I looked at the first few pages - Waddington effect. This gets proven repeatedly in industry. I performed a study on main bearing failures on 200 field engines. A complete study of maintenance and operation records. It showed that preventive replacement made the engine population 3x more likely to have a failure than if left alone. No disrespect to RocketBob, but having hundreds of different mechanics do the replacements yielded a more contaminated environment than existed from the factory where such things were much more controlled, or at least known. Caution: Each failure mode must be taken on it's own, so don't extend this to all failure.
I will be looking at this book, it seems to bring together some general concepts that don't often get collected and published.
For such a technologically advanced group, what are you all doing ordering paper copies via snail mail?
You're seriously asking this of a bunch of guys who run carubureted Lycomings?
::ducks for cover::
You're seriously asking this of a bunch of guys who run carbureted Lycomings?
::ducks for cover::
Working process improvement, I saw this first hand at engine shop at airline. The variation introduced when maintenance was performed was a significant driver and very difficult for those of us old timers to fully comprehend. Old school feelings says more maintenance = more reliability. Data said otherwise. R/R a component should be a simple task. More often than not, something gets broke, something get forgotten, something gets dirty, and the next thing you know you are fixing something that wasn't broken to begin with. In a perfect world, this should not occur. However, humans are the biggest sources of variation to process. However, no maintenance is not good either. So, the biggest challenge is finding that perfect middle ground to minimize cost and maximize reliability.
cj
If an aircraft fly's 35 hours does it really need a typical Part 43 annual inspection or does the process cause more harm than good?