintenance.
Even before ATO's 2005 planning document announced its intention to
implement RCM, officials from the two FAA unions that represent ATO's
technicians (PASS) and engineers (NATCA) testified before Congress that
RCM is unsafe, inefficient, and a threat to the reliability of NAS
equipment. For example, the President of PASS stated that RCM would
significantly reduce periodic maintenance and substitute a "fix-on-
fail" method that would increase disruptive unplanned downtime, thereby
threatening flight safety and wasting agency resources. NATCA's Alaskan
Regional Vice President stated that RCM would lead to equipment outages
disrupting air traffic routes important to Alaskan communities. Both
officials testified that RCM resembles a maintenance pilot program that
FAA had tested in its Alaska region with less-than-favorable results.
FAA conducted a maintenance pilot program, called the Corporate
Maintenance Philosophy (CMP), in its Alaska region from 1997 to 2000.
The goal of this pilot was to test a more "business-like" approach to
air traffic control maintenance. Under CMP, the intervals between
servicing much of the region's equipment, including some of its
critical safety equipment, increased. In addition, the CMP pilot relied
extensively on run-to-fault maintenance and led to operational problems
that staff were unable to correct. A NATCA official told us that under
CMP, servicing intervals were longer, equipment outages increased, and
repairs at each facility were more substantial. Because of the unions'
complaints and a resulting Federal Labor Relations Authority ruling,
the CMP pilot was discontinued, and the Alaska region reverted to using
the national periodic maintenance and certification standards.
Furthermore, our report[Footnote 9] on the CMP pilot and its aftermath
described safety concerns arising from the lack of quality control
checks being performed by FAA staff responsible for ensuring that
maintenance information was properly entered in FAA's computerized
maintenance management system. In addition, we found that, at all 12
Alaska region offices, the staff were behind schedule in performing
their periodic maintenance activities.
ATO officials acknowledge that safety issues resulting from the CMP
pilot have given staff and unions reason for concern about the proposed
RCM maintenance process. According to an internal ATO briefing paper,
RCM is often mistakenly viewed as an approach that abandons periodic
maintenance. However, ATO officials told us that, unlike the CMP pilot
program in Alaska, RCM will not abandon periodic maintenance. According
to ATO officials, RCM will be a data-driven process that differs
distinctly from the CMP pilot. ATO officials explained that equipment
under CMP was allowed to run-to-fault because of a lack of money for
repairs and the remote nature of the equipment in Alaska. RCM, however,
will preserve periodic maintenance and incorporate condition-based
maintenance, except where run-to-fault maintenance is appropriate.
Furthermore, an ATO official told us that his office plans to do more
to point out the differences between RCM and the CMP pilot program to
secure buy-in from ATO staff and unions.
Agency Comments:
We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its review and comment. The agency provided
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Minority Members of the Senate and House Subcommittees with
jurisdiction over FAA matters. We will also send copies to the
Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be available on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at Flemings@gao.gov or at (202) 512-2834. Contact points for
our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Individuals making key contributions
to this report are listed in enclosure III.
Signed by:
Susan A. Fleming:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology:
For information about Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), we
reviewed professional and academic literature on its background,
purpose, development, and standards, and obtained information on the
RCM programs at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and
the Department of Defense, Naval Air Systems Command.
To provide information on the Air Traffic Organization's (ATO) plan for
developing and implementing RCM, we interviewed officials at the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) headquarters in Washington,
D.C., and FAA's National Airway Systems Engineering office in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. During these visits, we interviewed ATO's Director of
Safety and Operations Support, the Manager of Safety and Operations
Support, the Manager of National Airway Systems Engineering Group,
program analysts, and engineers responsible for maintenance procedures
for two types of air traffic control equipment--instrument landing
systems (ILS) and navigation beacons called very high frequency
omnidirectional range (VOR). We also reviewed a September 2005 ATO
Technical Operations vision paper, minutes of internal ATO planning
meetings, and a draft maintenance order outlining proposed RCM
requirements for air traffic control equipment maintenance.
Additionally, we reviewed early draft RCM maintenance procedures for
ILSs and compared them with ATO's current procedures.
To provide information on concerns about ATO's RCM initiative, we
interviewed union representatives from the Professional Airways Systems
Specialists (PASS) and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
(NATCA), representing technicians and engineers, respectively. We also
reviewed GAO and FAA reports on the FAA's maintenance pilot program in
its Alaska Region and planning strategies of leading organizations. We
performed our work from May 2006 through October 2006 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Enclosure II: Example of a NASA Decision Process for Selecting an RCM
Maintenance Approach:
Generally, RCM programs use flow charts called logic trees, like the
one below, to guide staff in identifying the appropriate maintenance
approaches.
Figure 2: Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Decision Logic Tree:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: NASA Facilities RCM Guide.
[End of Figure]
Enclosure III: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Nabajyoti Barkakati, Richard
Calhoon, Virginia Chanley, Bess Eisenstadt, David Hooper, Amanda
Krause, Joshua Ormond, Nitin Rao, Taylor Reeves, and Phillis Riley made
key contributions to this report.
(540125):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, The
Judiciary, The District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006, P.L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396.
[2] ATO's National Airway Systems Engineering Group in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, is responsible for exploring RCM and pilot-testing the
development of RCM-based maintenance procedures.
[3] A performance-based organization is a discrete management unit with
incentives to manage for results. In the 1990s, federal law established
performance-based organizations as a way of restructuring federal
agencies and holding them accountable for program results. The pay and
tenure of the head of a performance-based organization is tied to
achievement of the unit's clearly defined performance goals.
[4] Although the 1968 maintenance approach had many features of a
reliability-centered maintenance process, it was not referred to by
that name.
[5] The Society of Automotive Engineers has more than 90,000 members--
engineers, business executives, educators, and students from more than
97 countries--who share information and exchange ideas for advancing
the engineering of mobility systems.
[6] SAE JA1011, "Evaluation Criteria for RCM Processes," August 1999,
and SAE JA1012, "A Guide to the RCM Standard," January 2002.
[7] According to the Electric Power Research Institute, electric
utilities need maintenance practices to ensure reliability while
controlling and possibly lowering costs. The institute offers RCM
program support tailored to individual utility company needs.
[8] GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making,
GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).
[9] GAO, National Airspace System: Incomplete Transition Back to
National Maintenance and Certification Standards in the Federal
Aviation Administration's Alaskan Region, GAO-02-127R (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 30, 2001).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
