ADs, SAIBs, and Maintenance Alerts delivered side by side

Besides AD research do you review all the SAIBs (Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin) and 43-16 Maintenance Alerts to uncover potential items that effect the airworthiness of an aircraft?

There is a treasure of data in SAIBs and Alerts but finding the specific documents that applied to your aircraft could take a considerable amount of time.

We wanted to see if we could improve access to SAIBs and Maintenance Alerts so here is what we did:

  • We went through every SAIB and every Maintenance Alert since the very first issue of each and added meta-data on what specific models are covered by each document.
  • We added these publication sets to our comprehensive regulatory libraries FFX, FFW, FF0, FUW and FF6.
  • My Library has been upgraded so under a aircraft model you will find a ;
         - Advisory Publication folder with all the 43-16 Maintenance Alerts for that specific model
         - Airworthiness Bulletins with the SAIBs (SIBs in the EASA products) for that specific model
         - Airworthiness Directives with all the ADs for that specific model

[ATP Aviation Hub shown]

I think you will be amazed at the amount of safety and maintenance issues that are available for each aircraft. And now you can quickly and easily get to it.

What do you think? This took many hours to read and index each issue. Is this valuable information? Will it be used if easier to access.  Add a comment on your use, thoughts and suggestions around SAIBs and Maintenance Alerts.


WOW! Sounds like a wonderful tool for 45% of us [see Industry Pulse, down & to the right] but to the smart D.O.M. it's not only another level of safety but an opportunity to increase your bottom line.

The other 55% though may have a legitimate argument in that you really have to know your customer [I'm a 55%er] to be an elite service center. By that I mean you're more likely to recoupe your labor expense by selling an SAIB or Alert to a 2005 Malibu owner than the owner of a 1946 Champ.

In either case, this new tool is a wonderful asset for every FBO or maintenance tech. It's something I would use to show customers the level of service they receive... Good job ATP!

It was an amazing amount of work to go back 35 years and index every Maintenance Alert and SAIB but if it can improve safety it was all worth it.
There is a tremendous amount of data that has been collected by the FAA over the years. Multiple studies have shown that if technical data is not easily available it is not used. Something like 25% of human factors errors can be traced back to data not being used. I have been an advocate for building delivery systems that make access easier.
Just because computers can manage and deliver data are we adding complexity or simplifying the task? It is encouraging that the poll indicates a large group find value in the information and invest the time to review this data.

Huh? "Something like 25% of human factors errors can be traced back to data not being used." Sorry, does not compute! You're talking apples and oranges here. You gotta splain dat one tomme, Ricky...

Otherwise, having hand-carried ALL the necessary books, FARs, CARs, ADs etc for my IA test [uphill both ways... in the snow] aeons ago I do have an appreciation for the megavolumes of information that had to be correlated in order to provide us with that tool.

You don't need a poll to find its value! If you have a brain and any sense of pride or safety it's the best thing since a rear door for flannel pajamas...

You would think easier access, easier revision management and all the other positives of digital content would be a no brainer but once you move up from the user to corp ladder (bean counters) they require a dollar value for all these positives. To this group ease of use and even safety enhancement must be measurable; but I am drifting off your 25% question.

The 25% comes from a number of IA Seminars I have attended where the FAA has listed non use of data as a big contributor to incidents. Many have used the 1 in 4. Last years Delaware IA Seminar the Inspector went so far as to show a slide for every incident/accident of the last year and the root cause. In his presentation it was almost 50% would have performed the task properly (avoiding the failure) if they had used a SB or Manual covering the task. It seems hard to believe but I keep hearing that not using the manuals is a big problem. I did a Google search and could only find some old studies but some interesting results.
Section 3.2 indicated "not used" as 50% of the responses to Information issues which ranked at 40% so half of the 40% is 20% responded that "not used" was the issue.
Background 1.1 is a good view of the size of the problem. Page 3 says “73% of mechanics surveyed reported failing to refer to maintenance documents either occasionally or often”
technicians spend up to 50% of their time searching for information – top of page 14

I guess that is why I am so passionate about trying to improve data access. My hope is if it is easier to access the data then the usage rate will improve.

With all due respect my friend, I'm still not sold although I am swayed a little closer to your side. First of all, the FAA inferrs that having MMs that "...contain misleading information, insufficient information or unclear procedures" contribute to Human Factors errors. I couldn't be more adamantly opposed to that concept!

Practice doesn't make perfect, PERFECT practice makes perfect! If you start with crap you get a fecal soufflé. That's not a good thing in our industry [nor ANY industry for that matter] but it's not a Human Factors incident. Thanks to litigation, aviation attorneys starting circa the 1980s, methods to correct errors were driven by cost analysis and liability exposure. When I first started in GA, I hated to get Monday's mail cuz I'd spend two hours updating MMs. Now, it's bi-annually, if at all, and the volume is considerably less and I'll tell you why. The planes are already sold, it costs big bucks to make changes and the almighty dollar has replaced quality and pride!

Also keep in mind that, of the 13 manufacturers in the FAA's 'survey', only Cessna was GA but they represented 500 and above series aircraft. Nowhere did I see a Piper or a Mooney or a Socata or a Maule or a Beech [and I don't include Raytheon cuz they're in the same boat with Cessna here]. More a survey with blinders than a pulse on the industry don't ya think? But I digress...

I believe the confusion lies in the Executive Summary where they state that Phase 3 can "identify ways in which human factors principles can be used to improve the development of these documents are reported". Key word is principles and I have no problems with that. But to say that the use or non-use af mx data is analogous to Human Factors is zero% correct!

Human Factors is a broad bucket that seems to get the blame for any mistakes. It is a very broad brush that does not seem to fit some issues because it is being applied through the whole error life cycle. Take the error in a maintenance manual. There is no human factors error by the mechanic who uses bad data. But is there a human factors error in creation of the manual? Why was the manual in error and why has it never been reported?

I also know that statistics can be slanted very easily based on so many variables. The disturbing issue to me is "technicians not using technical data" keeps coming up in studies and IA seminars. This indicates to me that there is room for improvement in data access.

No arguments on the "technicians not using technical data" and the "broad brush" but allow me to offer food for thought. Human Factors is a ripe topic that's right on point but I refer to Aesop's Fable 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf '.

The tale concerns a shepherd boy who repeatedly tricks nearby villagers into thinking a wolf is attacking his flock. When a wolf actually does appear, the villagers do not believe the boy's cries for help, and the flock is destroyed.

Aesop's moral was that liars don't get rewards, my analogy is not about lies but is meant to point out that people will stop listening even when it's appropriate to do so!

I think The Bard said it best when he said Human Factors are Human Factors are Human Factors, or something like that...