RCM Methodology - NAVAIR

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.
com
NAVAIR 00-25-403
01 July 2005
MANAGEMENT MANUAL
GUIDELINES FOR THE NAVAL AVIATION

RELIABILITY-CENTERED MAINTENANCE
PROCESS
This manual supersedes NAVAIR 00-25-403 dated 01 March 2003.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. - Approved for public release; distribution is

unlimited.
PUBLISHED BY DIRECTION OFCOMMANDER, NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND
0800LP1046697
NATEC ELECTRONIC MANUAL

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.com
NAVAIR 00–25–403
2 July 2005
NAVAIR 00–25–403, DATED 1 July 2005, CONTAINS A FEW INCORRECT PAGES. RE-
MOVE AND DISCARD PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED PAGES AND REPLACE WITH AT-
TACHED PAGES.
PLACE THIS NOTICE SHEET BEHIND MANUAL TITLE PAGE AFTER

COMPLETING REQUIRED ACTION.
NAVAIR 00-25-403
01 July 2005
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES
Dates of issue for original and changed pages are indicated below:
Original……………0…………….01 July 2005
Insert latest changed pages. Dispose of superseded pages in accordance with applicable
regulations.
NOTE: A vertical line or other change symbol in the outer margin of the page indicates the
portion of the text affected by the latest change. Changes to illustrations are indicated by
miniature pointing hands.
Total number of pages in this manual is 194 consisting of the following:
PAGE NO. #CHG PAGE NO #CHG PAGE NO #CHG

NO NO NO
Title…………… 0 4-12 Blank……... 0 A-37 – A71……. 0
A…………….… 0 5-1 – 5-11……… 0 A-72 Blank…….. 0
i –v………….… 0 5-12 Blank….….. 0 A-73 – A77…….. 0
1-1 – 1-5……… 0 A-1 – A-30…….. 0 A-78 Blank…….. 0
1-6 Blank……… 0 A-31 Blank…….. 0 A-79…………… 0
2-1 – 2-24……. 0 A-32 – A-33…… 0 A-80 Blank…….. 0
3-1 – 3-39……. 0 A-34 Blank..…… 0 A-81 – A82……. 0
3-40 Blank….… 0 A-35……..…….. 0 B-1 – B-8……….. 0
4-1 – 4-11……. 0 A-36 Blank…….. 0
*Zero (0) in this column indicates an original page
A
NAVAIR 00-25-403
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES.................................................................................................. A
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................i
I INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 SCOPE ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 DEFINITIONS............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.4 ACRONYMS............................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS..................................................................................... 1-5
II RCM PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 RCM DURING ACQUISITION PHASES ................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1 Prior to Milestone A (Concept & Technology Development)................................. 2-3
2.2.2 Prior to Milestone B (System Development and Demonstration) ............................. 2-4
2.2.3 Prior to Milestone C (Production & Deployment)................................................... 2-4
2.2.4 During Full Rate Production and subsequent (Operations & Support) ................... 2-6
2.3 RCM TEAM ESTABLISHMENT (Management, Analysis, Sustainment) ................ 2-7
2.3.1 RCM Team Composition......................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.1.1 Program Management...................................................................................... 2-7
2.3.1.2 Fleet Support Team.......................................................................................... 2-8
2.3.1.3 Competencies................................................................................................... 2-8
2.3.1.4 Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or Supporting Contractors............ 2-8
2.3.1.5 Equipment Controlling Custodians, Operators, & Maintainers....................... 2-8
2.3.2 Ancillary Support Requirements.............................................................................. 2-9
2.3.3 Knowledge and Skills Requirements ....................................................................... 2-9
2.3.4 Contracting For RCM .............................................................................................. 2-9
2.3.5 Conducting The Analysis....................................................................................... 2-10
2.4 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 2-10
2.4.1 Determining Scope of Analysis ............................................................................. 2-11
2.4.2 Hardware Partitioning............................................................................................ 2-11
2.4.3 Level of Analysis ................................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.4 Hardware Selection................................................................................................ 2-13
i
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.4.5 Extent of Analysis.................................................................................................. 2-14

2.5 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................. 2-15
2.5.1 General Considerations.......................................................................................... 2-15
2.5.2 Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA).................................. 2-16
2.5.3 Task Analysis......................................................................................................... 2-17
2.6 TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION ....................................................................... 2-17
2.6.1 NAVAIR RCM Training Courses ......................................................................... 2-18
2.6.1.1 RCM Management Overview, Orientation, and Fundamentals Courses... 2-18
2.6.1.2 Propulsion and Power Course Offering ..................................................... 2-18
2.6.2 Data Analysis Training .......................................................................................... 2-18
2.6.3 Other Training Topics............................................................................................ 2-19
2.6.4 Certification ........................................................................................................... 2-19
2.6.4.1 Level 1 ........................................................................................................... 2-19
2.6.4.2 Level 2 ........................................................................................................... 2-20
2.6.4.3 Level 3 ........................................................................................................... 2-20
2.6.4.4 RCM Site Coordinator ................................................................................... 2-21
2.6.4.5 RCM Trainer.................................................................................................. 2-21
2.7 RCM PROGRAM REPORTING .............................................................................. 2-21
2.8 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.................................................................................. 2-22
2.9 DATA SOURCES ..................................................................................................... 2-22
2.10 RCM PROGRAM METRICS ................................................................................... 2-23
2.11 IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS ....................................................................... 2-23
2.12 RCM PROGRAM SUSTAINMENT EFFORTS ...................................................... 2-24
III RCM ANALYSIS PROCESS ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 FAILURE MODE EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS.............................. 3-2
3.2.1 Function .................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Functional Failure..................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3 Compensating Provisions ......................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.4 Failure Mode............................................................................................................. 3-5
3.2.5 Failure Effect ............................................................................................................ 3-6
3.2.6 Failure Detection ...................................................................................................... 3-7
3.2.7 Severity Classifications ............................................................................................ 3-8
3.2.8 Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)...................................................................... 3-8
3.3 SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION IDENTIFICATION..........................................3-10
3.3.1 Significant Function (SF) Logic ............................................................................. 3-10
3.3.2 SF Logic Questions................................................................................................. 3-11
ii
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.4 RCM DECISION LOGIC.......................................................................................... 3-12

3.4.1 Failure Consequences ............................................................................................. 3-13
3.4.2 Decision Logic Branches........................................................................................ 3-15
3.5 TASK EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 3-15
3.5.1 Servicing Task ........................................................................................................ 3-15
3.5.2 Lubrication Task..................................................................................................... 3-16
3.5.3 Corrosion Preventive Compounds.......................................................................... 3-16
3.5.4 Servicing/Lubrication Task Cost Analysis ............................................................. 3-16
3.5.5 On Condition Task.................................................................................................. 3-17
3.5.5.1 On Condition Task Development ................................................................... 3-17
3.5.5.2 Identifying the Functional Failure Condition ................................................. 3-18
3.5.5.3 Identifying the Potential Failure Condition .................................................... 3-18
3.5.5.4 Determining the PF Interval............................................................................ 3-19
3.5.5.5 On Condition Task Interval Development...................................................... 3-19
3.5.5.6 On Condition Task Cost Analysis................................................................... 3-21
3.5.6 Hard Time Task ...................................................................................................... 3-21
3.5.6.1 Hard Time Task Development........................................................................ 3-21
3.5.6.2 Wear Out......................................................................................................... 3-22
3.5.6.3 Survival to Wear Out Age............................................................................... 3-22
3.5.6.4 Hard Time Task Interval Development .......................................................... 3-23
3.5.6.5 Hard Time Task Cost Analysis ....................................................................... 3-24
3.5.7 Failure Finding Task............................................................................................... 3-24
3.5.7.1 Failure Finding Task Interval Development ................................................... 3-24
3.5.7.2 Hidden Economic/Operational Failure Modes ............................................... 3-24
3.5.7.3 Failure Finding Task Cost Analysis................................................................ 3-24
3.5.8 No PM..................................................................................................................... 3-25
3.5.8.1 “No PM” Cost Analysis .................................................................................. 3-25
3.5.9 Other Action Warranted ......................................................................................... 3-25
3.5.9.1 “Other Action Warranted” Cost Analysis....................................................... 3-26
3.5.10 Age Exploration (AE)........................................................................................... 3-26
3.5.10.1 AE Task Development.................................................................................. 3-27
3.5.10.2 AE Tasks for Failure Modes with Safety/Environmental Consequences..... 3-27
3.5.10.3 AE Tasks for Failure Modes with Economic/Operational Consequences.... 3-28
3.5.10.4 AE Sample Quantity ..................................................................................... 3-28
3.5.10.5 AE Task Selection......................................................................................... 3-28
3.6 RCM TASK SELECTION ........................................................................................ 3-29
3.6.1 Basis for Decisions ................................................................................................. 3-29
iii
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.6.1.1 Cost ................................................................................................................. 3-29

3.6.1.2 Operational Consequences.............................................................................. 3-29
3.6.1.3 Cost Equation Limitations .............................................................................. 3-33
3.7 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................ 3-34
3.7.1 Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) Systems........................................... 3-34
3.7.2 Combination of Tasks............................................................................................. 3-37
3.7.3 Zonal Inspections and Walkaround Checks ........................................................... 3-37
3.7.4 Event-Driven Tasks ................................................................................................ 3-37
3.7.5 RCM Audits and Assessments................................................................................ 3-38
IV IMPLEMENTATION OF RCM ANALYSIS RESULTS.......................................... 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 PACKAGING PM TASKS.......................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Initial Packaging Strategy......................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1.1 Step 1 - Lay Out Tasks by Interval and Preliminary Maintenance Level......... 4-2
4.2.1.2 Step 2 - Identify Logical Task Groupings......................................................... 4-4
4.2.1.3 Step 3 – Develop Final Packaging .................................................................... 4-4
4.2.2 Fitting Tasks Into Existing Packages........................................................................ 4-6
4.2.3 Repackaging ............................................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.4 Special Considerations for PHM Driven Tasks ....................................................... 4-6
4.2.5 Environmental Considerations................................................................................. 4-7
4.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER ACTIONS ........................................................... 4-8
4.3.1 Mandatory Action...................................................................................................... 4-8
4.3.2 Desirable Action ....................................................................................................... 4-9
4.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF AE TASKS........................................................................ 4-9
4.5 PERFORMING PM TASKS EARLY ....................................................................... 4-10
V SUSTAINMENT OF RCM PROGRAM.......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 SUSTAINING THE ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 5-2
5.2.1 Top Degrader Analysis ............................................................................................. 5-2
5.2.2 Trend Analysis.......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.3 PM Requirements Document Reviews..................................................................... 5-4
5.2.4 Task Packaging Reviews .......................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.5 Fleet Leader Programs.............................................................................................. 5-5
5.2.6 Age Exploration Tasks ............................................................................................. 5-6
5.2.7 Emergent Issues ........................................................................................................ 5-6
5.2.7.1 Problem Assessment ......................................................................................... 5-7
iv
NAVAIR 00-25-403
5.2.7.2 Non-RCM Corrective Action.................................................................... 5-7

5.2.7.3 Interim Action.......................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.7.4 RCM Review........................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.7.5 RCM Update ........................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.7.6 Sources of Emergent Issues................................................................... 5-7
5.3 RESULTS OF SUSTAINING EFFORTS ............................................................... 5-8
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF RCM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS..................................... 5-9

5.4.1 Cost avoidance ....................................................................................... 5-9
5.4.2 Maintenance Performed........................................................................ 5-10
5.4.3 Operational Readiness ......................................................................... 5-11
5.4.4 Other Parameters ................................................................................. 5-11
APPENDIX A
PART 1 – RCM PROGRAM PLAN
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. A-6
2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... A-3
3 SCOPE ............................................................................................................. A-6
4 SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM........................................................................ A-6

4.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................A-6
4.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT............................................................................A-7
4.2.1 Depot Failure Database ..........................................................................A-7
4.2.2 RCM Analysis Databases .......................................................................A-7
4.2.3 RCM History Log ....................................................................................A-7
4.2.4 Maintenance Specification Management ................................................A-7
4.3 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS .........................................................A-7
4.3.1 Aircraft Data............................................................................................A-8
4.3.2 Acceptable Probability of Failure ............................................................A-8
4.3.3 Labor Rates ............................................................................................A-9
4.3.4 System Boundaries and Interface Items .................................................A-9
4.3.5 Performance Parameters........................................................................A-9
4.3.6 Analytical Methods................................................................................A-10
4.3.7 Mandated Tasks ...................................................................................A-10
4.4 RCM PROCESS FLOW .................................................................................A-10
4.4.1 Analysis Method ...................................................................................A-13
4.4.2 Data Collection .....................................................................................A-13
v
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4.3 Data Sorting (Potential or Functional)......................................................... A-14

4.4.4 Failure Modes (FMs) .................................................................................. A-15
4.4.5 Potential Failure to Functional Failure (PF) Interval Determination ............ A-15
4.4.6 Wear Out Characteristic Determination ...................................................... A-15
4.4.7 Categorization of Failure in Accordance with Risk Assessment Matrix ..... A-16
4.4.8 Integrated Reliability-Centered Maintenance System (IRCMS) .................. A-18
4.4.9 Task Interval Calculation ........................................................................... A-18
4.4.10 Collection of Cost Data: .............................................................................. A-22
4.4.11 RCM Process Outcomes ............................................................................ A-22
4.4.12 Age Exploration (AE) ................................................................................. A-23
4.4.13 Packaging................................................................................................... A-23
4.5 TASK REVIEW AND APPROVAL .................................................................. A-23
4.5.1 Analyst........................................................................................................ A-23
4.5.2 Fleet Review and Input ............................................................................... A-24
4.5.3 Evaluator and Estimator (E & E) Input........................................................ A-24
4.5.4 Manufacturer’s Input................................................................................... A-24
4.5.5 RCM Team Leader Review ....................................................................... A-24
4.5.6 Lead Logistician Review ............................................................................. A-24
4.5.7 Lead Engineer Review .............................................................................. A-25
4.5.8 RCM Team Leader Final Approval ............................................................ A-25
4.6 TASK IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................. A-25
4.6.1 Implementing a Depot Level Change ........................................................ A-25
4.6.2 Implementation of Organizational or Intermediate Level Changes ............. A-25
4.6.3 Work Unit Code (WUC) Manual Updates .................................................. A-25
4.7 PERFORMANCE MONITORING ..................................................................... A-25
4.7.1 Monitoring Methodology ............................................................................. A-26
4.7.2 Recognition of Undesirable Trends ........................................................... A-26
4.8 REVIEW FREQUENCY..................................................................................... A-27
4.9 DOCUMENTATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ............................ .A-27
4.10 WORK PRIORITIZATION.................................................................................. A-27
5 RCM TRAINING. ........................................................................................................... A-27
5.1 RCM ANALYSTS AND RCM TEAM LEADERS . .............................................. A-27
5.2 FLEET SUPPORT TEAM LEADERS .............................................................. .A-28
6 TEAM STRUCTURE...................................................................................................... A-28
7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................... A-30
vi
NAVAIR 00-25-403
APPENDIX A
PART 2 – PROPULSION AND POWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY CENTERED
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PLAN
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ A-39

1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................A-39
1.2 SCOPE. ............................................................................................................A-39
1.3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................A-39
1.4 REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ........................................................................A-40
1.5 CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................A-42
1.6 LIST OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................... A-42
2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................... A-47
2.2 [FST ID] FLEET SUPPORT TEAM (FST) [LOCATION]....................................A-47
2.3 NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVAIR) ...............................................A-49
2.4 VENDOR (OEM) OR CONTRACTOR SUPPORT SERVICES (CSS) ..............A-50
3.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS.................................................................................. A-51
3.1 INITIAL ANALYSIS GUIDELINES AND STEPS ..............................................A-51
3.2 SUSTAINING ANALYSIS GUIDELINES AND TASKS ................................... A-55
4.0 RCM ANALYSIS GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS ........................ A-57
4.1 ANALYSIS COVERAGE ..................................................................................A-57
4.2 METHODS FOR PRIORITIZING FAILURE MODES FOR ANALYSIS ............A-58
4.3 ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................A-60
4.4 RCM PROGRAM METRICS ............................................................................A-62
4.5 SINGLE INSPECTION EFFECTIVENESS ......................................................A-63
4.6 MINIMUM DETECTABLE FLAW SIZES ..........................................................A-63
4.7 FAILURE MODE EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS ...........................A-63
4.8 TASK ANALYSIS..............................................................................................A-65
4.9 SUSTAINING TASK PRIORITIES .................................................................. A-65
4.10 DESIGN CHANGES .......................................................................................A-66
5.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... A-66
5.2 INTEGRATED RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE
SOFTWARE (IRCMS) .................................................................................... A-66
5.3 AE DATABASE.................................................................................................A-67
5.4 RCM AUDIT LOG .............................................................................................A-67
5.5 QUARTERLY RCM REPORTS ........................................................................A-68
vii
NAVAIR 00-25-403
6.0 RCM PROGRAM EVALUATION ................................................................... A-68
7.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ A-69
8.0 MILESTONE CHART ..................................................................................... A-69
9.0 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... A-69

Attachment (1) [ACFT ID] Propulsion and Power Systems
Attachment (2) RCM Based Maintenance Process
Attachment (3) Detailed Information for Calculating [ACFT ID] PPS Metrics
Attachment (4) [ACFT ID] PPS Major Intermediate And Depot Preventive Task Interval
History And RCM Goals
Attachment (5) Example of Quarterly Report
Attachment (6) [ACFT ID] PPS RCM POA&M
APPENDIX B
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. B-2
1.2 ON CONDITION TASK INTERVAL DETERMINATION ............................. B-2
1.2.1 Using Acceptable Probability of Failure and Task Effectiveness ............B-2
1.2.2 Optimizing Task Intervals for Failure Modes with Non-Safety
Consequences.......................................................................................B-4
1.2.3 Methods for Estimating Potential-to-Functional (PF) Interval..................B-5
1.3 HARD TIME TASK INTERVAL DETERMINATION.................................... B-7
1.3.1 Weibull analysis ......................................................................................B-7
1.3.2 Testing ....................................................................................................B-7
1.3.3 Fatigue analyses.....................................................................................B-7
1.3.4 Determining Hard Time Intervals for Non-Safety Related Failures .........B-7
1.4 FAILURE FINDING TASK INTERVAL DETERMINATION......................... B-8
viii
NAVAIR 00-25-403
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) is an analytical process to determine the appropriate
failure management strategies, including PM requirements and other actions that are warranted
to ensure safe operations and cost-wise readiness. This process of developing PM requirements,
with an auditable documentation package, is based on the reliability of the various components,
the severity of the consequences related to safety and mission if failure occurs, and the cost
effectiveness of the task. This manual is the primary guidance document for anyone tasked with
implementing an RCM program or performing an RCM analysis on Naval Air Systems
Command (NAVAIR) managed equipment. It covers the following subjects:
∗ RCM Program Management
∗ RCM Analysis Process
∗ Implementation of Analysis Results, and
∗ RCM Program Sustainment.
NAVAIRINST 4790.20 (series), Reliability-Centered Maintenance Program, states that, "The
NAVAIR RCM Program is applicable to all new procurement and in-service aircraft, engines,
systems (i.e., weapons, aircrew escape systems, avionics, and electrical systems), and Support
Equipment (SE) (i.e., avionics support equipment, non-avionics support equipment, and aircraft
launch/recovery equipment) including their modification, during all life cycle phases and levels
of maintenance. RCM principles shall be applied (as part of the systems engineering process) to
ensure safety and cost-wise readiness through determination of appropriate failure management
strategies. These strategies ensure the proper balance of preventive maintenance (PM) tasks,
prognostics and diagnostics (i.e., predictive and detective sensing devices), corrective
maintenance, operational procedures, maintenance improvements, design changes, and training."
This manual does not attempt to provide the complete background, history, or philosophy of the
RCM process. Various books and training courses are available on the RCM philosophy and its
development and applications. A good understanding of the underlying tenets of RCM should be
obtained before attempting to implement an RCM program.
1.2 SCOPE
This manual describes the process used to develop all PM requirements for NAVAIR aircraft,
engines, aircrew escape systems, weapon systems, aircraft launch and recovery equipment, and
support equipment.
1-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
1.3 DEFINITIONS
∗ Acceptable Probability of Failure – The probability of a given failure mode occurring
during a defined period that a program is willing to accept.
∗ Actual Probability of Failure – The predicted or demonstrated probability of a given
failure mode occurring during a defined period in the operating environment.
∗ Age Exploration (AE) – A process used to collect specific data to replace estimated or
assumed values that were used during a previous RCM analysis.
∗ Conditional Probability of Failure – The probability that a failure will occur in a
specific period provided that the item concerned has survived to the beginning of that
period.
∗ Criticality Analysis – A procedure that prioritizes each failure mode identified in the
FMEA according to the combined influence of its severity and its probability of
occurrence.
∗ End Item – An assembly of hardware elements that is not used to assemble a higher level
physical item, and is ready for its intended use.
∗ Failure Consequences – The impact of functional failure (including secondary damage)
caused by failure mode(s) based on evidence of failure and adverse effect on Safety,
Environment, Operations, and Economics.
∗ Failure Effects – The result of a functional failure on surrounding items, the functional
capability of the end item, and hazards to personnel and the environment.
∗ Failure Finding Task – A preventive maintenance task performed at a specified interval
to determine whether a hidden failure has occurred.
∗ Failure Mode – A specific physical condition that can result in a particular functional
failure.
∗ Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) – A process used to determine the
function(s) of each item, the functional failures associated with each function, the failure
modes that have the potential to cause each functional failure, and the effect and severity
of each failure mode.
∗ Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) – A process which combines
a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and a Criticality Analysis (CA).
∗ Function – An intended purpose of an item as described by a required standard of
performance.
∗ Functional Failure – The inability of an item to perform a specific function within
specified limits.
∗ Hard Time Task – The scheduled removal of an item, or a restorative action at some
specified maximum operating limit to prevent functional failure.
1-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Hardware Partition– The logical hierarchical division of an asset into progressively

smaller elements to show relationships among systems, subsystems, and components.
Also known as Hardware Breakdown.
∗ Hidden Failure – A functional failure whose effects are not apparent to the operating
crew under normal circumstances if the failure mode occurs on its own.
∗ Lubrication Task – The periodic application of a lubricant to items that require
lubrication for proper operation or to prevent premature functional failures.
∗ Non-significant Function (NSF) – A function whose failure will have no adverse safety,
environmental, operational, or economic effects.
∗ On Condition Task – A periodic or continuous inspection designed to detect a potential
failure condition and allow correction prior to functional failure.
∗ Other Action – A term used to indicate that some action (other than PM) is either
required or desired to most effectively deal with the consequences of a failure mode.
∗ Potential Failure – A definable and detectable condition that indicates that a functional
failure will occur.
∗ Preventive Maintenance (PM) – Actions performed prior to functional failure (multiple
failures or demand requirements for hidden failures) to achieve the desired level of safety
and reliability for an item.
∗ Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) Systems – Diagnostic or prognostic
devices and systems that are used to monitor equipment condition and provide indications
to the operator or maintainer. These systems may also initiate automatic actions to deal
with the condition(s) sensed or predicted.
∗ Servicing Task – The replenishment of consumable materials that are depleted during
normal operations.
∗ Severity Classification – A category assigned to a failure mode based on the impacts of
its potential effects.
∗ Significant Function (SF) – A function whose failure will have adverse effect with
regard to Safety, Environment, Operations, and Economics.
1.4 ACRONYMS
∗ AE Age Exploration
∗ AEB Age Exploration Bulletin
∗ APML Assistant Program Manager for Logistics
∗ APMS&E Assistant Program Manager, Systems and Engineering
∗ BUNO Bureau Number
∗ CBM Condition-Based Maintenance
∗ CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System
1-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ COMNAVAIRFOR Commander, Naval Air Forces

∗ CPC Corrosion Preventive Compound
∗ DMMH Direct Maintenance Man-hours
∗ ECA Equipment Condition Analysis
∗ ECP Engineering Change Proposal
∗ EHR Equipment History Record, or Explosive Hazard Report
∗ EI Engineering Investigation
∗ FH Flight Hour
∗ FMEA Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
∗ FMECA Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
∗ FST Fleet Support Team
∗ HMR Hazardous Material Report
∗ IMC Integrated Maintenance Concept
∗ IPT Integrated Program Team
∗ IRCMS Integrated Reliability-Centered Maintenance System
∗ IT Information Technology
∗ MMH Maintenance Man Hours
∗ MRC Maintenance Requirement Card
∗ MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
∗ MTBMA Mean Time Between Maintenance Actions
∗ MTBCA Mean Time Between Corrective Actions
∗ MTTF Mean Time To Failure
∗ NADEP Naval Air Depot
∗ NALCOMIS Naval Aviation Logistics Command Management Information
System
∗ NALDA Naval Aviation Logistics Data Analysis
∗ NAMP Naval Aviation Maintenance Program
∗ NATOPS Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization
∗ NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command
∗ NDI Non-destructive Inspection
∗ NMC Not Mission Capable
∗ NOMMP Naval Ordnance Maintenance Management Program
∗ NSF Non-significant Function
∗ OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
1-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

∗ P&P Propulsion and Power
∗ PF Potential (failure)-to-Functional (failure) interval
∗ PHM Prognostics and Health Management
∗ PM Preventive Maintenance
∗ PMA Program Manager, Air
∗ PMC Partially Mission Capable
∗ POA&M Plan of Action and Milestones
∗ QDR Quality Deficiency Report
∗ RCM Reliability-Centered Maintenance
∗ SF Significant Function
∗ TPDR Technical Publication Deficiency Report
∗ WUC Work Unit Code
1.5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

∗ COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 Naval Aviation Maintenance Program
∗ OPNAVINST 8000.16 Naval Ordnance Maintenance Management
Program
∗ NAVAIRINST 4790.20 Reliability-Centered Maintenance Program
∗ NAVAIRINST 4790.3 Aeronautical Time Cycle Management Program
∗ NAVAIRINST 13120.1 Fixed Wing Aircraft Structural Life Limits
∗ NAVAIRINST 13130.1 Rotary Wing Aircraft Structural Life Limits
∗ MIL-HDBK-217 Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment
∗ (SAE) JA1011 Society of Automotive Engineers Evaluation
Criteria for RCM Processes
∗ (SAE) JA1012 Society of Automotive Engineers Guide to the
RCM Standard
∗ DOD Supportability Guide Designing and Assessing Supportability in DoD
Weapon Systems: A Guide to Increased Reliability
and Reduced Logistics Footprint of 24 October
2005
1-5/(1-6 Blank)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

NAVAIR 00-25-403
SECTION II
RCM PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Implementation of an RCM program encompasses much more than just performing RCM
analysis. It is a major undertaking that requires significant planning and project management
efforts. This section addresses many of the issues that need to be considered prior to
implementing an RCM program. Figure 2-1 illustrates the overall RCM program process and
highlights the RCM Plan and Hardware Partition blocks covered in this section.
RCM PLAN Plan that describes how the RCM

program will be developed, implemented, and
sustained throughout the equipment’s life Output: Guidance to RCM manager,
analysts, and other team members
HARDWARE PARTITIONING
End item is broken down to the level that the
analysis will take place
Output: Individual analysis items
FMECA Analysis to determine how the analysis
item can fail, the effects of those failures, and other
failure information
Output: Information on each reasonably
likely failure mode of the analysis item
SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION
SELECTION Analysis to determine whether
the failure of a function has adverse effects on
safety, environment, operations, or economics Output: Identity of functions which are
significant enough to warrant further
analysis
RCM TASK EVALUATION
Analysis to determine what options are available
that will deal successfully with each mode of failure
Output: PM requirements and
Identification of when action outside of
RCM TASK SELECTION RCM is warranted
Analysis to determine which solution is the most
acceptable
Output: The preventive task(s) or other
actions that deal most effectively with
IMPLEMENTATION the failure mode
Things done to apply the output of RCM to the
maintenance program
FEEDBACK In-service data

and operator/maintainer input
Figure 2-1 RCM Process Map
2-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
As with any large project, substantial up front planning is required for it to be successful. An
RCM Program Plan, which is required by NAVAIRINST 4790.20 (series), is the means by
which this planning effort is accomplished and recorded. The RCM Program Plan must address,
at a minimum, the implementation and sustainment issues discussed in this section. It should
also include a Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) to outline key events that will occur
when a particular activity is started or completed. The plan may also address how an RCM
program will interface with other organizational elements, such as system safety, logistics, and
human factors groups. The Naval Aviation Maintenance Program (NAMP),
COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2, and the Naval Ordnance Maintenance Management Program
(NOMMP), OPNAVINST 8000.16, offer guidance by establishing standard maintenance policy
for aircraft and ordnance respectively. They should be referred to during development and
execution of the RCM Program Plan to help create a positive working relationship between the
RCM program and the maintenance program. The RCM Program Plan must be updated
periodically to reflect changes in program requirements. Examples of RCM Program Plans are
shown in Appendix A.
One valuable resource for assisting in the implementation of an RCM program is the NAVAIR
RCM Steering Committee. It is made up of RCM experts from several NAVAIR programs that
represent various assets such as aircraft, engines, weapon systems, aircraft launch and recovery
equipment and support equipment. It provides a forum through which a wide variety of RCM-
related subjects are discussed, including the development and refinement of processes and tools
used to implement and sustain RCM programs. One objective of the Steering Committee is the
exchange of technical information among personnel assigned to perform RCM. Another
objective is to work in cooperation with all Navy maintenance organizations, other Department
of Defense agencies, academia, industry, and international armed forces and organizations to
standardize the RCM procedure and to share information for the benefit of all concerned. The
Steering Committee is available to provide assistance to any program tasked with implementing
and sustaining an RCM program.
Supplements to this guide may be issued to provide specific additional guidance related to
unique equipment or commodities. Recognizing specific competency responsibilities and
authority, this additional guidance will provide commodity or competency-unique data, criteria
and analysis techniques. Any supplement to this guide should be coordinated with the NAVAIR
RCM Steering Committee to ensure it properly supports the general RCM process.
The NAVAIR RCM Steering Committee may be reached via the NAVAIR RCM web site at
http://logistics.navair.navy.mil/rcm/.
2.2 RCM DURING ACQUISITION PHASES

The guide is written with emphasis on life-cycle application of RCM during the in-service phase
of the equipment's life cycle. However, RCM application can and should begin with conceptual
design and continue until the retirement of the equipment from service. The effectiveness of
equipment from a safety, operational, and cost standpoint can be improved by establishing the
RCM program during the early phases of a design and development effort. Using RCM as a part
of the design process allows early identification of failure modes that may result in expensive or
difficult preventive maintenance action; require design mitigation or elimination; or benefit from
introduction of design features such as easy access, PHM technology, easy inspection,
interchangeability, or technological advances. RCM activity will be dependent on the program
and the Acquisition Program Phase.
2-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
The DoD Guide “Designing and Assessing Supportability in DoD Weapon Systems: A Guide to
Increased Reliability and Reduced Logistics Footprint” of 24 October 2003, provides a template
to use in defining and assessing program activities to meet DoD policy requirements throughout
the weapon system life cycle. Emphasis is placed on designing for increased reliability and
reduced logistics footprint and on providing for effective product support through performance-
based logistics (PBL) strategies. The Guide stresses the use of RCM for a system-based
methodical approach to determine causes of failure, failure consequences, and to identify the
most applicable and effective maintenance task(s). Appropriate use of proactive maintenance
technologies embodied in diagnostics and prognostics, integrating on-board and off-board
monitoring, testing, data collection, and analysis capabilities are also addressed to significantly
enhance system maintainability and overall supportability. These practices include enhanced
prognosis/diagnosis techniques, failure trend analysis, electronic portable or point-of-
maintenance aids, corrosion mitigation, serial item management, automatic identification
technology, and data-driven interactive maintenance training. Ultimately, these practices can
increase operational availability and readiness at a reduced cost throughout the weapon system
life cycle.
The following is provided as guidance for appropriate activity prior to various Acquisition
Milestones.
2.2.1 Prior to Milestone A (Concept & Technology Development)
∗ RCM should be identified as an integral function of the Maintenance

Planning/Supportability Analysis and Design Interface Activities.
∗ A "functional" failure modes and effects analysis methodology should be established
to identify likely failure scenarios that can be mitigated or eliminated through design.
∗ An initial RCM approach to identify strategies for preventive maintenance
development and to review lessons learned from current systems should be
established. RCM analysis at the "functional" level may be able to identify likely PM
strategies and requirements that can be incorporated into the design requirements.
∗ Potential technologies to improve/optimize preventive maintenance and failure
management should be identified.
∗ Potential analytical tools, including their required functionality and interfaces, should
be identified for evaluation and selection.
∗ RCM concepts should be integral and influential in the maintenance concept
development.
∗ Organization responsibilities should be clearly established (both contractor and
government) for conduct and assessment of the RCM efforts including any required
areas of integration across organizations.
∗ Adequate resources should be identified for RCM efforts, including technology
maturation for new initiatives, in subsequent phases.
∗ Design trade-off analyses should consider the effects on preventive maintenance and
failure management using RCM concepts.
2-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.2.2 Prior to Milestone B (System Development and Demonstration)
∗ A Baseline Comparison Study of preventive maintenance requirements (using like

and similar equipment) should be accomplished to identify opportunities for
improvements and to establish preventive maintenance supportability design or
performance requirements.
∗ A Use Study should be accomplished to identify any issues and constraints related to
performing preventative maintenance in the intended environment.
∗ An initial RCM plan should be developed to ensure cursory RCM design assessments
(using likely failure modes and resultant preventive maintenance) are conducted
consistent with the design/technology evolution to allow design influence for
optimized preventive maintenance and failure management.
∗ The RCM Plan should clearly identify RCM Team members, organizational
responsibilities, RCM candidate selection, schedule and resource requirements,
supportability design constraints and requirements, ground rules and assumptions,
design evaluation and trade-off processes, analysis and documentation methodologies
and tools, and establish the framework of the RCM program for the life cycle of the
equipment. The RCM plan should identify performance metrics for design influence
and maintenance planning related to preventive maintenance and establish feedback
mechanisms for results of testing or early prototype fielding efforts.
∗ The preventive maintenance and failure management approach should consider
technological advances such as PHM to reduce reliance on physical inspections and
calendar-based maintenance; and facilitate opportunistic maintenance. Design trade-
off plans and processes should be in place to ensure such technologies are evaluated
for life cycle cost effectiveness. Technological advances should be evaluated for any
inherent risk that requires mitigation until the maturity can be adequately evaluated.
∗ The RCM handling of safety and environmental consequences should be established
and be consistent with established design requirements for system safety and
environmental hazards.
∗ Lessons learned from fielded programs (or other programs in development
incorporating similar technological advances) should be incorporated into
supportability design or performance requirements for preventive maintenance and
failure management.
∗ An agreement and approach for development and use of the detailed FMECA data to
support both Reliability and Maintainability and Supportability Analysis/RCM
requirements should be established.
2.2.3 Prior to Milestone C (Production & Deployment)
∗ The Baseline Comparison Study of preventive maintenance requirements should be

updated as the design evolves to identify areas for improvements and to update
preventive maintenance supportability design or performance requirements.
2-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ The Use Study should be updated to identify any issues and constraints related to
preventative maintenance in the intended environment as the design evolves and
operational basing/deployment and training plans are developed.
∗ An initial "hardware" RCM analysis on the evolving design should be used to
influence the design evolution to optimize preventive maintenance and failure
management.
∗ The RCM Plan should be updated consistent with the design phase. The RCM
analysis effort should be iterative and responsive to design and modification
development to ensure a preventive maintenance and failure management program
reflective of current configuration and with plans for update consistent with any
planned product improvements. The RCM Plan should clearly identify RCM Team
members, organizational responsibilities, RCM candidate selection, schedule and
resource requirements, supportability design constraints and requirements, ground
rules and assumptions, design evaluation and trade-off processes, analysis and
documentation methodologies and tools, and establish the framework of the RCM
program for the life-cycle of the equipment. Fleet user involvement should be
solicited early in the analysis process.
∗ The preventive maintenance and failure management approach should continue to
evaluate technological advances such as PHM to reduce reliance on physical
inspections and calendar-based maintenance; and facilitate opportunistic
maintenance. Trade-off processes should be continued to ensure such technologies
are evaluated for life-cycle cost effectiveness. Technological advances with inherent
risk should be mitigated and monitored until the maturity can be adequately
established.
∗ The RCM handling of safety and environmental consequences should be consistent
with established design requirements for system safety and environmental hazards.
∗ An agreement and approach for development and use of the FMECA and early
fielding failure data to support System Safety, Reliability and Maintainability, and
Supportability Analysis/RCM requirements should be established.
∗ Lessons learned from fielded programs and early fielding feedback (or lessons
learned by other programs incorporating similar technological advances) should be
incorporated into supportability design or performance requirements, or result in
adjustments to preventive maintenance and failure management requirements through
update of the RCM analyses.
∗ RCM results should be incorporated into maintenance plans and technical
publications. Provisions should be in place to ensure preventive maintenance
requirements are not changed without support from an updated RCM analysis.
∗ Resources and plans should be identified for sustainment of the RCM and preventive
maintenance/failure management programs for in-service equipment. Meaningful
performance metrics should be established or updated to monitor and adjust the RCM
results and preventive maintenance requirements. Periodic Fleet reviews should be
identified and scheduled following fielding.
2-5
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ An Age Exploration program should be established as an integral part of the overall

maintenance approach including the maturation of PHM initiatives and incorporation
into technical documentation as appropriate. Opportunities for technology and
reliability improvements should be identified and funded through appropriate
channels.
2.2.4 During Full Rate Production and subsequent (Operations & Support)
∗ The Baseline Comparison Study of preventive maintenance requirements should be

updated, as modifications occur, to identify areas for improvements and to establish
preventive maintenance supportability design requirements for modifications.
∗ FMECA/RCM updates should be identified and resourced for each modification.
Design trade studies should be accomplished as the design or technology evolves for
possible introduction of beneficial technologies or changes to the preventive
maintenance or failure management approach .
∗ The RCM Plan should be maintained as the program progresses. The RCM analysis
effort should be responsive to design modification development to ensure a
preventive maintenance and failure management program reflective of current
configuration. The RCM Plan should continue to identify current RCM Team
members, organizational responsibilities, RCM candidate selection, schedule and
resource requirements, supportability design constraints and requirements, ground
rules and assumptions, design evaluation and trade-off processes, analysis and
documentation methodologies and tools, and sustainment activities for the life cycle
of the equipment. Fleet user involvement should be evident throughout the analysis
and data collection process.
∗ The preventive maintenance and failure management approach should continue to
consider technological advances, such as PHM, to reduce reliance on physical
inspections and calendar-based maintenance during modifications. Processes should
be in place to identify and consider the cost/benefit of evolving technologies for
insertion into the design or maintenance processes.
∗ The RCM handling of safety and environmental consequences should remain
consistent with established requirements for system safety and environmental
hazards. Safety and environmental issue resolution should include RCM as an
integral process.
∗ Lessons learned from similar fielded programs should be periodically reviewed for
application to improve preventive maintenance and failure management.
∗ An effective agreement and approach for development, use, and update of the
FMECA during modifications and from in-service failure data to support both
Reliability and Maintainability and Supportability Analysis/RCM requirements
should be in place.
∗ RCM results should be incorporated into maintenance plans and technical
publications. Provisions should be in place to ensure preventive maintenance
requirements are not changed without support from an updated RCM analysis.
2-6
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Resources and plans should be maintained/updated for sustainment of the RCM and
preventive maintenance/failure management programs for the in-service equipment.
Performance metrics should be reviewed and updated. The RCM and preventive
maintenance requirements should be updated (as necessary) based on the performance
metrics. Fleet reviews should continue periodically. The RCM update process
should be responsive to fleet inputs and findings.
∗ The Age Exploration program should continue to be integral to the overall
maintenance approach, including incorporation into technical documentation as
appropriate. Results of Age Exploration should be used to update the RCM and
preventive maintenance requirements in a timely manner.
2.3 RCM TEAM ESTABLISHMENT (Management, Analysis, Sustainment)

Establishment of an RCM team composed of the proper mix of personnel is paramount for
achieving a cost effective life cycle maintenance program. The appropriate RCM team
membership ultimately depends on a program’s specific needs and organization. Each
competency is responsible for providing individuals that are certified and empowered by the
governing competency to provide their competency-unique inputs to the RCM process.
The following managers should collectively identify the team of Government and contractor
personnel that will be responsible for developing and implementing the RCM Program Plan,
performing the initial RCM analyses, and sustaining the RCM Program:
∗ Program Manager, Air (PMA)
∗ Assistant Program Manager for Logistics (APML)
∗ Assistant Program Manager for Systems and Engineering (APMS&E)
∗ Fleet Support Team (FST) leader
2.3.1 RCM Team Composition

RCM team composition and responsibilities may include, but are not limited to, the following
personnel and organizations:
2.3.1.1 Program Management

∗ Program Manager - Obtains all funding needed to develop, execute, and sustain the
RCM program
∗ Assistant Program Manager, Logistics (APML) - Approves the RCM plan; ensures
that failure management strategies and PM requirements are based on RCM in
accordance with applicable instructions and that it is correctly integrated into the
maintenance planning process
∗ Assistant Program Manager, Systems and Engineering (APMS&E) - Supports
engineering requirements necessary to effectively conduct the RCM program
∗ System Safety Engineer – Supports hazard risk analysis
∗ Cost Analysis – Provides required program cost data
2-7
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.3.1.2 Fleet Support Team

∗ Leader and Sub-team Leaders - Manage assigned RCM team personnel
∗ RCM Implementation Manager - Serves as coordinator and approval authority for
RCM analyses as defined within their respective teams
∗ RCM Analysts – Conduct particular RCM analysis efforts as assigned
∗ Reliability and Maintainability, Logistics, and Engineering personnel – Support RCM
analysis efforts with supplemental engineers, logisticians, and data analysts
2.3.1.3 Competencies
Competencies required by the team to provide data and expertise in their fields may include:
∗ Design Interface and Maintenance Planning
∗ Air Vehicle Design and Integration
∗ Reliability & Maintainability
∗ Air Vehicle Structures
∗ Air Vehicle Systems
∗ Aircrew Systems
∗ Avionics
∗ Propulsion and Power (P&P)
∗ Weapons
∗ Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment
∗ Support Equipment
2.3.1.4 Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or Supporting Contractors

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or Supporting Contractors Conduct or support initial
and/or sustaining RCM analyses and data collection in accordance with FST/IPT and/or
PMA/APML contracts.
2.3.1.5 Equipment Controlling Custodians, Operators, & Maintainers

∗ Provide in-service maintenance data, knowledge, and experience via FST/IPT
interviews, data requests, and active participation on RCM analysis teams.
∗ Provide in-service maintenance data via established maintenance data systems (e.g.,
Naval Aviation Logistics Command Management Information System
(NALCOMIS), FST Depot databases)
∗ Provide recommendations for improvements to established maintenance data systems
∗ Provide assessment of maintenance requirements resulting from RCM analysis
2-8
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.3.2 Ancillary Support Requirements

The following personnel may be required for ancillary support, but are not necessarily included
in the RCM team composition:
∗ Information Technology (IT) personnel
∗ Budget personnel
∗ Contracts personnel
2.3.3 Knowledge and Skills Requirements

RCM team members, either individually or collectively, should possess the following knowledge
and skills in order to effectively develop an RCM plan, collect data, conduct and sustain the
RCM analyses:
∗ Project Management
∗ RCM decision logic
∗ Reliability, maintainability, maintenance, and logistics data analysis
∗ System supportability analysis
∗ Naval Aviation Maintenance Program (NAMP) policy and procedures
∗ Equipment functions, failures and maintenance processes
∗ Basic computer skills (project management, database development and management)
∗ Statistical techniques
∗ Applicable engineering analysis techniques (e.g., structural analysis, materials
analysis)
∗ Contracting
∗ Financial issues
∗ Inspection and equipment condition monitoring techniques (e.g., Prognostics and
Health Management (PHM), nondestructive inspection (NDI))
∗ Effective Team Operations and Interpersonal Communications
2.3.4 Contracting For RCM

Sometimes it may be necessary to contract for RCM accomplishment by the OEM or support
contractors. This decision should be carefully considered to ensure the RCM analysis effort is
accomplished and sustained to a level that is satisfactory to the program managers, the FST and
equipment operators and maintainers. When contracting for RCM, the statement of work should
utilize this guide, or SAE JA1011 and JA1012, to ensure the contractor is proposing a process
that is compliant with the tenets of RCM and should reference this manual as guidance or
reference. The government activity and personnel responsible for the long-term support and
sustainment of the RCM program and the resulting preventive maintenance program should
remain involved and provide appropriate expertise in the conduct and review of the analysis
efforts. Particularly, there may be a need to ensure appropriate interaction and information is
2-9
NAVAIR 00-25-403
gained from the operators, maintainers, and supporting engineers and logisticians. The
deliverables should be scheduled such that appropriate progress is ensured and any problems are
identified before investment of resources into follow-on activities. For example, the RCM Plan
should be delivered and approved before beginning the analysis effort and the FMECA data
should be subject to incremental or in-process reviews to identify issues early in the process.
Provisions for support and sustainment should be considered to ensure the format, content and
depth of data in any deliverables ensures adequate documentation to support decisions and
recommendations for future reference.
2.3.5 Conducting The Analysis

Programs may choose to organize their RCM program efforts in various ways. Successful
applications of RCM have been obtained from complete organic accomplishment of the analysis
and from teaming with OEM's or support contractors. Likewise, RCM has been accomplished
successfully by assigning lead analysts responsible for conducting the analysis on assigned
equipment and from establishing a team of people who mutually perform the analysis efforts in
group settings. If accomplished using lead analysts, each lead analyst must ensure that all
elements of the team necessary for successfully conducting the RCM are involved and
knowledgeable of RCM in general, and the specific effort in particular. It is particularly
important that operators and maintainers are primary participants in the process as they may
bring unique information or perspectives that must be considered in developing the maintenance
requirements. Likewise, if the analysis is conducted in a group setting, the group leader must
ensure that all participants properly provide the data necessary for a complete and
comprehensive analysis, and that no one element overshadows the legitimate input of others.
Also, when using the group method, methodologies for collecting feedback information and
responding to emergent issues that arise between group meetings must be established to ensure
the integrity of the RCM-based maintenance program. Whatever method of accomplishment is
chosen should be well defined, with any ground rules, in the RCM Plan.
2.4 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

The analysis scope is the extent of the RCM analysis effort to be applied to meet program
objectives. It includes the selection of hardware items for analysis; the indenture level at which
analysis of the hardware will be performed; and the extent to which each item will be analyzed.
The scope of analysis depends on several factors. These include, but are not limited to, the life
cycle phase, the quantity, quality, and validity of any prior analyses, the effectiveness of the
current maintenance program, and available resources.
The scope of the analysis drives the level of effort. The scope can range from analyzing one or
two functions and selected failure modes of an in-service item during the sustaining phase to
performing a complete analysis of all functions and failure modes of a new item during its
acquisition. There are also many intermediate levels of analysis between the two extremes.
These include analyzing high cost or high man-hour drivers, readiness degraders, items with
current preventive maintenance (PM) tasks, or any combination of these.
The scope of analysis can vary widely for an item with a significant service history. For an in-
service item, the quality and validity of prior analyses, the effectiveness of the current
maintenance program, and the resources available will influence the scope. If a previous RCM
analysis exists, even if accomplished under different guidelines, it may be used to reduce the
2-10
NAVAIR 00-25-403
workload of an updated analysis. A previous analysis may be used in several ways. Examples
include limiting the updated analysis to hardware that has no prior analysis; updating the
previous analysis to conform to new processes; to consider application of new inspection or
monitoring technology; or as a data source for a complete new analysis. A combination of these
may be used to some advantage. A hardware item with limited life remaining may warrant
analysis of only a few specific functions. The availability of funding and trained analysts will
also be major factors in determining the analysis scope.
The intent of an RCM program for a new item is to ensure that appropriate levels of safety,
environmental compliance, mission accomplishment, and economy of operations are achieved.
This includes identifying design shortfalls or areas for application of technology such as NDI or
PHM that would lead to lower life cycle costs. An appropriate scope of analysis for a new item
design is, therefore, one that encompasses the entire item.
When any of the methods described above are used to limit the scope of an analysis, extreme
care must be taken to ensure that no safety/environmental or significant operational/economic
issues are overlooked.
2.4.1 Determining Scope of Analysis

The process for determining the scope of an RCM analysis can be summarized as follows:
∗ Identify program characteristics (e.g., life-cycle stage of end item, status and
availability of prior analyses, effectiveness of the current PM program, expectations
from the application of RCM)
∗ Identify analysis approach to include:

− Hardware breakdown
− Level of analysis
− Hardware to be analyzed at the selected level
− Extent of analysis for each hardware item selected
2.4.2 Hardware Partitioning

A hardware partition is the logical division of an item into progressively smaller elements that
are decreasingly complex. Typical hardware partition indenture levels, from the highest to the
lowest, are identified as end item, system, subsystem and sub-subsystem (or component). All of
these levels need not be defined for a given end item. However, the hardware partition should be
carried down to at least the level at which the analysis will be initially performed. Level of
analysis is discussed in more detail in section 2.4.3.
2-11
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Clear boundaries of where an item begins and ends must be identified and documented in the
RCM Program Plan’s Ground Rules and Assumptions section. For example, when preparing to
analyze a hydraulic flight control system, it must be determined where the flight control system
ends and where the hydraulic system begins. To make this distinction, the system’s interfaces
must be clearly defined and logically established. A typical division of the system would place
the actuator with the flight control system and the attaching tubing and connectors as
components of the hydraulic system. The ultimate goal of this undertaking is to break down the
hardware into units that simplify the task of clearly identifying functions, functional failures and
failure modes and to ensure no subsystem or component is overlooked.
The Work Unit Code (WUC) manual is an excellent resource to utilize in partitioning a system
for RCM analysis. A WUC breakdown may be useful as is, or it may require some manipulation
for more efficient analysis. For example, a landing gear door may be part of the fuselage in a
WUC breakdown, but it might be more efficiently analyzed as part of the landing gear system.
Other hardware partitioning systems, such as the Logistic Control Number, system diagrams
from technical publications, or coding systems used to assign hierarchical divisions of an asset
may also provide useful starting points for a hardware partition. One advantage of using the
WUC breakdown is that it can be applied directly to the NALCOMIS maintenance data
collection system. If some other system is used, it may have to be “mapped” to the WUC system
before NALCOMIS maintenance data can be efficiently utilized in the collation of information
for RCM analysis. Conversely, system descriptions in technical publications often provide the
best breakdown from a functional description perspective. Figure 2-2 illustrates an example of a
hardware partition.
AIRCRAFT
1
SYSTEM HYDRAULIC SYSTEM

1A SYSTEM 1B 1C
SUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM HYD PUMP SUBSYSTEM

1B1 1B2 ASSY 1B3 1B4
MOTOR GEAR BOX CENT PUMP HYDRAULIC PRESSURE

1B3A 1B3B 1B3C PUMP 1B3D REG 1B3E
Figure 2-2 Hardware Partition Block Diagram
2.4.3 Level of Analysis

The level of analysis is the indenture level of the hardware at which the analysis will be
performed. The optimum level of analysis for a given item of hardware depends on several
factors. These factors include whether a complete analysis or a limited analysis will be
performed, whether previous analyses exist (and to what level they were performed), and the
complexity of the item being analyzed.
2-12
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Careful consideration is required to choose a level of analysis that will identify a manageable
number of functions and failure modes. An analysis performed at too high a level will likely
become overwhelming as the relationship between functions at the high level and the many
failure modes become complicated. As the effort advances from a high level to progressively
lower levels, the number of functions and related failure modes identified will multiply. This
eventually will have a stifling effect on the analysis. The target level will normally be a level
consistent with the likely level of "on-equipment" maintenance. For example, if most
maintenance is performed by replacing assemblies, the level of analysis would most likely be
such that the functions and failure modes of the sub-systems comprised of these assemblies could
be readily defined. This is often referred to as a "sub-system" level analysis.
Relatively simple systems, such as aircraft oxygen systems, can be analyzed at the system level.
Complex systems, such as a flight control system or a landing gear system, may be better served
if they are analyzed at the subsystem level. This does not apply necessarily in an instance where
an analysis has been done at some other indenture level, and the data from that effort will be
updated instead of performing a new analysis.
A limited analysis may be performed efficiently at lower levels, such as the assembly or
component level, on specific items. If this is the case, plan to approach the analysis in such a
way that it allows the effort to be expanded to a full analysis should the need arise. A preferred
approach to accomplish this is to identify functions at the system or subsystem level, then
analyze only failure modes of selected components within the selected subsystem. This
approach may require a little more effort initially, but will save time if or when the complete
analysis is performed.
Some hardware may be analyzed at multiple levels to avoid analyzing redundant functions. For
example, assume that an aircraft is being analyzed at the subsystem level. Subsystems may
include the wing, forward fuselage, center fuselage, and aft fuselage. Rather than analyzing the
functions of the paint on each of the subsystems, the paint functions could be analyzed at
airframe level while the remaining functions of the aircraft structure could be analyzed at
subsystem level (e.g., wing, forward fuselage). Some complex items may also warrant analysis
at a lower level. For example, a canopy may be identified as a subassembly of the forward
fuselage in the hardware breakdown, but may warrant separate analysis due to the number of
distinct functions it has which are clearly apart from the fuselage. Information regarding
hardware analysis levels must be identified and documented in the Ground Rules and
Assumptions section of the RCM Program Plan.
2.4.4 Hardware Selection

Hardware selection is the determination of which hardware items in the hardware breakdown
will be analyzed. If a complete analysis will be performed, hardware selection is simply
identifying all of the items at the selected level of analysis, minus any items that do not warrant
analysis. When considering excluding hardware items from a complete analysis, extreme care
and conservative judgment should be used to ensure that no items with a significant impact on
safety, environmental compliance, operations, or cost are excluded.
Selecting hardware for a limited scope of analysis will require more consideration. It will be
based on the item characteristics and analysis objectives. A limited analysis may be
implemented to improve maintenance effectiveness on individual hardware items. For example,
analysis may be applied to a number of cost or readiness drivers. In this case, the hardware
2-13
NAVAIR 00-25-403
selected would be those cost or readiness drivers, or higher-level items that contain them
depending on the selected level of analysis. Another objective of a limited analysis may be to
evaluate current PM requirements. In this case, only hardware items with current PM
requirements may be selected. Be aware, in this case, that if all items have not previously been
subjected to RCM analysis, the current PM tasks may not be adequate to provide the desired
level of safety, environmental compliance, economic, and operational effectiveness for the end
item. A limited analysis may also be implemented to evaluate the insertion of new
inspection/detection methods for specific hardware items. For a given RCM program, hardware
may be selected for any combination of reasons. For any limited analysis, the RCM sustaining
program should be established to monitor the performance of the system or end item to identify
areas of concern that may not have been subjected to RCM analysis. Regardless of the scope of
the initial analysis, an effective RCM program will be sustained such that any additions or
changes to the PM requirements will be developed from the results of an RCM analysis.
Information regarding hardware selection must be identified and documented in the Ground
Rules and Assumptions section of the RCM Program Plan.
2.4.5 Extent of Analysis

The extent of analysis is the determination of how much analysis will be performed on each
selected hardware item. This is usually accomplished by determining the failure modes or types
of failure modes that will be identified and analyzed through RCM analysis. In a complete
analysis, all reasonably likely failure modes should be evaluated. The term “reasonably likely”
is included to ensure that only those failure modes that meet some established probability of
occurrence are included. This is typically accomplished using a system safety hazard severity
matrix. This failure mode prioritization may exclude failure modes from the RCM analysis
based on their severity and occurrence.
Like the hardware selection process, the extent to which a limited analysis is conducted depends
on the item’s characteristics and analysis objectives. If the purpose of a limited analysis is to
improve the reliability of an item to reduce cost or increase readiness, the analysis can be limited
to the failure modes that are responsible for the high cost or readiness impact. If the objective of
the analysis is to review current PM tasks for effectiveness, it may be limited to the failure
modes at which the tasks are directed. In any analysis where all failure modes are not analyzed,
the best approach is to identify all "reasonably likely" failure modes, but withhold completion of
the analysis for those failure modes not selected until resources or priorities dictate. If all
"reasonably likely" failure modes are not identified, this should be clearly noted in the analysis,
and program managers should be well aware that the PM program might not be optimized for all
failure modes. Information regarding the extent of analysis required must be identified and
documented in the Ground Rules and Assumptions section of the RCM Program Plan.
When determining the extent to which an analysis should be taken, it is often useful to define
sources of failure mode information, such as the following:
∗ Failure modes protected by current PM tasks (e.g., Maintenance Requirement Card
(MRC) decks and Depot Level Maintenance specifications)
∗ Failure modes that have not occurred, but are reasonably likely to occur based on the
collective experience and judgement of the analysis team (to include input from
operators and maintainers).
2-14
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Organizational (O) and Intermediate (I) level failure modes from defect reports
(engineering investigations, hazardous material reports, bulletins, and mishap reports)
∗ Depot (D) level in-service failure modes (e.g., temporary engineering instructions,
local engineering specifications, and examination and evaluation reports)
∗ O and I level failure modes from maintenance databases (e.g., NALCOMIS or
CMMS data)
∗ Failure modes identified in corrosion prone areas
∗ Anecdotal failure modes from interviews with operators and maintainers
∗ High visibility failure modes (e.g., failure modes causing high cost or readiness
issues)
∗ Test result failure modes (e.g., failure modes from fatigue tests, component
certification)
∗ Failure modes that may benefit from new inspection and detection technology
∗ Safety and safety hidden failure modes identified in schematic, block and reliability
diagrams
∗ Failure modes of protective or sensing/detective systems and functions that may not
be evident without inspections or checks
∗ Failure modes from failure mode libraries on common equipment types
2.5 GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS

The Ground Rules and Assumptions are a compilation of specific data and information contained
in the RCM Program Plan that is considered necessary for conducting RCM analyses. It
includes:
∗ Description of operating environment (operating context)
∗ Standard operating procedures
∗ Data sources
∗ Analytical methods
∗ Cost-benefit analysis methods
∗ Analysis approaches to specific types of problems
∗ Default values (e.g., labor rates, equipment usage rates, common material costs)
∗ Acceptable probabilities of failure for system safety failure modes, and
∗ Any other information that may be required to produce consistent and efficient
analyses.
2.5.1 General Considerations

Considerations for inclusion in the Ground Rules and Assumptions are outlined below:
2-15
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Analysis thresholds (e.g., cost, failure rates, acceptable risks)

∗ Level of analysis
∗ Hardware partitions (including hierarchy and boundaries)
∗ Analysis approach for interface items such as wiring and tubing
∗ Analysis approach for repairs and unique configurations
∗ Methods for dealing with "directed" maintenance tasks (i.e., some PM tasks may be
"directed" by higher authority, such as maintenance tasks or intervals prescribed by
general series manuals or command instructions, but not supported by RCM analysis.
Efforts should be made to resolve these conflicts prior to implementing a task not
supported via the RCM process and documented within the applicable analysis.)
∗ Process for addressing items that have a different cognizant engineering activity (such
as items used on several platforms)
∗ Methods for prioritizing analysis of failure modes
∗ Defined values for parameters such as labor rates, utilization rates, design life,
remaining program life, acceptable probabilities of failure, conversion factors,
minimum detectable flaw sizes, and cost information
∗ Sources for defining item nomenclature (e.g., illustrated parts breakdown manuals,
maintenance instruction manuals, drawings)
∗ What constitutes “normal duties” for the operator? (e.g., duties such as those found
in Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures (NATOPS) checklists)
∗ Procedures for forwarding “Other Action” recommendations from the RCM analysis
to appropriate organizational elements
∗ Procedures for consideration of advanced inspection/detection techniques such as
PHM or NDI
∗ Procedures for documenting supporting information used during the analysis
2.5.2 Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)

∗ Function identification data sources and methodologies
∗ Failure mode identification data sources and methodologies
∗ Mission or usage phases or profiles
∗ Failure detection methods
∗ Mean time between failure (MTBF) data sources and calculation methodologies
∗ Deviations from, clarifications to, or tailoring of current failure mode and effects
analyses guidance documents
∗ Severity classification list
∗ Methods for determining criticality (e.g., Risk Hazard Matrix)
2-16
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.5.3 Task Analysis

∗ Data sources and methodologies for calculating task intervals
∗ Data sources and methodologies for identifying potential to functional failure
intervals and wear-out ages
∗ Cost analysis data sources and methodologies
∗ Processes for determination of “Other Action” RCM recommendations
∗ Deviations from, clarifications to, or tailoring of current RCM guiding documents
NOTE:
Appendix A provides an examples RCM Program Plans for an aircraft and
an engine that contains Ground Rules and Assumptions.
2.6 TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION

Training requirements should be defined in the RCM Program Plan. RCM analyses must be
performed by properly trained, experienced, and certified personnel to ensure that it is
accomplished properly, and that the results can be accepted with confidence. Training should be
viewed as an ongoing effort throughout the life of the RCM program, encompassing formal
courses as well as on-the-job experience. Training should focus, first, on educating team
members to the theory of RCM, followed by its application to real world situations. RCM
analysts may acquire the requisite theory from training courses, but it is only after applying that
knowledge to real world situations that they become effective team members. All personnel
providing significant support to the RCM process should have knowledge and training in the
basic RCM concepts.
A period of mentoring is necessary to help analysts, tasked with conducting or leading an
analysis effort, transform their theoretical knowledge to the practical skills. During this time, the
RCM Implementation Manager or other experienced RCM analyst must provide guidance. The
mentor must be closely involved with the work being performed by new analysts, giving
feedback and direction as required. As the analyst becomes self-sufficient and proficient in
performing the tasks, the mentor’s direct involvement diminishes.
An increasingly widespread use of various statistical methods in a broadening range of
disciplines has generated a number of courses that focus on particular analysis techniques used to
conduct RCM analyses. These courses offer analysts ways to broaden their understanding and
further develop the skills needed.
All RCM program personnel should make every effort to keep up to date and informed of new
RCM developments, whether they are derived from Government sources or commercial
enterprises. Additionally, the RCM Implementation Manager should identify any training
requirements that arise from new RCM developments and inform the appropriate Competency
that the training is needed for team members.
2-17
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.6.1 NAVAIR RCM Training Courses

The RCM training provided by NAVAIR is tailored to several levels of knowledge and
experience.
2.6.1.1 RCM Management Overview, Orientation, and Fundamentals Courses

The RCM Management Brief is normally a two to four hour overview of the RCM process, its
benefits, and programmatic considerations. It provides a top-level view of RCM and, as such, it
is intended for Program Managers, APML's, APMS&E's, FST leaders, and others who oversee or
interface with the development and implementation of an RCM program. It provides a succinct
view of RCM and its benefits to the Naval Aviation Community.
RCM Orientation is a minimum requirement for RCM Team members who may not be directly
executing the analysis process, but interface or provide support in distinct areas. For example,
engineers providing technical support, or maintenance personnel providing historical data may
require an Orientation Brief to familiarize them with the RCM process, plans and goals. The
Orientation may be accomplished using the Management Overview materials, along with
additional information specifically related to the project assigned.
The RCM Fundamentals Course is a three-day offering that gives an initial view of such topics
as the RCM philosophy, history, and goals. It introduces students to the basic analysis concepts
and terminology that are unique to RCM. The course includes a series of lectures, small-group
exercises, and a workshop that provide students with an opportunity to apply their newly learned
theory to actual analysis problems. Participants are encouraged to share their knowledge of
RCM and relate prior experiences with fellow students. The Integrated Reliability-Centered
Maintenance System (IRCMS) software, which most NAVAIR RCM programs will use to
document their RCM analyses, is also taught during this course. The course provides an excellent
foundation upon which analysts can continue to build their expertise through on-the-job RCM
training and experience.
2.6.1.2 Propulsion and Power Course Offering

NAVAIR's Propulsion and Power (P&P) community offers a three-day course that introduces the
unique aspects of applying an RCM program to P&P items. The course provides a P&P-tailored
overview of the various maintenance philosophies, a P&P-oriented RCM program, and the
system safety program and its role in RCM. An in-depth discussion is also provided on failure
modes, failure distribution curves, and failure intervals. Various methods for establishing RCM
metrics, calculating failure distribution curves, and calculating failure intervals recommended for
P&P RCM analysis are covered. The last part of the course is an exercise in performing RCM
analysis using the information and methods provided in the course.
2.6.2 Data Analysis Training

Statistical methods can be used to plot failure distributions, determine probabilities of failure at a
given time in the life cycle, and identify optimal task intervals based on safety or economic
concerns. Courses are available in basic statistics, Weibull analysis, probabilistic methods, and
other analytical techniques from various sources. The RCM Implementation Manager should be
well versed in statistical analysis, and ensure that the RCM analysts can use the appropriate
methods when required.
2-18
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.6.3 Other Training Topics

The Air Vehicle Structures Competency offers a 10-day course in fatigue and fracture analysis
methods and criteria that are applicable to RCM analysis of structural components. Aircraft
structural design and certification criteria are reviewed as well.
Courses in fracture mechanics and fatigue and wear characteristics can aid the RCM analyst in
determining things such as the PF interval. These courses give the student an indication of what
can be looked for in an inspection, as well as how to determine the rate of degradation of an
item.
NDI is used to find cracks and other flaws that are too small to be spotted visually, or are
otherwise hidden from view. An NDI course should be considered when the RCM analyst needs
this background to determine the efficacy of various NDI inspections (eddy current, dye
penetrant, etc.) as part of On Condition task development.
Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) Systems technology is relatively new. Specific
training and access to experts in this field may be necessary for the RCM program to take
advantage of the benefits offered by these systems. Systems or equipment not designed with
PHM capabilities in mind may still be able to take advantage of PHM technology through cost-
effective design changes or use of monitoring techniques using currently available sensors or
performance data.
Since RCM is a team effort, training in project management, team building, effective team
operations, presentation and communication skills is beneficial.
2.6.4 Certification
The NAVAIR RCM Steering Committee manages the RCM certification program to ensure
appropriately qualified individuals accomplish RCM efforts. The Steering Committee, under the
authority of NAVAIR 6.7, will designate a Site Coordinator to manage the certification of
individuals performing RCM at each site. The following categories of certification apply.
2.6.4.1 Level 1
Level 1 RCM Analyst certification indicates an individual has received a NAVAIR approved
RCM Analyst course and be familiar with the contents of this manual. The Level 1 Analyst is
not expected to be proficient in conducting or leading RCM analysis efforts. The Level 1
Analyst should perform RCM analyses only in conjunction with a Level 2 Senior Analyst or a
Level 3 Implementation Manager. A Level 2 Senior Analyst should review all analyses before
being submitted for approval as established by the applicable RCM Plan. Prior to certification, a
Level 1 Analyst should meet the following requirements:
Courses:
∗ A NAVAIR-approved RCM Analyst course
Education and experience:
∗ Bachelors degree or equivalent experience related to maintenance, reliability, or
safety of NAVAIR systems
∗ Thorough knowledge of this manual
2-19
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Suggested additional training and reading material:

∗ Reliability-Centered Maintenance, Nowlan and Heap, Dolby Access Press, 1978
∗ Reliability-Centered Maintenance (2nd Edition), Moubray, Industrial Press, Inc., 1997
∗ Reliability-Centered Maintenance, Smith, McGraw-Hill, 1993
∗ COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 or 8000.16 series (as applicable)
∗ NAVAIRINST 4790.20 series
∗ SAE JA1011 and JA1012
2.6.4.2 Level 2
Level 2 certification indicates an individual is capable of leading or conducting an analysis
effort. A Level 2 Senior Analyst should be capable of explaining and defending the results of
any analyses that he or she has led. Level 2 Senior Analysts should submit analyses to the Level
3 Implementation Manager for approval as established by the applicable RCM Plan.
A Level 1 Analyst will be recommended for Level 2 Senior Analyst certification by a Level 3
Implementation Manager upon demonstrating proficiency in performing RCM analyses and
meeting the following requirements:
Meet requirements for Level 1 Analyst
Additional experience:
∗ 2 years experience related to maintenance, reliability, or safety of NAVAIR systems
∗ 1 year experience performing RCM
∗ Statistical Analysis Methods
∗ Reliability Analysis Methods
∗ System Safety Methods
∗ Non-Destructive Inspection Methods
∗ Navy maintenance data systems
2.6.4.3 Level 3
Level 3 certification indicates an individual is well versed, trained, and experienced in RCM
methods and applications. A Level 3 RCM Analyst may serve as an Implementation Manager
for a RCM program or extensive analysis effort. The Level 3 Analyst should be knowledgeable
of the content of the NAVAIR RCM Management Brief, and be capable of presenting an
Orientation Brief to members of their assigned RCM Team as required. A Level 3 Analyst will
have led or conducted numerous RCM analyses and shall be conversant in all aspects of the
RCM process and policy. The Level 3 Analyst is capable of being responsible for planning the
overall RCM effort for a program and developing the RCM Plan. The Level 3 Analyst may
recommend certification of personnel for Level 1 and Level 2 certification to the RCM Site
Coordinator. The RCM Site Coordinator may approve Level 3 certification for Level 2 Analysts
that meet the following criteria.
2-20
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Meet requirements for Level 2 Senior Analyst

Additional experience:
∗ 3 years experience related to maintenance, reliability, or safety of NAVAIR systems
∗ 2 years experience performing RCM

∗ NAVAIR Management RCM Overview Brief
∗ NAVAIR Budget Methods
∗ Program Management Methods
∗ Business Case Analysis Methods
∗ NAVAIRINST 4790.33 series
∗ Logistics Support methods
∗ Automated Diagnostic Technologies
2.6.4.4 RCM Site Coordinator

The RCM Site Coordinator shall be designated by the NAVAIR RCM Steering Committee, in
conjunction with the Logistics Group Site Leader, and will manage the RCM Certification
program for the site.
2.6.4.5 RCM Trainer

RCM trainers should meet Level 2 Senior Analyst requirements as a minimum, and should
additionally be knowledgeable in training methods, have good presentation skills, and should be
mentored in at least two classes before leading a training course independently. The NAVAIR
RCM Steering Committee Chairman will certify NAVAIR RCM trainers.
2.7 RCM PROGRAM REPORTING

Providing the status of RCM-related efforts and accomplishments is important to the RCM
Program. The RCM Program Plan should define the reports to be compiled and submitted on a
periodic basis to the FST Leader, APML, PMA, and other designated recipients. These reports
may include, but are not limited to:
∗ RCM Status - Summary of RCM analyses performed during the reporting period
∗ RCM Cost Avoidance - Summary of cost avoidance calculations associated with the
RCM analyses performed
∗ AE Status - Summary of AE inspections, data collected and analyzed during the
reporting period, and the resulting changes to the RCM analysis or the maintenance
program
∗ Effectiveness metrics - Metrics reflecting maintenance program performance during
the reporting period
∗ Resource Status - Summary of resource expenditures against planned requirements
2-21
NAVAIR 00-25-403
If RCM efforts are contracted, appropriate contract data deliverable list (CDRL) items or other
deliverable products need to be specified in the contract SOW.
2.8 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

Funding requirements for implementing an RCM program may be divided into two parts, the
initial analysis effort and the sustaining effort.
Funding requirements should be consistent with the RCM plan. Consider, for example, the
following when estimating funding requirements:
∗ Number of items, functions, and failure modes to be analyzed along with their
complexity
∗ Potential benefits to be gained by improvements to the maintenance programs and the
equipment to be analyzed
∗ Depth of the analysis to be conducted
∗ Scope of analysis
∗ Data availability
∗ Experience base of the RCM Team
∗ Level of certification/experience and availability of analysts who will lead/conduct the
analysis efforts
∗ Timeframe for accomplishing the effort
∗ Status or condition of the FMECA
∗ Contractor versus organic effort
∗ In-service versus new program
Consideration should be given to the availability and stability of the funding, which may cause
changes in analysis scope, timeframe, and other elements of the program.
Funding requirements for the initial analysis will be driven, largely, by the scope of analysis, as
described in Section 2.5. When establishing the funding requirements for a given RCM program
plan, it may be beneficial to draw information from programs that have conducted similar
analyses. The NAVAIR RCM Steering Committee may also be consulted to aid in this effort.
2.9 DATA SOURCES

Several data sources are useful for RCM purposes. Sources range from fleet maintenance data
systems to specific engineering data that are available in the form of design reports, test result
reports, and engineering investigation reports. The RCM program plan should identify data
sources to be used in the analysis. The Ground Rules and Assumptions section of the RCM plan
is used to describe how various data sources can be used to support the different types of
analyses that will be encountered during the RCM process.
The RCM Program Plan should be used to identify special data that require additional efforts or
resources to obtain. Examples of special data include manufacturer’s proprietary data,
2-22
NAVAIR 00-25-403
production inspection records, vendor’s overhaul and rework data, test reports, engineering
studies, drawings, and computer modeling.
2.10 RCM PROGRAM METRICS

It is generally accepted that implementation of an RCM program increases the efficiency of a
maintenance program. However, quantification of the improvement is necessary to evaluate its
success. The RCM program must establish metrics in order to make meaningful assessments.
When performing an assessment, care must be taken to attribute only those successes and
failures that are directly related to the RCM process.
Established reporting methods are in place for making general assessments of effectiveness of
RCM programs for most in-service equipment. These should be described or established in the
RCM Plan. These include parameters such as availability, readiness, Mean Time Between
Failures (MTBF), Total Ownership Cost (TOC), Direct Maintenance Man-hours per Flight Hour
(DMMH/FH), and Mean Time Between Removal (MTBR).
2.11 IMPLEMENTATION OF RESULTS

A completed initial RCM analysis will produce a number of recommendations. These include
recommendations to allow certain items to operate to failure; recommendations to take some
Other Action when warranted (e.g., redesigning items, changing operational or maintenance
procedures); and recommendations to implement a variety of PM tasks. Methods for review,
approval, and implementation of results should be described in the RCM Plan. Program
managers responsible for the items analyzed should be apprised of results, impacts, and benefits
prior to implementation.
The process of implementing the results from the RCM analysis fall into two general areas: 1)
packaging and incorporating the recommended PM tasks into a preventive maintenance program,
and 2) taking steps to address “Other Action Warranted” recommendations. Thought should be
given during the planning process as to how these two issues will be addressed.
Each PM task recommendation will have a discrete engineering task interval associated with it.
These PM task recommendations must be converted to a coherent maintenance program that
produces effective and efficient results. While packaging intervals should not be determined
until after all of the analyses are complete, the processes and techniques used to develop the
packaged intervals should be identified during the RCM program planning process. Section 4
provides information on packaging processes. Once packaged, the support requirements for the
PM tasks must be determined via the maintenance planning process.
Implementation of Other Action Warranted recommendations must be addressed during the
RCM program planning process. Most, if not all, Other Action Warranted tasks have specific
processes that require attention that falls outside the purview of the RCM program. For example,
design changes require implementation through the Engineering Change Proposal process. Any
external processes that can be foreseen as possibly requiring RCM analysis data should be
addressed during the RCM program planning process and identified in the RCM program plan.
Section 4 of this manual provides additional information regarding the implementation of “Other
Action” recommendations that result from RCM analyses.
2-23
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.12 RCM PROGRAM SUSTAINMENT EFFORTS

To realize the full benefit of RCM, sustainment of an RCM program after completion of the
initial analysis is critical. A one-time analysis will not provide an optimized PM program that
can be expected to extend over the life of a hardware program. There are two reasons for this.
First, the initial analysis will never be optimized since, in all likelihood, incomplete and
inaccurate data and assumptions were used in the decision-making process due to a lack of solid
data. The second reason is that the hardware and its operating environment will likely change
over time.
An initial analysis is based on the best information available at the time. However, no matter
how much data is collected, or how well it is screened and evaluated, some of it will, over time,
prove to be inaccurate or incomplete. The initial analysis will also be based on many
assumptions, some of which will prove to have been inaccurate. Other assumptions, which were
true initially, will become invalid as the hardware progresses through the various stages of its
lifecycle.
In addition to the analysis becoming out-dated by changing data and assumptions, the hardware
and its operating environment will likely change over time. Hardware will be physically
modified to improve performance or to perform entirely new functions. New demands may be
placed on equipment. Users may operate equipment differently or in different environments.
Unless new equipment is continuously being procured, the average age of a population of
equipment will increase. Finally, maintenance practices and available technology may change.
Due to the factors mentioned above, RCM analyses must be updated to address any changes that
affect the PM program. These updates should be accomplished as changes occur. The RCM
sustainment process should be thoroughly defined in a program’s RCM Program Plan to include:
∗ Funding requirements
∗ Data requirements
∗ Training requirements
∗ FST organization, responsibilities, and procedures related to the RCM program
Section 5 of this manual provides detailed descriptions of the types of tasks that are necessary to
properly sustain an RCM program.
2-24
NAVAIR 00-25-403
SECTION III
RCM ANALYSIS PROCESS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the RCM analysis process. The RCM analysis process (highlighted in
black in Figure 3-1) includes performing a Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
(FMECA), selecting significant functions, and performing task evaluations and task selections.
Figure 3-1 also illustrates where the RCM analysis process fits in the overall RCM program.

HARDWARE PARTITIONING
failure information
analysis
RCM TASK EVALUATION
acceptable
maintenance program

Figure 3-1 RCM Process
3-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.2 FAILURE MODE EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS

The FMECA is a process used to identify and document the functions, functional failures, failure
modes and failure effects of an item. It is used to determine the significance of functional
failures in terms of Safety, Environment, Operations, and Economics. It further classifies the
severity of each failure effect according to established severity classification criteria, and
provides failure rate information.
The FMECA starts with a hardware partition as described in section 2.4.2. The partition shows
the relationship of each item to other items and to higher or lower levels of indenture.
It is important that, prior to beginning the development of the FMECA, the ground rules and
assumptions discussed in section 2.5.2 are established and well understood. It is essential that
the mission or usage phases and profiles be described in the RCM Plan so that the FMECA is
developed based on a well-defined operational context. It may be that some functions, failures
or effects only occur, or occur in a different manner, in certain operational scenarios. The
FMECA should clearly indicate when functions, failure modes or effects are dependent on
specific circumstances, environments, or mission phases.
3.2.1 Function
A function is the intended purpose of an item as described by a required standard of
performance. It is not necessarily what the item is capable of doing, as shown in the example
below. A complete function description should include any specific performance limits (upper
and/or lower bounds).
Example of a Function Description

A particular application requires a hydraulic pump that is capable of
providing 3000 psi +/-200 psi. A hydraulic pump that is rated for 4000 psi
is chosen for the application. A proper function description would be:
“Provide hydraulic pressure of 3000 psi +/-200 psi”
Although most equipment is designed to perform a specific or single function, many systems
may perform multiple functions or have secondary functions. Some functions are "demand"
driven, such as an ejection seat, while others operate continuously. Care must be taken to ensure
functions are not overlooked, and that the function statement is clear, including any operating
context notations.
An example of an item with multiple functions is an aircraft landing gear system. It supports the
aircraft ground load. It retracts when the aircraft is airborne. It extends when the aircraft is
airborne, prior to landing.
Examples of secondary functions for the landing gear system include the following:
∗ Provide fluid containment
∗ Provide protection from environment damage or exposure
3-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Provide warning indicators

∗ Provide steering control for the aircraft
∗ Provide safety or protective features to prevent injury to personnel during ground
maintenance
∗ Transfer structural loads to appropriate points of the airframe
Virtually all systems have primary and secondary functions. Secondary functions are often less
obvious than the primary function, but may have more severe consequences if they fail.
Secondary functions to consider for the system under analysis include:
∗ Fluid Containment
∗ Environmental protection (paint, sealants, covers, etc.)
∗ Indications (visual, audible, tactile)
∗ Controlling features
∗ Safety or protective features (for the equipment, the operators, the maintainers, or
sometimes, bystanders)
∗ Transfer of loads or back-up load capability
∗ Aesthetics and comfort
Functions should not be combined if failure consequences are different for each function. For
example, two functions of an aircraft landing gear system are to “extend landing gear” and to
“retract landing gear.” There may be a tendency to create one function "extends and retracts
landing gear". However, if the landing gear fails to extend, the aircraft will not be able to land
without significant damage. However, if the landing gear fails to retract, the consequence might
be limited to the loss of a mission.
Functions that only apply during certain operational or mission scenarios or context should be
clearly noted. These will require special attention in the RCM analysis. Resulting functional
failures and failure modes can then be identified such that they clearly relate to the appropriate
scenario or context. Reliability and cost values may also require adjustment to account for the
usage profiles of the item or function. Information for determining functions can be drawn from
several sources such as maintenance and operations manuals, drawings, and discussions with
equipment operators, maintainers, and design engineers. Block diagrams for each indenture
level being analyzed provide both functional and reliability information. They illustrate the
operation and relationships of the functional entities involved in the system’s use.
SAE JA1012 provides additional discussion on the development of function statements.
3-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.2.2 Functional Failure

A functional failure is defined as the inability of an item to perform a specific function within the
specified limits. A functional failure may not necessarily be a complete loss of the function.
Proper functional failure descriptions are based on the function description. Functional failures
will likely result in either reduced performance or total loss of the system. Separate functional
failures should be listed where the effects of less than total loss of the function are different from
total loss.
Information for determining functional failures can be drawn from sources such as maintenance
manuals, drawings, and discussions with equipment operators, maintainers, and design
engineers. Proper functional failure descriptions include parameters such as upper and lower
limits of the failure regime, if different than the function description. SAE JA1012 also provides
additional useful discussion of functional failures.
Examples of a Functional Failure Description

The function of a hydraulic pump is to provide 3000 psi +/-200 psi. In
this example, it is also known that once the hydraulic pressure drops
below 1000 psi a certain critical component ceases to function.
Valid functional failures could be:
Pump provides more than 3200 psi
Pump provides between 1000 psi and 2800 psi
Pump provides less than 1000 psi
Pump provides no pressure
3.2.3 Compensating Provisions

Compensating provisions are design provisions or operator actions that circumvent or mitigate
the effect of the functional failure. Compensating provisions may include such things as back-
up/redundant functions, safety or relief devices, or crew-selected mitigating actions (such as
switching to secondary systems following caution/warning indications). The FMECA should
include a detailed description of compensating provisions for each functional failure if they exist.
Compensating provisions are used to assist in determining the failure effects, severity, and
consequences.
Information for determining compensating provisions can be obtained from sources such as
maintenance manuals, operator manuals, drawings, and discussions with equipment operators,
maintainers, and design engineers.
3-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.2.4 Failure Mode

A failure mode is a specific physical condition that can result in a functional failure. The failure
mode statement should include a description of the failure mechanism (e.g., fatigue) in addition
to the specific condition whenever possible.
A lot of effort could be expended in imagining all the ways something might fail, however, only
failure modes that are “reasonable” should be identified. The RCM program plan’s Ground
Rules and Assumptions section should list the methods and data sources for identification of
“reasonable” failure modes to avoid unnecessary analysis effort for highly improbable failure
modes. Failure mode statements should be as descriptive as possible to eliminate confusion over
what the failure mode is and where it occurs, to avoid listing redundant failure modes, to readily
relate in-service data to the failure mode, and to aid in the development of the appropriate failure
management strategy.
Care should be taken when combining disparate failure modes if their rates of occurrence,
effects/consequences, or detection methods/probabilities are different, possibly requiring
different failure management strategies or PM tasks/intervals. If failure modes are combined due
to their similarities, the resultant failure management strategy (including any required PM), must
consider the worst case effects/consequences and combined rate of occurrence which may result
in an additional maintenance burden that more than offsets any savings in analysis effort.
Refinement of the failure modes and their descriptions may be required as the analysis proceeds.
The analyst can choose to add more failure modes or expound on their descriptions, as necessary,
to facilitate the identification of specific inspection and failure detection methods. This could be
done, for example, when applying the analysis process to PHM. Excessive detail and
unnecessary expansion, without clear benefit, should be avoided as this will only serve to add
complexity, cost, and delay to the analysis; possibly introduce failure modes not considered
"reasonable"; or result in separate failure management strategies or unnecessary maintenance for
failure modes that are essentially identical.
The data available for identifying failure modes will vary depending on whether or not the item
has an existing service history. Failure modes for items with an existing service history are
determined mainly from operators and maintainers and failure data that have been collected.
Descriptive failure data sources such as test reports, engineering investigation reports, hazardous
material reports, and depot estimator and evaluator write-ups are useful for determining the
failure modes of an item. A review of computerized or "coded" data, such as NALCOMIS
malfunction codes, is useful to a lesser degree for identifying specific failure modes since, by
design, the data is less descriptive. However, this data may be used to identify the types of
failure modes seen in-service such as cracks, wear, etc. It may also be used to validate the
failure modes developed from other sources as "reasonable", or aid in developing frequencies of
occurrence. Maintainers and operators who have first hand experience with the equipment serve
as another very useful source of specific failure data.
Failure mode identification on new designs is more difficult. Failure modes have to be inferred
from knowledge of the hardware design, general knowledge of how things fail, and experience
with similar equipment in similar applications. Data sources will include technical data
(publications, drawings) and failure data sources mentioned above for similar equipment in
similar usage. The context in which the equipment is operated should be carefully considered
3-5
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System reports

∗ Design drawings and maintenance manuals
∗ Depot artisans, design engineers, fleet support team members, vendors
∗ Generic reliability data from sources such as MIL-HDBK-217, Reliability Prediction
of Electronic Equipment
Examples of a Proper Failure Mode Description

Crack in flange radius due to fatigue.
Leaking actuator due to worn seal.
Example of an Improper Failure Mode Description
Leaking actuator due to worn seal or cracked housing.
3.2.5 Failure Effect

Failure effect is described as the result of a functional failure on surrounding items, the
functional capability of the end item, and hazards to personnel and the environment. In other
words, it is the impact that a functional failure has on the item under analysis, the surrounding
environment (to include equipment and personnel), and the functional capability of the end item.
Failure effects should describe any physical damage, including both primary and secondary
damage that may occur, and any actions required to restore system function. They should
identify the effects on personnel and system safety, the mission, the physical asset(s), and
include any unplanned operator or maintainer actions required to restore functional capability.
Failure effects should be described as if no PM task is in place to prevent or find the failure.
Examples of Failure Effects Descriptions

Local Effects: Pump leaks hydraulic fluid
Next Higher Effects: Hydraulic System pressure drops below 1000 psi / degraded
flight controls
End Effects: Mission abort, pump repair or replacement required
*********
Local Effects: Actuator does not provide required output force
Next Higher Effects: Loss of flight control surface function
End Effects: Loss of aircraft/crew
Failure effects are used in the RCM analysis process to determine the consequences of failures so
that appropriate PM tasks may be developed. The consequences of failure adversely impact
3-6
NAVAIR 00-25-403
personnel safety, the environment, mission accomplishment, and economics. To determine the
consequences of the failure, the analyst must identify the effect that the occurrence of a failure
mode has on the end item. An understanding of how the occurrence of failure modes affects
each functional level of the hardware is essential for determining their effects on the end item.
Often, effects vary under different mission/usage phases or profiles and this must be carefully
evaluated and documented. In these cases, it may be necessary to list different effects based on
the usage scenario. This information will be used in the RCM process to determine the proper
failure management strategy. For example, certain PM or Other Actions may need to occur only
while deployed on-board an aircraft carrier. Other systems may be dormant for periods (such as
support equipment, missiles, or weapons) and have different failure management strategies while
in dormant/storage phase than when active or installed.
Most FMECAs identify three levels of failure effects: local, next higher, end item. Three levels
are usually sufficient for most analyses, but they may be added to or eliminated as required.
When applying failure effects to protective devices, monitoring systems, advanced diagnostics
and PHM systems, consider the protected function as well as the protective function is in a failed
state. Failure effects for emergency functions that are only activated based on the occurrence of
a "demand event" should be described considering that the event has occurred and this
assumption should be included in the description (e.g., "inability to eject following in-flight
emergency leading to loss of life" or "inability to extinguish fire causing loss of aircraft").
Examples may include ejection systems, fire detection systems, or missile "self destruct"
systems. These "demand events" should be described in the RCM Plan ground rules and
assumptions as a mission or usage phase, and the effects carefully documented as applicable to
the appropriate phase.
Sources of information for identifying failure effects include maintenance manuals, defect
reports, drawings, contact with maintainers, depot artisans, designers, vendors, and materials
laboratories, various test results, and functional block diagrams.
3.2.6 Failure Detection

Failure detection is the means by which functional failures become evident and how their failure
modes are identified. Failure detection methods fall into two categories: (1) those that are used
by the operator to detect functional failures or the effects of functional failures; and (2) those that
are employed by the maintenance technician to determine which failure mode occurred to cause
the functional failure.
The methods used by the operator to detect functional failures will vary from failure mode to
failure mode due to the different secondary damage that can be caused by each failure mode.
Failure detection methods used by the operator include visual warning signals (e.g., lights,
gauges), audible warning signals (e.g., horns, buzzers, recorded voice), and operational effects
(e.g., vibration, smoke, noise, loss of control). This information is used in the RCM analysis
process to determine if the operator can detect the functional failure under normal circumstances
and minimize intrusive inspections or maintenance actions where possible.
Failure detection methods that depend on maintenance technicians who use troubleshooting
techniques and procedures, are not considered “normal circumstances” when considering
operator detection for RCM analysis. However, these methods are important in developing the
proper failure management strategy, such as a PM task or Other Action (which could include
improved maintenance procedures or equipment). Examples of such failure mode detection
3-7
NAVAIR 00-25-403
methods include pressure tests, voltage checks, visual inspections, NDI, and PHM systems that
isolate failure modes automatically. Again, clear description of these methods will aid the RCM
analysis in choosing the most appropriate and least intrusive detection method, minimizing
induced from the maintenance activity.
Sources of information for identifying failure detection methods include maintenance manuals,
operator manuals, drawings, maintainers, operators, depot artisans, designers, vendors, materials
laboratories, various test results, and functional block diagrams.
3.2.7 Severity Classifications

Severity classifications are assigned to failure modes based on the impacts of their failure effects
at the end item level. Classifying failure modes in this manner provides a primary source for
determining the priority under which each should be addressed, and may also be used by the
program to establish the acceptable probability level for failure modes based on categories of
effects. Historical guidance regarding severity classification has been to review the worst-case
effects and assign the Severity Classification on the basis of these effects. While it remains good
practice to identify worst-case effects, lesser effects should also be considered and classified,
along with the their probability of occurrence, for the best understanding of the potential impact
of the failure mode. Often the lesser effects occur with such greater frequency than the worst-
case effects that they may need to be considered when choosing the best failure management
strategy, or assigning an acceptable probability of failure for the failure mode. For example, a
failure mode that has a small probability to cause loss of life might have a high probability to
create severe operational or economic effects. Determining a failure management strategy to
protect against the safety consequences might overlook a better strategy that also optimizes cost
or operational impacts. Also, as discussed in section 3.2.5, it may be necessary to assign
different classifications for a single failure mode dependent on operational phase or scenario. A
description of the severity classification method adopted by the program should be included in
the Ground Rules and Assumptions section of the RCM plan.
3.2.8 Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)

MTBF is a basic measure of reliability and is often defined as the average time a component or
system works without failure. Often, the "Time" element in the MTBF used for RCM is replaced
by other units appropriate to the failure mode (such as flight hours, operating hours, captive carry
hours, or other units with a correlation to the usage/degradation of the item under analysis).
Although this appears to be a fairly simple concept, there is tremendous variability in how
MTBF’s are determined because they may be used for a multitude of purposes. As a result, it is
important to describe how MTBF is used in RCM analysis and to structure its definition
accordingly.
In the context of RCM analysis, MTBF is used for 4 purposes:
∗ To determine the need and frequency for non-safety on-condition tasks
∗ To determine the need and frequency for failure finding tasks
∗ To document a relative measure of reliability in the FMECA for use in evaluation of
failure management strategies
∗ To prioritize failure modes that may require analysis.
3-8
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Prioritization of analysis can use any reasonable method for determination of MTBF as long as
the method is consistently applied, but that is not true for the other 3 purposes.
A prerequisite for determining if PM (or other failure management strategy) is desired is to
determine how often failures would occur if PM (or other failure management strategy) were not
imposed. Therefore, in RCM context, MTBF is defined as the average time (or other appropriate
usage parameter) a component or system operates without failure from a particular failure mode,
assuming no actions are taken to prevent that failure mode. In other words, MTBF is the average
age of an entire population of assets assuming they were all run to failure, under normal
operational conditions, without PM (or other failure management strategy) imposed. As a result,
in-service data often cannot be used to directly calculate the MTBF for RCM purposes, because
some form of PM may already be in place. In such cases, MTBF values must be estimated based
on an understanding of the failure mechanism, its degradation characteristics, and the impacts of
the imposed PM (sometimes using data on similar equipment without PM). Therefore, the
MTBF values listed in a FMECA should clearly identify the methodologies used, and sources
and timeframes for any data used in the calculations.
When MTBF values are calculated from in-service data or vendor/manufacturer data on similar
equipment, the values may also need to be adjusted to compensate for differences in equipment
design or operational context, in addition to accounting for the influence from existing PM tasks.
Therefore, considerations when using in-service data to calculate MTBF include:
∗ When using NALCOMIS or CMMS data, failures will often have to be divided among
several failure modes since failures may be documented in several ways. For example,
they may be documented against a higher level assembly, or they may be documented
at different locations on the analyzed item, or they may represent several different
failure modes within a given malfunction code. Input from maintainers should be
solicited to assign reported failures to the most appropriate failure modes.
∗ The occurrence of one failure mode may result in a corrective action that, in turn,
prevents the occurrence of another failure mode. For example, if an assembly is
removed for repair, often the repair process corrects failure modes or restores the
item's condition other than for the failure causing it to be removed. Input from repair
sites should be obtained to determine failure modes revealed during repair and the
MTBF adjusted accordingly.
∗ In-service data may include the effects of a current or past preventive action. If a
current failure mode has a PM task in place, adjustment to the calculated MTBF to
account for that PM task is necessary. For example:
− When an On Condition task is in place, in-service data will include both potential
failure and functional failure information. Therefore, the unadjusted MTBF
considering both potential and functional failures (influenced by potential failures
discovered by the On Condition task) will be lower than the MTBF with no PM
task in place.
− When a Hard Time task is in place, in-service data will not include failures that
would have occurred had the Hard Time task not been performed. Therefore, the
unadjusted MTBF will be higher than the MTBF with no PM in place.
3-9
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Items or functions may be dormant for extended periods of time, therefore any failure
modes that occur during the dormant period may not become evident until the item is
activated, causing the MTBF to appear longer than actual.
The age distribution of the population, the number of items per end item, and the existence of
infant mortality (among other factors) may skew the MTBF requiring careful evaluation and
appropriate statistical methods. Also, equipment design, operating environment, maintenance
process, and other factors change and may impact failure rates over time. The use of MTBF in
the RCM process is to project the average time/usage between functional failure caused by a
single type of failure mode on each item without PM. Various methods may be appropriate for
making this determination dependant on available data and type of equipment. Various
reliability guides and studies may be researched if more precise determination of MTBF or
failure rates are desired.
3.3 SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION IDENTIFICATION

A complex system is made up of a vast number of physical parts and components, each of which
is designed to perform a specific function or functions. Failure of any of these may cause the
loss of function with the added possibility of incurring secondary damage to other system
components, personnel, or the surrounding environment. The consequences that these failures
have on the end item (aircraft, weapon system, support equipment, engine, etc.) vary over a wide
range. The consequences that result from some failures present threats to safety or the
environment, while others affect the operating capability of the end item. Other failures result in,
and are confined to, economic impacts. Finally, there are those failures that present no
significant consequences at all. Functions whose failures result in safety, environmental,
operational or economic consequences are termed “Significant Functions” and are subjected to
RCM analysis to determine appropriate failure management strategies.
Since every end item contains both “significant” and “non-significant” functions, some method
must be employed to segregate them. The following paragraphs discuss the preferred method for
identifying significant functions. However, if a program has a method that is different and
unique to its application, then that method can be used. In any case, the method selected for use
should be described in the RCM program plan.
3.3.1 Significant Function (SF) Logic

The RCM process provides a means through the SF Logic to identify and segregate significant
functions and non-significant functions. Figure 3-2, Significant Function Logic Diagram,
illustrates the logic used in this process.
∗ Significant Function (SF) – A function whose failure will result in adverse consequences
with respect to Safety, Environment, Operations, and Economics.
∗ Non-significant Function (NSF) – A function whose failure will have no adverse safety,
environmental, operational, or economic consequences.
3-10
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Function
Does the loss of function have an adverse effect

on safety or environment? Yes
No
Does the loss of function have an adverse effect
on operations? Yes
No
Does the loss of function have an adverse
economic impact? Yes
No
Is the function protected by an existing PM
task? Yes
No
Non-Significant Significant
Function Function
Figure 3-2 Significant Function Selection Logic Diagram
3.3.2 SF Logic Questions
The logic questions asked in the SF Logic diagram apply to every function that has the potential
of being significant. It is important to understand that an item may have more than one function.
Each function must be evaluated separately. It must be pointed out that the first question in the
logic flow that evokes a “YES” answer dictates that the function is significant, thus negating the
need to consider the remaining logic questions. If, on the other hand, all of the logic questions
evoke a “NO” answer, then the function is considered non-significant, and, therefore, requires no
further analysis. While answering any of these questions, consideration must be given to all
possible effects of failure modes for the function being analyzed. This includes secondary
damage (such as foreign object damage) that may not directly result from the loss of the
function. In the case where secondary damage is the only effect that makes a function
significant, it may be possible to add a secondary function whose loss results directly in the
secondary damage. The effects of losing this function would then be the secondary damage. For
example, many hardware components may cause foreign object damage if they become
unattached from their attach points. The resulting damage may have nothing to do with the
actual system performance of the component or be much more severe than the loss of the subject
system. This “secondary damage” could be addressed by adding the secondary function:
“Component xyz maintains secure attachment to the airframe.”
3-11
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Adverse Effect on Safety or Environment? - Does loss of the function or secondary

damage caused by a particular failure mode have an adverse effect on operating
safety or lead to a serious violation of an environmental standard or regulation?
“YES” indicates that the particular function is significant.
∗ Adverse Effect on Operations? – Does the loss of the function or secondary damage
have an adverse effect on operations? “YES” indicates that the particular function is
significant.
∗ Adverse Economic Impact? – Does the loss of the function or secondary damage have
an adverse economical impact? “YES” indicates that the particular function is
significant.
∗ Existing PM Task? - Is the function protected by an existing PM task? “YES”
indicates that the particular function or secondary damage is significant at this point
in the process. Further analysis may determine that the PM task was inappropriately
included in the maintenance program. If new hardware is being analyzed, this
question may be addressed based on similar items used in similar applications. This
effort is simply to identify functions to be analyzed and does not imply that the
existing PM task is appropriate or necessary.
The Significant Function Identification process often serves to ensure that all appropriate
functions and effects have been included prior to beginning the RCM analysis, vice excluding a
large number of functions from consideration. The logic process may reveal existing PM tasks
are addressing functions which were overlooked during the development of the FMECA, or it
may cause a re-evaluation of the effects. The criteria for eliminating a function from further
analysis (no adverse effect on safety, environment, operations, or economics and no existing PM)
usually only results in eliminating functions that were somewhat nebulous to begin with.
3.4 RCM DECISION LOGIC

The significant functions that were identified and substantiated by the SF Identification Logic
undergo further scrutiny as they are subjected to the RCM Decision Logic. The RCM Decision
Logic is used to determine the appropriate failure management strategy to accept, eliminate, or
lessen the consequences of functional failures. Every functional failure has one or more failure
modes, any of which, if allowed to occur, will result in a loss of function. Each of these failure
modes must be processed through the Decision Logic to determine whether a PM task should be
developed, or if some other action might be warranted. The goal here is to determine the best
alternative for either preventing the functional failure altogether, mitigating its consequences to
an acceptable level if it does occur, or allowing it to occur and accepting the consequences.
The Decision Logic requires that the following be considered for each failure mode being
analyzed:
∗ Consequences of failure (safety, environmental, operational, economical)
∗ Evidence of a functional failure to the operating crews
∗ Evidence of reduced resistance to failure
∗ Age-reliability characteristics of each item
3-12
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Age-reliability characteristics of each item Trade-off analyses comparing various

appropriate PM tasks, no PM, or Other Actions for optimum handling of a failure
mode
The RCM Decision Logic Diagram, Figure 3-3, and its use will be discussed in the
following sections.
Is the functional failure or effect of the failure mode, on its own,

apparent to the operating crew under normal circumstances?
YES NO
Evident Hidden
Does failure mode cause function loss Does hidden failure mode in combination
or secondary damage that could have with second failure/event cause function
an adverse effect on operating safety loss or secondary damage that could have
or lead to serious environmental an adverse effect on operating safety or
violation? lead to serious environmental violation?
YES NO NO YES
Evident Evident Hidden Hidden
Safety/ Economic/ Economic/ Safety/
Environmental Operational Operational Environmental
Analyze Options: Analyze Options: Analyze Options: Analyze Options:

S, L, OC, HT, S, L, OC, HT, S, L, OC, HT, FF, S, L, OC, HT, FF,
Other Action No PM, No PM, Other Action
Other Action Other Action
Select BEST OPTION
Figure 3.3 RCM Decision Logic
3.4.1 Failure Consequences

The following three questions in the RCM Decision Logic determine which branch will be used
for assessing a particular failure mode to determine if a PM task is necessary or desired:
∗ Is the functional failure, or effect of the failure mode, on its own, evident to the
operator while performing normal duties?
∗ Does the occurrence of the failure mode cause a function loss or secondary damage
that could have an adverse effect on operating safety or lead to a serious
environmental violation?
3-13
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Does the occurrence of the hidden failure mode in combination with a second failure
or event cause a function loss or secondary damage that could have an adverse effect
on operating safety or lead to a serious environmental violation?
Failure consequence evaluation is a two-step process. First, functional failures are separated into
two categories: those that are evident to the operator/operating crew and those that are not.
Second, the effects of the failure are evaluated to identify those that affect safety or
environmental compliance.
For a functional failure to be classified as “evident,” it must be evident to the operating crew on
its own, under normal circumstances. This means that no other failure or event needs to occur to
make the functional failure evident, and no special actions or special conditions have to take
place, other than those that are part of regular operations. Systems are often designed with visual
or audible warning devices to make failures evident. Other failures are evident due strictly to
their operational effects, for example, vibration or loss of control. Detecting the failure must not
require operator actions other than those considered “normal duties” in order for the failure to be
classified as evident. If the operator has to do anything not considered normal procedures to
detect a failure (e.g., remove panels during equipment operation), the failure will be classified as
“hidden.”
Some functions are normally dormant and only become activated upon occurrence of a "demand
event". If the operational capability of these functions is not known until they are called for (i.e.,
there is no indication that they are in a failed state prior to the "demand event"), then failures are
not apparent under normal circumstances and will also be classified as "hidden". Examples
include ejection seat functions, emergency devices, and other systems with infrequent use (unless
there is an effective built-in test or indication that alerts the operator to their failure prior to
demand).
Once functional failures are separated into hidden and evident categories, failure modes that
affect safety or environmental compliance are identified. Failures are considered to affect safety
if they have an unacceptable probability to unintentionally kill or severely injure someone. In
making this determination, consideration must be given to the operating crew, maintenance
personnel, bystanders, and any other personnel that could be affected by the failure. Failures are
considered to affect environmental compliance if they have an unacceptable probability to cause
a serious violation of an environmental standard or regulation. A serious violation would be one
that would do significant permanent damage to the environment, or carries penalties (such as
fines or criminal prosecution) that could affect the viability of the operating organization or its
people.
Evident failures that have adverse impacts on safety or environmental compliance resulting from
the loss of function (including any secondary damage that was caused by the occurrence of the
failure mode) require action (on-condition task, hard time task, or other action) to avoid
unacceptable consequences. If more than one failure management strategy can acceptably
satisfy the safety or environmental concern, further analysis is required to choose the best option
by factoring economic and operational impacts.
When hidden failures are analyzed, the loss of function and any secondary damage caused by the
hidden failure, in combination with a second failure or event (that makes the hidden failure
evident), are considered when determining the impact of the failure. Hidden failures that have
adverse impacts on safety or environmental compliance when combined with another
failure/event (including any secondary damage that was caused by the occurrence of the failure
3-14
NAVAIR 00-25-403
mode) also require action (on condition task, hard time task, failure finding task, or other action)
to avoid unacceptable consequences. Note the failure finding task option is unique to hidden
failures, since the possibility exists to find and fix the hidden failures and ensure availability,
when called upon, to an acceptable level of probability.
Evident and hidden failures that do not affect safety or environmental compliance will require
analysis to determine the best failure management strategy by comparing costs and operational
impacts of various options.
3.4.2 Decision Logic Branches

The Decision Logic consists of the four branches listed below and as illustrated in Figure 3-3:
∗ Evident Safety/Environmental Consequences
∗ Evident Economic/Operational Consequences
∗ Hidden Economic/Operational Consequences
∗ Hidden Safety/Environmental Consequences
All four branches of the Decision Logic tree may evaluate up to four types of PM tasks:
Servicing tasks, Lubrication tasks, On Condition tasks, and Hard Time tasks. Two branches, the
Hidden Safety/Environmental Consequences and the Hidden Economic/Operational
Consequences, may also consider Failure Finding tasks. "No PM " (allowing the failure to
occur), is an additional option for Economic/Operational failure modes. These failure
management strategy options, along with Other Actions or combinations of options, are
compared to determine the most appropriate failure management strategy.
3.5 TASK EVALUATION

Task Evaluation is the process used to determine which of several options is best suited to
prevent a failure mode from occurring or, if not preventing it, to reduce the consequence of its
failure to a level that is acceptable to the program. Each option has unique criteria that determine
if the task is appropriate for the failure mode. During conduct of the analysis, all reasonable
options should be evaluated for comparison. PM task options are presented in an order that is
generally progressive in their impact to operations and economics. Some options may not be
appropriate for the failure mode under evaluation, while others may be shown clearly
unacceptable in cost or economic impact with only cursory review. It is not the intent of this
process to generate analysis effort that is of little value. If it is apparent that a PM task option
(such as an On-condition task) offers an acceptable failure management strategy and is clearly
superior to other potentially acceptable options (such as a Hard Time task), the analyst should
document the basis for that conclusion rather than developing extensive data to support an
obvious conclusion. Regardless, the "No PM" option should be defined for comparison, even if
only rough estimates of the variables are available.
3.5.1 Servicing Task

A Servicing task entails the replenishment of consumables (e.g., fuel, oil, oxygen, and nitrogen)
which are depleted during normal operations.
Servicing tasks are scheduled according to need. Servicing tasks do not normally require
extensive analysis to determine how often they should be performed. They are typically
3-15
NAVAIR 00-25-403
performed according to the manufacturer’s recommendations or operational needs considering

usage, environment, and convenience. Sources of information for determining when to perform
Servicing tasks include equipment drawings, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM),
operator/maintainer inputs and maintenance publications.
There may be occasions where servicing intervals can be determined/extended by more detailed
analysis of the time to depletion. However, unless the servicing tasks entail significant
maintenance resources or difficulties (such as management of hazardous material or significant
disassembly), it is usually sufficient to assign the servicing task a conservative interval at a
convenient point in the maintenance program to check and replenish, as necessary.
There may be circumstances where failure modes could be prevented by replacement of
consumables (rather than simple replenishment), such as changing out a fluid due to
deterioration. These are considered Hard Time tasks, since they entail more than replenishment
and should be analyzed using the guidance of section 3.5.6.
3.5.2 Lubrication Task

A Lubrication task is the application of a lubricant to components whose design specifies
lubrication for proper operation. A Lubrication task is appropriate only if the lubricant to be
used is a non-permanent type and needs to be reapplied periodically.
Lubrication tasks are scheduled according to the life expectancy of the lubricant. Similar to
servicing tasks, Lubrication tasks are generally inexpensive to perform and therefore, extensive
analyses to determine how often they should be done are usually not warranted. Intervals are
typically assigned conservatively according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, scheduled
with other maintenance for convenience, or driven by other activities such as aircraft wash.
Considerations such as usage or environmental exposure may affect the assigned interval for the
Lubrication task. Sources of information for intervals for Lubrication tasks include equipment
drawings, OEM, maintenance publications, operator/maintainer inputs and the lubricant
manufacturer’s data.
There may be occasions where benefit can be gained by more thorough analysis of the
deterioration of the lubricant, such as when the lubrication task takes more than nominal time,
entails complications such as shutdown of continuously operating equipment or requires
hazardous material under limitations on use/exposure. Methods similar to those used to
determine Hard Time tasks described in section 3.5.6 would be appropriate for determining
lubrication intervals based on rates of deterioration, when justified. If lubrication is applied
based on the results of inspections for deteriorated conditions, the on condition methods of
section 3.5.5 could be appropriately utilized.
3.5.3 Corrosion Preventive Compounds

Most corrosion preventive compounds (CPC) can normally be addressed by a Servicing or
Lubrication task, dependent on the nature of the CPC (i.e., is it replenished or reapplied).
3.5.4 Servicing/Lubrication Task Cost Analysis

The cost of the Servicing/Lubrication task must be calculated in order to compare this option to
other methods of dealing with the failure mode.
3-16
NAVAIR 00-25-403
CSL = Cost Of One SL Task

= (man-hours to perform task) x (cost per man-hour) + cost of materials
3.5.5 On Condition Task

An On Condition task is defined as a periodic or continuous inspection that is designed to detect
a potential failure condition and allow correction prior to functional failure. A potential failure is
a definable and detectable condition that indicates that a functional failure will occur. In the
event that the inspection reveals a potential failure condition, some corrective action must be
taken. If the potential failure condition is not present, nothing is done, and the item continues in
service until the next inspection. The On Condition task includes only the inspection phase of
the maintenance evolution. An On Condition task allows an item to be left in service until a
potential failure is detected, thereby maximizing its useful life while minimizing repair costs and
the number of spares required. Also, since an On Condition task is normally the least intrusive
of the PM task options, the likelihood of inducing damage/failures is reduced. The complexity
of On Condition tasks ranges from simple visual inspections to complex non-destructive
inspections requiring specialized equipment including imbedded PHM systems.
3.5.5.1 On Condition Task Development

To develop an On Condition task, the following questions must be addressed:
∗ What is the Functional Failure? (This can normally be obtained from the FMECA
data, however, additional definition or clarification related to the specific failure
mode may be required during development of the On Condition task.)
∗ What is the Potential Failure?
∗ What is the Potential Failure to Functional Failure (PF) interval; is it consistent?
∗ Can a task interval be developed that ensures the probability of failure is at an
acceptable level (considering the consequences of the failure mode)?
3-17
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Figure 3-4 illustrates these questions.
CHARACTERISTIC THAT
INITIAL WILL INDICATE REDUCED
FUNCTIONAL CPABILITY
POTENTIAL
FAILURE
FUNCTIONAL DEFINED POTENTIAL
CAPABILITY FAILURE CONDITION DEFINED FUNCTIONAL
FAILURE CONDITION
FUNCTIONAL
FAILURE
OPERATING AGE
I I I
Inspection Interval
TASK INTERVAL FEASIBLE
PF Interval
Figure 3-4 On Condition Task Considerations
3.5.5.2 Identifying the Functional Failure Condition

When a function ceases to perform its normal or characteristic action(s) within the acceptable
limits specified by the user, a functional failure is said to have occurred. The problem of
determining what constitutes a functional failure condition is generally less difficult than
defining a potential failure condition. This is because when a function ceases to exist, something
tangible and measurable is lost to the operator; whereas, with the potential failure condition,
functionality has not been lost, and therefore, is more difficult to define. Functional failures are
identified and documented during failure mode and effects analyses, but potential failures are not
considered during these processes. However, during conduct of the RCM analysis, it may be
necessary to more specifically define the functional failure condition related to a specific failure
mode to aid in development of the failure management options. For example, a functional
failure of primary structure may be the inability to support a specific load. The failure mode may
be fatigue cracking. However, to define the PF interval, the specific crack length that is
considered unacceptable to continue in operation is required to define the functional failure
condition for the fatigue cracking failure mode. Once determined, it is usually helpful to add this
information to the FMECA for future reference. The IRCMS software also requires this
information for the On Condition task analysis.
3.5.5.3 Identifying the Potential Failure Condition

The potential failure condition is a specific and detectable level of degradation. Setting the
potential failure condition as the first detectable indication of degradation will maximize the On
Condition task interval. Defining the potential failure condition further down on the degradation
curve, i.e., closer to the functional failure condition, may allow the item to remain in service
longer, but requires on-condition inspections to be performed more frequently.
The potential failure condition that is defined must be consistent with the failure detection
technique being proposed. A failure mode may exhibit several different degradation
characteristics that can be used to reveal a potential failure condition. For example, several valid
3-18
NAVAIR 00-25-403
potential failure indicators for the failure mode “wear” could be considered. Among these
include a specific amount of material lost through wear, a level of vibration induced by a worn
segment of a rotating component, or the intensity of heat generated by friction associated with
wear. When deciding which characteristic to use as an indicator of failure resistance, consider
the length and consistency of the PF interval, the availability of measuring equipment and,
ultimately, the cost effectiveness of the resulting On Condition task. It is often helpful to do a
trade-off analysis to determine which approach is most effective, when multiple approaches are
deemed acceptable. Various tools and the IRCMS software could be used in doing these kinds
of trade-offs.
3.5.5.4 Determining the PF Interval

Various methodologies are available for determining or estimating PF intervals; these include
laboratory testing, analytical methods, evaluation of in-service data, and engineering judgement
based on inputs from operators and maintainer, and knowledge of the item’s design and of
applications consisting of similar components. The method used to determine the PF interval
depends on the nature of the failure mode.
An Age Exploration (AE) task can be used in many cases to collect the data needed to refine a
PF interval when it is otherwise difficult to do so. If a reasonable and consistent PF interval
cannot be determined, then some task other than an On Condition task must be considered.
The On Condition task interval is based on the PF interval. A failure mode could have a random
failure mode pattern, and still have a consistent PF interval. It is not the frequency or probability
distribution of the failure mode that establishes the appropriateness of an On Condition task, but
rather the progression of the failure mode once it begins. It is also important to understand that
individual PF intervals will likely vary to some degree from item to item within a population of
like items. For example, one item might exhibit a PF interval of 700 hours, another at 920 hours,
and still another at 650 hours. When the PF interval is relatively consistent across the population
as in this case, it is easy to establish an interval that applies to every member of the population.
However, when individual PF intervals vary widely, it becomes more difficult to establish one
interval that can be effectively applied to the entire population. For failure modes that result in
evident safety/environmental or hidden safety/environmental failure consequences, the shortest
PF interval of the range should be selected. The resulting On Condition task interval will appear
conservative; however, the short PF interval is necessary in order to ensure the protection against
severe failure consequences for all individual items. If an effective lower limit for the PF
interval cannot be determined, or if the interval is too short for practical application for one type
of degradation indicator, a different degradation indicator may allow a longer interval if it can
detect potential failure at an earlier point in the degradation cycle. If this approach fails, then
another type of task should be considered.
One method of conducting On-condition inspections at very short intervals is through on-board
or imbedded PHM sensors and monitoring devices. These devices are becoming more prevalent
and dependable and may offer advantages in reductions in disassembly and physical inspection.
Section 3.7.1 discusses use of this technology for performing On Condition inspections.
3.5.5.5 On Condition Task Interval Development

The purpose of an On Condition task is to reduce the probability of functional failure to an
acceptable level by detecting potential failures before they progress to the functional failure
stage. The PM task interval is determined by using some fraction of the PF interval. This
3-19
NAVAIR 00-25-403
fraction will depend on the consequences of failure and the effectiveness of the proposed task.
This is discussed in more detail in Appendix B. This concept is represented by the formula:
I = PF/n
Where:
I = Inspection interval
PF = potential failure to functional failure interval
n = number of inspections in the PF interval
For failure modes with safety/environmental consequences, an On Condition task is acceptable if
a task and interval can be identified that will reduce the probability of experiencing a functional
failure to an acceptable level. For failure modes with hidden safety/environmental
consequences, an On Condition task is acceptable if a task and interval can be identified that will
reduce the probability of experiencing a multiple failure (or failure on demand for protective
functions required upon the occurrence of a demand event) to an acceptable level. The
acceptable level(s) of probability will be established by the program team and should be
documented in the RCM Program plan. The acceptable level can be one acceptable level of
probability for all safety/environmental consequence failure modes, or may vary by failure mode
based on Severity codes, operational environments, failure effects, or other factors. It may be
that the acceptable probability of failure for a failure mode is dependent on mission assignments
(e.g., high-risk missions may accept higher probabilities of failure). Whatever factors and
methods are used for establishing the acceptable levels, the proposed task must be expected to
achieve the minimum acceptable level, regardless of cost or operational impact.
For some failure modes, the probability of failure may be extremely low for an initial operating
period, such that the initial inspection can be delayed. In this case, the on-condition task interval
would begin after this initial operating period, sometimes referred to as the "failure-free" period.
This becomes the initial inspection interval, with recurring inspections based on the PF interval.
For failures that result in economic/operational consequences, an On Condition task is acceptable
if it can be shown to be cost and operationally effective. Cost effectiveness is demonstrated if
the projected life cycle costs with the On Condition task in place are less than the projected life
cycle costs with No PM. Operational effectiveness is more difficult to demonstrate and may
require involvement from the operational community to ensure the resultant probability of failure
and any operational impacts from task accomplishment are acceptable. In some applications,
operational impacts can be quantified in economic terms allowing a comparison between the On
Condition task and No PM to be strictly on the basis of economic impact. If not, the task must
be shown to be cost effective as compared to No PM, without imposing any unacceptable
operational impacts.
Appendix B provides some proven methods for determining task intervals. Other methods not
listed in Appendix B may be determined applicable. The method chosen must be logically and
mathematically supportable. For example, it has been shown that "n" (the number of inspections
in the PF interval) should not be less than one for the most cost effective On Condition tasks,
therefore methods that result in "n" of less than one should be avoided. Selection of methods
must also consider accuracy and availability of required data, and the specific failure mechanism
being analyzed. Regardless, the method(s) adopted for determining task intervals should be
documented in the program’s RCM plan.
3-20
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.5.5.6 On Condition Task Cost Analysis

The cost of the On Condition task must be calculated in order to compare this option to other
methods of dealing with the failure mode.
COC = cost of one inspection (includes cost of material, labor, etc., for inspection, but
not repair costs); or (man-hours to perform task) * (cost per man-hour) + cost
of materials
3.5.6 Hard Time Task

A Hard Time task is defined as the scheduled removal of an item or a restorative action at some
specified maximum age limit to prevent its functional failure. A Hard Time task may be
appropriate when a failure mode does not exhibit characteristics that demonstrate a detectable
reduction in failure resistance, or allow a PF interval that is long enough to permit an On
Condition task. Unlike an On Condition task, which allows corrective action to be performed
when a failure is impending, a Hard Time task removes or restores the item at a predetermined
age regardless of whether or not failure is impending. After an item is removed by a Hard Time
task, it is either reworked or discarded. If it is to be reworked, the item’s acceptable level of
failure resistance must be restored, and the item returned to service. If the item is discarded, it is
replaced with a new item.
Although items that are to be reworked or discarded are treated differently once removed from
service, the hard time limits for both are determined using the same methods. The RCM analysis
typically does not make a distinction between rework tasks and discard tasks. How the item is
treated after it is removed from service is determined by its design and maintenance philosophy
via the maintenance planning process. However, the RCM analyst/team should ensure any
proposed rework task deals with the failure mode being analyzed in an adequate manner to
restore it to an acceptable level for the next operating interval. Often this means establishing a
baseline condition that must be met during the rework process, or may involve replacement of
component parts regardless of condition (i.e., parts subject to wear, fatigue, or age degradation).
Rework processes that "inspect and repair as necessary" should be evaluated closely as they may
not be consistent with the restoration of the equipment to a level of failure resistance sufficient
for the next Hard Time interval. If the wear out age after rework is reduced due to the inability
to restore the original resistance to failure, it may be necessary to establish different Hard Time
intervals for new items as opposed to reworked items. These kinds of approaches will require
special handling in the RCM analysis and associated documentation, and should be
accomplished under the guidance of personnel well versed in the RCM process and philosophy.
3.5.6.1 Hard Time Task Development

To develop a Hard Time task that can prevent a failure mode from occurring, three questions
must be addressed:
∗ What is an identifiable wear out age?
∗ What percentage of items survive to that wear out age?
3-21
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Can a task interval be developed that reduces the probability of failure to an

acceptable level?
3.5.6.2 Wear Out

Wear out is described as an increase in the conditional probability of failure with age. Figure 3-5
shows a curve that exhibits wear out of an item. Some items show a well-defined wear out
region, or wear-out age, where a significant increase in the conditional probability of failure
occurs. Other items show a steadily increasing conditional probability of failure that may
support a hard time limit.
C O N D IT IO N A L P R O B A B IL IT Y O F F A IL U R E
T IM E (A G E ) W EAR OUT
Figure 3-5 Wear Out Characteristics
3.5.6.3 Survival to Wear Out Age

Task intervals for items exhibiting wear out characteristics typically are stated in terms of Life
Limits. Two terms are used to distinguish between items having age-related life limits that affect
safety and those that impact economics only. The terms are Safe Life Limit and Economic Life
Limit.
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF FAILURE
SAFE LIFE
LIM IT
AGE
Figure 3-6 Safe Life Limit
A Safe Life Limit item must survive to an age below which no failures are expected to occur.
This is illustrated by Figure 3-6. Safe Life Limits are imposed only on items whose failure
modes have Safety/environmental consequences.
Economic Life Limits are used for items whose failure modes have only Economic/Operational
consequences. An Economic Life Limit is warranted for an item if it is cost-effective to remove
3-22
NAVAIR 00-25-403
CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY OF FAILURE
ECONOMIC LIFE
LIMIT
AGE
Figure 3–7 Economic Life Limit
it before it fails. Unlike Safe Life Limits, which are set conservatively to avoid all failures, Economic
Life Limits may be set liberally to maximize the item’s useful life and, therefore, may add to the risk of an
occasional failure. Figure 3–7 illustrates the characteristics attributed to Economic Life Limited items.
An item with a steadily increasing conditional probability of failure may support an economic life limit,
even without a well defined wear out age, if the benefits of restoration to a lower probability of failure
exceed the cost.
3.5.6.4 Hard Time Task Interval Development

The task interval chosen for a Hard Time task must ensure that in–service failures are reduced to an ac-
ceptable level. Hard Time task intervals are based on wear out age or the age at which it is shown benefi-
cial to restore or replace an item to achieve a lower probability of failure.
When safety/environmental consequences are not involved, the resulting Hard Time task must cost less
over the life of the end item than allowing the item to fail in service. For a PM task to be acceptable in
preventing safety/environmental consequence failure modes, the actual probability of failure with the
task in place, must be less than or equal to the acceptable probability of failure. For hidden safety/envi-
ronmental consequence failure modes, the actual probability of experiencing a multiple failure (or fail-
ure on demand for protective functions required upon the occurrence of some event) must be reduced to
an acceptable level. See the discussion on acceptable levels of probability in Section 3.5.5.5. Actual
probability of failure may be determined from a Conditional Probability of Failure Curve such as those
shown in Figure 3–6 and Figure 3–7 using best available data.
Methods typically used to determine Hard Time task intervals include Weibull analysis, fatigue analysis
or tests, manufacturer’s recommended service life, existing effective maintenance task, or engineering
judgment based on available data, input from operators and maintainers, or similar components in simi-
lar applications. Appendix B provides some methods for determining task intervals. Hard Time task
intervals for some airframe structure and structural components are identified by AIR–4.3.3 and docu-
mented in NAVAIR instructions 13120.1 and 13130.1 or Service Life Bulletins. The alteration of Hard
Time task intervals for these components requires AIR–4.3.3 approval. The method(s) adopted for de-
termining task intervals should be documented in the program’s RCM plan.
3-23
NAVAIR-00-25-403
3.5.6.5 Hard Time Task Cost Analysis

The cost of the hard time task must be calculated in order to compare this option to other
CHT = Cost Of One HT = Cost to perform one hard time task (AVDLR or new cost)
= (man-hours to perform task) x (cost per man-hour) + cost of materials
3.5.7 Failure Finding Task

A Failure Finding task is a preventive maintenance task performed at a specified interval to
determine whether a hidden failure has occurred. It is normally a scheduled inspection of a
hidden function item to find a functional failure that has already occurred, but was not evident to
the operating crew, such as emergency and back-up systems. When an item is subject to a
functional failure that will not be evident to the operating crew, a scheduled task may be
necessary to protect the availability of that function. Since failure-finding tasks are directed at
functional failures, it is often possible to determine one task that can protect multiple failure
modes. Failures of hidden functions that go undetected increase the exposure to a possible
multiple failure or failure of protective functions when the protection is required due to the
occurrence of a demand event. Therefore, Failure Finding tasks are used to reduce the
probability of multiple failures (or failures on demand) to an acceptable level.
3.5.7.1 Failure Finding Task Interval Development

For a Failure Finding task to be acceptable for Hidden Safety/Environmental consequence failure
modes, the probability of multiple failure (or failure on demand) with the Failure Finding task in
place must be less than or equal to the acceptable probability of failure, Pacc established for the
functional failure. See Section 3.5.5.5 for discussion on acceptable levels of probability. The
probability of a multiple failure (or failure on demand), Pmf, is the product of the probability of
failure of the hidden function and the probability of failure of the function (or the probability of
the occurrence of the event) that would make the hidden failure evident. As with the previously
discussed tasks, there are various methods of ensuring that the Pmf ≤ Pacc. Appendix B provides
some general methods for determining task intervals. The method(s) adopted for determining
task intervals should be documented in the program’s RCM plan.
3.5.7.2 Hidden Economic/Operational Failure Modes

For a Failure Finding Task to be acceptable for Hidden Economic/Operational consequence
failure modes, the method used to evaluate the proposed task must show that the Failure Finding
task is cost-effective. Again, the task interval can be determined in a number of ways. The
method(s) adopted should be documented in the program’s RCM plan.
3.5.7.3 Failure Finding Task Cost Analysis

The cost of the Failure Finding task must be calculated in order to compare this option to other
3-24
NAVAIR 00-25-403
CFF = Cost Of One Inspection = cost to perform one Failure Finding inspection.
= (Man-hours to perform task) x (cost per man-hour) + cost of materials
3.5.8 No PM
If safety/environmental compliance is not involved, not performing PM may be the most
appropriate option of dealing with the functional failure. In this case, the item is allowed to
remain in operation until it fails. When safety/environmental compliance is involved, however,
the functional failure must be prevented. This is accomplished by either performing a PM task,
or taking some other action that is warranted.
3.5.8.1 “No PM” Cost Analysis

The cost of not doing PM must be calculated in order to compare this option to other methods of
dealing with the failure mode.
CR = Average Repair Cost. Includes repairing the item and any secondary damage caused
by the failure. For a hidden failure, be certain to include the cost of the multiple
failures. For operational consequences, if a cost of lost operations is defined, it
should be included in the average repair cost. See section 3.6.1.2.
3.5.9 Other Action Warranted

If it is determined that "No PM" is unacceptable and an appropriate PM task cannot be developed
that will reduce the consequences of failure to an acceptable level, then some other action must
be taken. Several options, such as an item redesign (for example, improvements in reliability,
introduction of PHM, or establishing redundant capability), the introduction of operational
restrictions, or a change in maintenance procedures, can be applied to mitigate the problem. At
times, some other action may be desirable even if a PM task is available. This course of action
would be appropriate if a positive return on investment can be demonstrated in terms of, for
example, increased equipment availability, reduced cost, or reduced exposure to a hazardous
condition.
Finding appropriate and effective "Other Actions" is important to getting the most return from
the RCM process. Finding underlying "root causes" and implementing corrective actions or
improvements can lead to dramatic changes in the cost of operations, safety, and availability.
Various methods have been found effective for conducting root cause analysis to determine
appropriate "Other Actions". Involving the maintenance/support, operational, and design
communities in the development and evaluation of alternatives is critical to finding underlying
drivers to failure modes, frequencies, and effects/consequences and developing appropriate
actions. One fairly simple method employed as part of the Lean process improvement
techniques is the "5 Whys". This entails identifying a problem and asking "Why?" five times to
3-25
NAVAIR 00-25-403
uncover root causes that may be easier to correct or may need to be addressed before desired
improvements can be effectively implemented. The number "5" is not critical but just illustrates
the need to get below the initial obvious issues to more systematic causes. In the RCM context,
this may entail identifying a failure mode, effect/consequence or frequency, and asking why it
occurs, then for each answer further querying the cause of each answer. A simple example is
provided as follows:
Why are bearings wearing? Answer: Because they are overheating.
Why? Answer: Because they are getting inadequate lubrication.
Why? Answer: Because the lubrication system has inadequate flow.
Why? Answer: Because its components are often improperly installed/adjusted.
Why? Answer: Because the mechanics have inadequate training and maintenance
manuals.
This example illustrates how what may have been perceived as a design problem with the
bearing or lubrication system is actually more effectively addressed by improving the training
and maintenance documentation available to the mechanics.
3.5.9.1 “Other Action Warranted” Cost Analysis

The cost of doing some other action must be calculated in order to compare this option to other
COA = Development and implementation cost of the “Other Action”
3.5.10 Age Exploration (AE)

Age Exploration is used to collect specific data from actual operational or testing environments
to optimize or validate RCM analysis decisions and resulting recommendations. This may
include a PM task whose processes, procedures and intervals were developed based on
assumptions or conservative estimates, Other Actions taken or recommended based on limited
data, or No PM where the consequences of failure are severe. Specific applications and
implementation of Age Exploration are discussed in Sections 3.5.5.4, 3.7.1, 4.4, 5.2.6, and 5.3.
AE tasks can range from collecting specific in-service failure data to testing components under
laboratory conditions. The RCM analysis process may be used to help assess the potential cost
effectiveness and prioritization of AE tasks. A program’s RCM Plan should provide detailed
information on how to develop and implement AE tasks.
3-26
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.5.10.1 AE Task Development

AE task development involves many facets, each of which is required to collect the data that
allows analysts to make informed RCM decisions. AE task development includes, among other
things:
∗ Designing the task, including task description, initial inspection interval, task interval,
task duration, and sample quantity
∗ Determining the level of maintenance and skills required to collect the data
∗ Performing a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the proposed AE task will be a
worthwhile effort
∗ Obtaining permission to implement the task at specific organizational activities
∗ Establishing lines of communication between the analyst and the data collector
Keep in mind that an AE task is usually not part of the regularly scheduled PM program. As
such, it may not show up on a maintenance requirement card, unless special provisions are made
such as implementing requirements of limited duration. If made part of the overall maintenance
program, these tasks should be clearly identified as to their purpose such that the maintenance
personnel are aware of the information requirements and ultimate use. In many cases, whether
integrated in the maintenance documentation or separately handled,, an AE task is most
effectively accomplished in concert with regular maintenance if it can be done without adding an
undue burden and disruption to the work being performed. With this in mind, the task should be
planned in such a way that it minimizes any added burden. Proper planning of AE tasks will also
reduce the impact on downtime.
There will be times when AE tasks and regular maintenance tasks cannot be performed
concurrently. When this happens, equipment downtime will be extended by necessity. It is
important, therefore, that AE tasks, particularly those that cannot be done concurrently with
regular maintenance tasks, be designed as efficiently as possible.
Another area of concern is the demand placed on maintenance resources by the addition of an
AE task. Expenditure of resources must be balanced against the potential benefits of the AE
task. An AE task should make use of existing support facilities, manpower and skills whenever
possible. AE tasks should be designed to eliminate the need for peculiar support equipment and
specialized technical training, if possible.
3.5.10.2 AE Tasks for Failure Modes with Safety/Environmental Consequences

AE tasks that are designed to collect functional failure data for failure modes with safety/
environmental consequences must be done in such a way to ensure safety/environmental
compliance is not compromised. When the data required by an AE task calls for the item under
investigation be operated to a functional failure condition that presents a hazard to the operating
crew, it may be conducted in a laboratory environment. These tasks, devised as engineering test-
to-failure processes, are often accomplished for determining safe life limits on items where Hard
Time tasks are being considered, but may also be used to determine PF intervals.
3-27
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Safe life limits may be determined based on statistical analyses, often testing a sample of items
to failure. Safe life limits are then established based on some factor below the mean age at
which the sampled items failed to ensure the risk of in-service failure is reduced to an acceptable
level.
AE tasks can be used to collect data on the reduction of failure resistance or degradation of items
that have safety/environmental consequences while the item is in operational use provided that
potential failure and functional failure limits have been set. Data may be collected up to the
point at which a defined symptom is identified or the item must be removed. For example, an
AE task may be used in the operational environment to determine the crack propagation rate for
a damage tolerant structure if care is taken to ensure that the item being studied never reaches the
functional failure condition. An AE task should never be used in the operational environment to
validate the point of functional failure when the failure mode has safety/environmental
consequences. AE task data that indicates no failures have occurred up to the time that an item is
scheduled for removal is not justification for increasing the removal interval. If the item’s Hard
Time removal age is extended based on such evidence, the net effect is a reduction in the safety
factor upon which the Hard Time removal was originally established. AE tasks that are
accomplished in an operational environment must be implemented with conservative AE
inspection intervals to reduce the risks of failure to an acceptable level.
3.5.10.3 AE Tasks for Failure Modes with Economic/Operational Consequences

AE tasks that are designed to collect data on items whose loss may have a significant impact on
the intended mission or economics are treated differently from those that affect
safety/environmental compliance. AE tasks for such items generally can be performed while the
equipment is fielded or by routine monitoring of maintenance information systems; thus,
controlled laboratory tasks or other off-equipment tasks are not usually required. This type of
task may be conducted over a finite period to determine the effectiveness of a Hard Time task by
using analytical techniques such as actuarial analyses or allowing the items sampled to fail while
in service. It also may be used to evaluate the physical characteristics of equipment, such as
observable failure indications, in order to assess the technical feasibility of a PM task or to
determine the true consequences of a functional failure to the equipment.
3.5.10.4 AE Sample Quantity

The sample quantity is the number of items that will be inspected or tested by the AE task. The
sample quantity should be determined by statistical methods to ensure that the data collected is
adequate to accurately represent the entire population. Conversely, the sample should be as
small as possible to reduce cost and operational impact while maintaining the desired confidence
level. Sample quantities are normally determined through statistical analysis techniques such as
Hypergeometric, Weibull, or Poisson.
3.5.10.5 AE Task Selection

The overall safety, environmental, operational, and economic benefits of an AE task should be
determined and documented within the analysis as justification for performing the task.
3-28
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.6 RCM TASK SELECTION

The task evaluation process can produce three types of outputs that form options from which a
solution to deal with a failure mode can be generated:
∗ Perform PM (one or more of the various types of tasks. See section 3.7.2 for
discussion on combinations of tasks.)
∗ Allow the failure mode to occur, then take corrective action ("No PM" option)
∗ Take some other action, such as redesigning the item or modifying an operational or
maintenance procedure
The “best” strategy for dealing with the failure mode is determined by comparing each of the
available options with the others. If an option is not immediately available (such as redesign,
implementation of new technology, etc.), the analysis should evaluate currently available options
for implementation and then compare the chosen option against the potential for further
improvement. If the action that is not immediately available is identified as preferred to the
options currently available, it should be identified as the desirable option and pursued for later
implementation while executing the best immediately available option until then.
3.6.1 Basis for Decisions

Remember that at this point in the analysis each option has already been evaluated for the ability
to reduce the consequences of failure to an acceptable level. Acceptable options have been
identified and quantified. A failure management strategy based on any of the acceptable options
will meet the program’s requirements. The best strategy will be determined by the comparing
the cost and operational consequences of each acceptable option.
3.6.1.1 Cost
There are several ways to compare the cost of each option. The costs of options are typically
compared by normalizing them to a common unit such as cost per unit operating hour, cost per
flight hour, or cost per cycle. Costs can then be compared directly with one another to assist in
making a final decision. Table 3-1 provides methods that can be used in such a manner. These
methods are similar to those in the IRCMS software. However, due to the various versions of
IRCMS in use and development time in updating IRCMS to incorporate improvements in these
methods, the analyst should check the IRCMS version used. Some versions may have slightly
different cost equations than those listed here. IRCMS incorporates the ability to insert costs in
replacement of its calculated values. A program may decide to use their own set of equations or
methods for comparing options, including adopting any differences between the equations below
and those in the IRCMS version used. If this is the case, document the method to be used in the
RCM Program Plan and in the IRCMS database. Regardless of the method chosen, ensure that
the applicability and sensitivity of the method are considered.
3.6.1.2 Operational Consequences

At times, the least expensive option will not be the best solution when the operational
consequences are taken into consideration. A slightly less expensive option (in terms of direct
3-29
NAVAIR 00-25-403
costs) may have a bigger impact to operations, such as requiring more downtime, and, therefore,
may not be as desirable. If the operational impact is considered more important than the
additional cost, the more expensive task should be chosen. The program must establish the
methodology to be used to balance cost and operational impact. Discussion and review with
maintenance and operations personnel is particularly important in evaluating operational impacts
and balancing these impacts with direct costs.
The operational impact can sometimes be expressed in terms of added cost, and included in
determining the “cost” of the option. At times, this is not feasible, and an operational
consequence must be considered separately from cost, often in a more subjective manner. The
program’s RCM plan should include additional guidance to assist in making these decisions. A
part of these subjective considerations may by the level of intrusion required by the various task
options. Tasks that require significant disassembly will generally have a larger cost to perform
and operational impact due to the elapsed maintenance time required to perform the task.
However, another consideration would be the possibility of inducing failures when performing
the task. Although the potential for inducing failures is often not readily quantifiable, tasks
which require greater intrusive action should be carefully considered before selection over
similarly effective tasks that can be accomplished without disturbing the system.
3-30
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Option Cost Per Unit Operating Time Equations
SLOP = CSL / ISL

Service and
Where:
Lubrication
SLOP = Service/lubrication task cost per operating time
CSL = Cost Of One SL Task
ISL = Task Interval
On Condition
OCOP = ((COC / IOC) *(L - (II-IOC)) / L) + CR / MTBF
Where:
OCOP = On-condition task cost per operating time
COC = Cost Of One Inspection (Includes cost of material, labor, etc., for
inspection but not repair costs)
L = Item Design Life
II = Initial Inspection Interval = Interval of time until the first
inspection
IOC = Task Interval
CR = Average Repair Cost. Average cost of repairing all failures
(both potential and functional failures) assuming the inspection
is in place. Ensure secondary damage is included, as applicable,
and, for hidden functions, include the cost of multiple failures in
the functional failure portion of the cost. If operational impact
has been converted to "cost", ensure it is included.
NOTE: A large majority of the repair actions should be the repair of
potential failures if the inspection and interval are appropriately
selected. However, there may be significant costs associated
with the remaining functional failures such that they should be
considered in the cost evaluation.
MTBF = Mean time between failures (both potential and functional with
task in place)
Table 3-1 Cost Equations
3-31
NAVAIR 00-25-403
HTOP = [CHT (S) + CR (1-S)] / [(S) IHT + (1-S) K IHT]

Hard
Time Where:
HTOP = Hard time task cost per operating time
CHT = Cost Of One HT = Cost to perform one hard time task
S = Percent Survive = Percentage of items that survive to the hard time limit
IHT = Task Interval
K = Premature Failure Factor = Average age of premature failures as a percentage
of IHT. (Note: K IHT is used to estimate MTTF of premature failures.)
CR = Average Repair Cost. Average cost of repair if HT task is not done and unit
fails. Ensure secondary damage is included, and for hidden functions, include
the cost of multiple failures. If operational impact has been converted to
"cost", ensure it is included.
FFOP = CFF / IFF + CR / MTBF

Failure Where:
Finding
FFOP = Failure Finding task cost per operating time
CFF = Cost Of One Inspection = Cost to perform one Failure Finding inspection
IFF = Task Interval
CR = Average Repair Cost. Average cost of repairing the functional failures
considering those found by the inspection and those that become evident by multiple
failures not prevented. Include operational impact if it has been converted to "cost".
MTBF = Mean time between failures (with task in place)
NOOP = CR / MTBF
No PM Where:
NOOP = “No PM” cost per operating time
CR = Average Repair Cost Average cost to repair the functional failure and
secondary damage. For hidden functions, include the cost of multiple
failures. Include operational impact if it has been converted to "cost".
MTBF = Mean time between failures (with no task in place)
OAOP = COA / LR
Other Where:
Action
OAOP = “Other action” cost per operating time
COA = Cost of Other Action. Total cost to develop and implement “Other Action”
LR = Remaining life of system
Table 3-1 Cost Equations (continued)
3-32
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.6.1.3 Cost Equation Limitations

The cost equations in Tables 3-1A and those used in IRCMS are only approximations of actual
cost and are based on assumptions that may limit their applicability in specific situations.
Careful evaluation of these limitations should be accomplished to ensure applicability of these
methods. If other methods are used, ensure the results are documented in the analysis (for
IRCMS users, the cost analysis may be overwritten and the memo function may be used).
One of the issues to consider in the use of these equations is the issue of MTBF. The MTBF
documented in the FMECA should be determined for a failure mode assuming no PM task is in
place and used to establish the cost of the No PM option. The On Condition and Failure Finding
cost equations in some versions of IRCMS use the same MTBF to approximate the mean time
between corrective actions (MTBCA) with the corresponding task in place, as identified in above
equations. Note, for On Condition tasks, the majority of these corrective actions should be
addressing potential failures, and for Failure Finding the majority should be correcting hidden
failures prior to a multiple failure or demand event. Therefore, using a single MTBF, such as
that provided by the FMECA, will introduce some degree of error. In these versions of IRCMS
it may be desirable to override the IRCMS result with “off-line” calculations. Version 6.3 and
subsequent will allow direct entry of MTBCA related to the task being evaluated, however, if
only the MTBF (no task in place) is available, it should be adjusted based on the following
considerations to estimate MTBCA:
∗ MTBCA for an item with an On Condition task in place will usually be lower than the
MTBF of the same item without a PM task. If the PF interval is relatively short when
compared to MTBF, the MTBF and MTBCA should be similar. Otherwise, using the
MTBF (with no task in place) as MTBCA may cause the cost equation to significantly
underestimate the cost of the failure portion of the cost equation. In these cases, MTBCA
should be derived or estimated and used in the cost equation. Factors affecting the
MTBCA are the detection probability of the inspection task, the frequency of potential
failure on-set, the proposed inspection frequency as compared to the PF interval, and the
consistency of the PF interval. If no other information is available, a reasonable
approximation of MTBCA may be as follows (assumes potential failures are found at the
mid-point of the PF interval, on average):
MTBCA = MTBF-(PF/2)
NOTE:
If it is determined that the MTBF listed in the FMECA was not adjusted to
account for an existing On-condition task (i.e., it is really MTBCA), the
above equation may be used to estimate the No PM MTBF and update the
FMECA as follows: MTBF = MTBCA + (PF/2)
∗ MTBCA for an item with a Failure Finding task in place will usually be higher than the
MTBF of the same item without a PM task unless the MTBF is calculated recognizing that
the failure is only made evident by a multiple failure or demand event. If the failure
finding interval is relatively short when compared to MTBF, the MTBF and MTBCA
3-33
NAVAIR 00-25-403
should be similar. If the failure finding interval is a significant percentage of MTBF

thereby increasing the period the function may remain in a failed state prior to detection,
using MTBF as MTBCA will cause this cost equation to over estimate the actual cost of the
failure. If this over-estimation is not acceptable, the MTBCA should be calculated from
field data, or estimated. Factors affecting MTBCA for failure finding will be the detection
probability of the proposed task, the ratio between failure on-set and the inspection
frequency, and the consistency of the failure frequency. If no other information is
available, a reasonable approximation of MTBCA for failure finding task may be (assumes
inspections are evenly distributed around the onset of failure, with a high probability of
detection):
MTBCA = MTBF + (IFF/2)
If MTBF (with no PM) for the hidden failure considered failures only when becoming
exposed by the multiple failure or demand event, then MTBCA will be shorter than MTBF
with the same factors at play, recognizing that MTBF was based on the failures being in a
failed state for some time prior to recognition and correction. In these cases, a conservative
MTBCA should be established, and an Age Exploration tasks considered to establish a
better estimate of the actual frequency of corrective actions.
∗ For the "No PM" cost for hidden function items, the MTBF should be the occurrence rate
of the functional failure that only becomes evident with a multiple failure or demand event.
Therefore the FMECA must be checked to determine the assumptions made in
determination of the MTBF entered, and adjusted if needed. If MTBF reflected actual on-
set of the individual failure mode, vice the functional failures considering the multiple
failure or demand event, this data will be helpful in determining MTBCA as described
above and should be retained in the IRMCS memo field.
Another issue with the cost equation is the determination of average repair costs (CR).
Recognize that to determine average repair costs, you must factor the frequency of various levels
of repair, along with any economic impact from lost operations (if appropriate). For example, if
a potential failure costs $1000 to correct on average (considering labor, material, and lost
operations) and functional failure costs $100,000 to correct (considering labor, material, and lost
operations due to the failure and any secondary damage), you must also factor in the frequency
of each. If 95 percent of the corrective actions are potential failures and 5 percent are functional
failures in a given timeframe, the average repair cost would be ($1000 x .95) + ($100,000 x .05)
or $5950. The CR descriptions in the above equations list the factors to be considered for each
task type in determining average repair cost.
3.7 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.7.1 Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) Systems

Several protective and diagnostic/prognostic devices and systems (termed “PHM systems”
throughout this section) are available for integration into an item’s design. Basing performance
of maintenance tasks on PHM systems is sometimes referred to as Condition-Based Maintenance
(CBM). These systems are often capable of performing PM tasks that traditionally have been
3-34
NAVAIR 00-25-403
done in a physical sense by maintenance personnel. An understanding of the functions and

capabilities of PHM systems is necessary to ensure that traditional PM tasks are not developed
that replicates their functions. PHM systems, themselves, must be analyzed to reveal failure
modes that will possibly require PM tasks. As PHM systems become more prevalent, their value
in terms of reducing the time, resources, and costs of performing conventional PM tasks, must be
considered. Installing PHM systems to replace conventional PM tasks should be done only after
clear benefits in safety, environmental compliance, operations, or cost can be shown. This is true
regardless of whether the devices are being applied to new acquisition designs or to in-service
equipment. Finally, but no less important, consider the cost of implementing and maintaining
the additional PHM system or device. Therefore, PHM or CBM programs must be based on a
well-developed RCM analysis.
State of the art PHM systems are capable of detecting potential failure conditions down to the
component or sub-element level. They are also able to monitor the progression of chosen failure
mode indicators, e.g., heat, vibration, etc., to predict when functional failures will occur.
Through automated monitoring, a “prognosis” of the “health” of the component can be made.
Item degradation is monitored automatically as it progresses to a defined potential failure
condition, at which time some maintenance action is warranted. PHM systems may essentially
perform “automatic” on-condition inspections at predefined intervals, which often are extremely
short or nearly continuous. They use on-board sensors, algorithms, and diagnostic indicators (or
indices) that are sensitive and accurate enough to detect or predict the potential failure condition.
The effectiveness of these systems depends, to a large degree, on having a reliable database
consisting of similar types of “faults,” which can be used to establish failure progression rates
and proper thresholds for setting appropriate alarms or actions.
When developing a FMECA, any PHM system that is used to monitor some aspect of the item
undergoing analysis must be considered. This will help ensure that compensating provisions,
failure detection methods, and failure effects are properly stated. PHM systems may have failure
detection methods or compensating provisions that are different for potential failures than for
functional failures; therefore, care must be taken to identify the level of failure being monitored
or protected.
In deciding what functions are significant, remember that a PHM system may essentially be
performing an automated PM task. When this is the case, ensure that the function protected by
the automated inspection or monitoring system is considered for inclusion in the analysis.
When identifying failure consequences, take care that PHM systems (which provide failure
detection, indication or prognosis of another system or item) are properly analyzed. Failure of
the PHM system, itself, may not be obvious and, therefore, be “hidden.” In essence, a hidden
function may be eliminated from one system and added to another system by incorporating a
PHM system.
When evaluating servicing and lubrication tasks, keep in mind that some items may have PHM
systems, which are designed to automatically provide indications that the monitored
consumables need to be replenished. Servicing and lubrication tasks do not require or depend on
scheduled events when these systems are installed. PHM technology may also be used to
identify the need for lubrication based on sensed or derived information such as vibration, heat
generation, speed of actuation, etc. Additionally, newer PHM technology may be used to predict
3-35
NAVAIR 00-25-403
deterioration of corrosion protective and preventive material using corrosion sensors. The
functions of these sensors must be included in the RCM analysis with consideration given to
what the consequences will be if the sensors fail.
When evaluating on-condition tasks, consider PHM technology and systems that introduce the
potential for automated on-condition inspections through on- and off-board devices. An RCM
analysis should be performed to determine where and how this technology might be applied to
new acquisitions. The analysis can be used to some extent to calculate sensing sensitivities and
frequencies, to set potential failure condition values. The functions of PHM systems,
themselves, must be considered in the analysis to ensure that the high levels of reliability
required to ensure their effectiveness are maintained. Consider also, the need to monitor or
validate the effectiveness of these systems during RCM sustainment and Age Exploration task
evaluations. This can be done by periodically validating that the assumptions and capabilities of
the PHM systems to predict failures are consistent with actual equipment conditions.
PHM systems with on-board sensors are often designed to detect potential failure conditions by
performing automated On-Condition inspections. These types of PHM systems could be used
under circumstances that preclude the use of conventional On Condition tasks; for example,
when PF intervals are too short. The “inspection interval” for the PHM system is the rate at
which equipment condition is sensed. The sensing rate can be so fast that it is, for all practical
purposes, nearly continuous. For this reason, some PHM systems can instantaneously initiate
preventive or protective actions automatically. For example, if a potential failure condition is
detected by a PHM system while the equipment is in operation, it may be set to automatically
switch to a backup system, thus allowing the operation to continue without interruption. The
degraded system can then be replaced after the mission is finished.
PHM systems may be used to automatically track the age or usage of components to promote
cost-effective management of Hard Time tasks. In this context, however, they are not sensing
degradation, but merely usage. PHM technology can reduce costs by automatically tracking age
and triggering replacement or restorative actions. PHM systems can be used to reduce or
eliminate the dependence on manual tracking systems or tracking parameters that not are easily
tracked, such as actual power-on time. Note that, in this context, the Hard Time task interval still
needs to be determined via RCM analysis.
In evaluating Failure-Finding tasks during an RCM analysis, PHM technology may be
considered as an alternative to physical inspections where it can be shown effective in reducing
costs or offering benefits with regard to safety, environmental compliance, or operations. PHM
technology in this context is not sensing degradation, but actual functional failure of the
monitored system. When PHM systems are incorporated into the equipment design, they must
be included in the FMECA so that their failure modes can be considered for RCM analysis.
Failure modes that are protected by PHM systems are prime candidates for being monitored
during the RCM sustainment phase or validated by Age Exploration tasks. There may be a need
to validate the assumptions or algorithms used initially to predict equipment condition by
comparing them to the actual in-service condition. The methods chosen to conduct validation
requirements should be based on factors that include the degree of confidence in the sensing or
predictive technology and the consequences that will result if a PHM system fails. Periodic
3-36
NAVAIR 00-25-403
sampling, fleet leader sampling, and trend analyses often can be used effectively to gather this
data during the RCM sustainment phase.
3.7.2 Combination of Tasks

Sometimes no single task can be found that adequately reduces the probability of failure to an
acceptable level. In these cases, it is sometimes possible to combine tasks (usually of differing
types) to achieve the desired level of reliability. When considering combinations of tasks, the
effectiveness and costs of the tasks must be carefully considered. When considering a
combination of tasks as an option, ensure when comparing costs that failures and repairs are
adjusted to account for both tasks. For example, if on condition and hard time tasks are
combined, the frequency of failures/repairs may be less due to removing items at a specified age
(and not subjecting them to failure). Also, the cost of the premature failures for the hard time
task should be less due to finding them at a potential failure stage vice at functional failure.
3.7.3 Zonal Inspections and Walkaround Checks

In contrast to Servicing and Lubrication tasks, zonal inspections and walkaround checks do not
fall within the realm of RCM task definition, as they are not normally targeting specific failure
modes, but are used to ensure integrity, uncover unanticipated or accidental damage, or verify
readiness for operations. RCM derived inspections can be effectively packaged with zonal
inspections or walkaround checks, as long as the required interval for accomplishment can be
assured and the requirement for operators and/or maintainers to perform the walkaround and/or
zonal checks is well documented and regularly performed. However, if packaged in this manner,
there should be clear identification of the failure mode in the inspection requirements to direct
the maintainer's attention. Also, the probability of detection should factor in the possibility of
missing detectable conditions during a general integrity "quick-look".
In general walkaround checks, and integrity validations are good maintenance practices when
implemented on the basis of opportunity requiring minimal additional resources, but care must
be taken to ensure they supplement the maintenance program rather than define it. Similarly,
zonal inspections are useful when new equipment is introduced and there is little operational data
available to accurately define the type and frequency of failures that may occur. However, as
operational data is accumulated, defects detected during zonal examinations should be evaluated
to determine if specifically directed maintenance is necessary and reliance on zonal inspections
should be reduced accordingly.
In reality, no matter how thorough the RCM analysis, unanticipated failures and unforeseen
exceptions to failure behavior occur. It is important to evaluate the impact of these events and
incorporate appropriate failure management strategies rather than rely on cursory inspections
such as walkarounds and zonal inspections. If during the conduct of the RCM analysis it is
determined that a zonal inspection or general integrity check would be beneficial (in addition to
any RCM task options), these can be documented as Other Actions (and therefore included in
IRCMS), as appropriate.
3.7.4 Event-Driven Tasks

Another category of maintenance tasks is event-driven tasks, often referred to as "conditional
maintenance" requirements. These tasks are the result of exposing equipment to unanticipated
3-37
NAVAIR 00-25-403
loads or extreme usage that may cause the normal failure mechanism to be accelerated to such a
degree that it cannot be confidently assumed that RCM derived maintenance requirements are
still satisfactory to achieve adequate failure management. Examples, of these types of
inspections are tests and checks performed after exposure to extreme conditions such as hard
landings, extreme temperatures, potential overloads, excessive vibration, buffeted flight, harsh
operations or environment (e.g., overspeeds, abnormally high utilization, long at sea conditions,
corrosive material exposure), and unusual weather conditions (e.g., hail, high winds).
Sometimes these event driven failure modes can be defined uniquely and intervals determined
based on repeated exposures, but often these kinds of tasks or checks are most appropriately
handled as Other Actions (and included in IRCMS as such).
3.7.5 RCM Approvals and Assessments

The RCM Implementation Manager shall establish a method of review and approval that ensures
the RCM methodology is properly and effectively applied, and to maintain an audit trail of RCM
recommendations and implemented actions. The RCM approval process shall also ensure
resultant failure management policies are consistent with failure modes and associated
information. The RCM approval process should be described in the RCM Program Plan.
Examples of areas to highlight during RCM review/approvals include:
∗ Ensure consistency between described failure effects and RCM failure consequence
categorization
∗ Ensure proper application of RCM task selection criteria.
∗ Ensure On-Condition tasks are only applied to failure modes that degrade in a way
that a potential failure is clearly identifiable (and distinct from functional failure) and
has sufficient progression until functional failure for a stable PF interval. Ensure
compatibility between the PF and inspection intervals to achieve the desired
probability of failure or cost effectiveness. Ensure inspection technique is consistent
with potential failure mode identified. Ensure compatibility between maintenance
manuals and RCM assumptions (for potential failure conditions and repair actions
taken).
∗ Ensure Hard Time tasks are only applied where wear out exists and benefits are
clearly shown.
∗ Ensure Failure Finding tasks are only applied to Hidden Function failure modes, and
provide clear benefit over other options.
∗ Ensure accuracy and consistency in data used for analysis decisions such as cost data,
maintenance/reliability data, and criticality determinations.
In addition to the RCM review/approval process, periodic assessments of RCM programs may be
conducted by the associated Program Manager’s team, or by the NAVAIR RCM Steering
Committee. Areas that may be included in an assessment include:
∗ Review of the latest approved RCM Plan. Areas of interest include:
Is staffing in place to support the Plan?
Is adequate funding allocated to perform the plan?
3-38
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Are basic program parameters, including ground rules and assumptions adequate?
∗ Are the RCM analyses conducted in accordance with the plan? Are techniques
defendable, applicable and are results documented such that decisions are supported
and well understood? (The assessment should include review of a sample of analyses
of systems that cover the various types of systems analyzed (i.e., structural,
mechanical, electrical/electronic, propulsion, etc.) and a variety of senior analysts to
ensure correct and consistent approaches are applied.)
∗ Is adequate engineering and logistics support available? Are individuals
trained/certified to an appropriate level?
∗ Does the maintenance program as documented in MRCs and specifications reflect the
RCM results?
∗ Are methods to update maintenance requirements based on feedback from in-service
activities (i.e, age exploration, continuous monitoring, etc.)?
∗ Is there an approach for identifying and prioritizing RCM shortfalls of the
maintenance program identified, and are they being addressed to achieve full RCM
support for all preventive maintenance requirements in accordance with the approved
RCM plan?
3-39/(3-40 blank)

NAVAIR 00-25-403
01 July 2005
SECTION IV
IMPLEMENTATION OF RCM ANALYSIS RESULTS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Implementation of an RCM program encompasses much more than just performing analyses.
After the RCM task evaluation and selection processes have been accomplished, the resulting
outputs must be implemented before the program can receive any benefit from them. The
actions required of the outputs from the RCM process will be evident in several forms, including
developing PM tasks, redesigning hardware, and modifying operating and maintenance processes
and procedures. This section addresses the issues required to implement the results of an RCM
analysis. Figure 4-1 illustrates where “implementation” is situated in the overall RCM program.

HARDWARE BREAKDOWN
failure information
analysis
RCM TASK EVALUATION
acceptable
maintenance program

Figure 4-1 RCM Process Steps
4-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.2 PACKAGING PM TASKS

Once all items within the scope of a project have been analyzed, it is necessary to package the
tasks into discreet work packages and intervals. The packaging process is the mechanism by
which task frequencies and maintenance levels are adjusted. A PM program that is packaged
properly is more cost effective than one that is not.
Prior to any packaging effort, the tasks that were produced from the RCM analyses should be
reviewed to verify that they are assigned using the proper metrics. For example, the frequency
for inspecting brake lining for wear should be based on a function of use, e.g., brake application,
not calendar time.
4.2.1 Initial Packaging Strategy

4.2.1.1 Step 1 - Lay Out Tasks by Interval and Preliminary Maintenance Level
Once it has been verified that all maintenance requirements have been analyzed according to the
proper metric, it is prudent to structure them along a timeline. It is best to include tasks at all
maintenance levels on the same timeline initially since, in effect, it will illustrate where
repackaging with another maintenance level is desirable.
In building a timeline, it may be necessary to convert the metrics of some tasks in order to
organize them effectively. Alternatively, it may be necessary to create multiple timelines with
different metrics. Extreme care should be taken when converting a task from one metric to
another since the conversion is usually an approximation. If a safety/environmental related task
is converted to another metric, the conversion must be based on the worst-case scenario. For
example, assume that the result of an RCM analysis indicates that it is necessary to inspect the
bushings in a rudder attachment fitting for wear every 500 flight hours. If the average aircraft
usage were 50 hours per month, simple arithmetic would suggest that inspecting for wear every
10 months is acceptable. However, consider the two distributions of aircraft flight hours
illustrated in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3.
4-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
# of Aircraft
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F lig h t H o u r s p e r M o n th
Figure 4-2 Narrow Distribution

Although the distributions differ significantly, the average utilization for both is 50 flight hours
per month. In the case illustrated in Figure 4-2, an inspection every 10 months may be adequate.
This is due to the relatively consistent utilization of aircraft.
# of Aircraft
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F lig h t h o u r s p e r m o n th
Figure 4-3 Wide Distribution

Conversely, in the case illustrated in Figure 4-3, an inspection every 10 months means that many
aircraft will significantly exceed the 500 hour requirement and, in the worst case, one aircraft
will fly as long as 900 hours between inspections. In this case, a decision to package the
inspection based on a calendar interval is clearly one that has the potential of increasing the
probability of failure above an acceptable level.
4-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.2.1.2 Step 2 - Identify Logical Task Groupings

After the tasks have been laid out on a timeline, identify any natural task groupings that appear to
have common inspection intervals, common panel access, and common skill and maintenance
levels. Spreadsheets are useful in simplifying this process. Formulating task groupings in this
manner will help minimize equipment downtime and reduce the cost of implementing and
performing scheduled maintenance. Once the natural groupings have been identified, it is
necessary to determine which task(s) are the least flexible in terms of adjustment. In most cases,
safety/environmental related tasks dictate where the groups should be packaged.
Safety/environmental related tasks can only be performed at intervals that are less than or equal
to the interval that was derived from the RCM analysis. Conversely, economic/operational tasks
generally can be moved to facilitate desirable packaging. In most cases, optimizing the
packaging will offset any loss of efficiency incurred by changing the task interval.
Although not mandatory, it is advisable that packaged intervals be created using multiples of an
established base interval. This will help reduce problems in tracking PM tasks by scheduling
them to coincide in the proper sequence throughout the entire inspection cycle. Seven days is
commonly used as the base interval for tasks designed to address calendar-related failure modes.
Hourly inspections are typically done in 50-hour or 100-hour increments. An example of a
completed initial packaging effort is illustrated below in Figure 4-4.
L a b o r H o u rs a t P a c k a g e d In te rva ls
100 2000
90 F le e t D epot 1800
80 1600
Fleet Labor Hours
Depot Labor Hours

70 1400
60 1200
50 1000
40 800
30 600
20 400
10 200
0 0
y
ay
ay
ay
day
ult
our
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Daily
nth
nth
ur
7 Da
5 ho
14 d
28 D
56 D
o
10 H
Cata
365
40 M
80 M
100
200
400
500
800
150
T as k In te rv a l
Figure 4-4 Completed Initial Packaging Effort
4.2.1.3 Step 3 – Develop Final Packaging

After the initial grouping of tasks based on frequency and common factors, it may be beneficial
to additionally align tasks into "phases" to package the maintenance requirements into more
easily accomplished maintenance events. An example of "phasing" maintenance requirements is
as follows:
4-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Suppose Tasks 1, 2, and 3 are packaged at 100 hours; 4 and 5 at 200 hours; and 6 through
9 at 400 hours. Without phasing, the maintenance packages might be:
100 hours – Tasks 1,2,3
200 hours – Tasks 1,2,3,4,5
300 hours – Tasks 1,2,3
400 hours – Tasks 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
500 hours – repeat 100 hours package and continue the above cycle
With phasing, the maintenance package might be:
100 hours – Tasks 1,2,3,4,6
200 hours – Tasks 1,2,3,5,7
300 hours – Tasks 1,2,3,4,8 (note Task 4 is repeated at a 200 hour interval)
400 hours – Tasks 1,2,3,5,9 (note Task 5 is repeated at a 200 hour interval)
500 hours – repeat 100 hours package and continue the above cycle (note Tasks 6
through 9 will be repeated at 400 hour intervals)
The above example is a simplistic example of "Phased Maintenance". Often letter codes are
assigned to the primary phases (Phase A = 100 hours, B = 200 hours, C = 300 hours, D = 400
hours), which are then repeated throughout the life of the equipment. In reality, additional
considerations such as operational impacts, location/access, skill levels, ability to conduct tasks
in parallel, elapsed maintenance time, and resource requirements (such as electrical power,
hydraulic power, NDI, post-maintenance checks, support equipment, tools) would be considered
in developing the phases, but the benefit of "phasing" is to level out the maintenance
requirements to reduce operational impact while still preserving the integrity of the period
between inspections. Tasks that cannot be fit into the phased maintenance cycles would be
handled as "Special Inspections" and scheduled according to their individual periodicity,
considering operational impacts and maintenance efficiencies.
Sometimes tasks may be packaged with other maintenance for convenience. If this is done, the
underlying RCM derived interval for the tasks must be reviewed to ensure the convenience-
oriented packaging will not result in exceeding the interval and resulting in ineffective
maintenance. It may be necessary to add a "not to exceed" interval to a requirement that is
packaged for convenience to protect the equipment from exceeding a specified period between
tasks. Overuse of "convenience-oriented" packaging could also result in excessive maintenance
and reduce the benefits gained from performing the RCM analysis to determine the best
maintenance frequencies.
Another fairly new concept is "flexible packaging" where requirements are not fit into fixed
packages of maintenance tasks, but instead are accomplished in conjunction with maintenance
opportunities or downtime events based on the accumulated usage of each individual item. This
concept allows maintenance to be performed uniquely for each end item, and therefore requires
significant management oversight or facilitization using automated rulesets and tracking to
4-5
NAVAIR 00-25-403
ensure all maintenance is performed across the population before the RCM-derived tasks
intervals. While significant operational and economic advantages are possible, the oversight
required to ensure safety is not compromised should be carefully considered before adopting this
approach. Development of reliable PHM systems will make this kind of approach more easily
accomplished. An additional consideration is the need to reliably predict budget, material, and
resource requirements when the maintenance packages and intervals are not fixed.
4.2.2 Fitting Tasks Into Existing Packages

For systems with established maintenance programs, it is preferable to package new or updated
tasks into the existing maintenance intervals. This tends to minimize, among other things, the
impact on maintenance, operational commitments, personnel staffing and training, and
publications. However, just as with initial packaging efforts, the impact on task effectiveness
must be taken into account when packaging tasks at intervals other than what the RCM analysis
recommends.
In many cases, tasks will not fit conveniently into phase maintenance packages, so it is necessary
to create special inspections. Examples of special inspections are 7-Day Specials, 14-Day
Specials, and 28-Day Specials. If there are large numbers of special inspections, particularly at
reasonably long intervals, it may be advisable to revisit the phase interval for a more effective
packaging method.
4.2.3 Repackaging
An effective RCM program will include a periodic review of the PM task packages with
responsible maintainers and operators to verify that the tasks and packaged intervals are
appropriate considering the operational and maintenance scenarios for the equipment. Primary
focus should be placed on the individual tasks within the packages, concentrating on their
effectiveness at achieving the desired levels of reliability. Poor reliability may be an indication
that tasks are ineffective or ill timed. Feedback from these reviews should be used to revisit the
original analysis for task rationale and update as necessary, or to re-evaluate the packaging
strategies.
4.2.4 Special Considerations for PHM Driven Tasks

While PHM introduces opportunities for detecting failure modes, tracking usage, or finding
failures, it also introduces potential complications for maintenance scheduling. Since the
maintenance will be "driven" by an indication from monitoring or sensing devices, it must be
well understood what is being monitored or sensed to properly plan maintenance. While this
guide is unable to cover all possibilities, the following examples will help to illustrate the special
considerations necessary when preventive maintenance is driven by PHM systems.
The PHM system may be performing an on-condition inspection where it is detecting a potential
failure condition prior to functional failure. The potential failure condition and the time/usage
remaining before functional failure must be well understood. To avoid disruption to operations,
it may be possible to establish a "time to correction" once the indication occurs to allow planning
for corrective action at a more convenient time than immediately upon the indication.
4-6
NAVAIR-00-25-403
The PHM system may be performing monitoring for a hard time task. The PHM indication of a
need for the hard time task should be set to allow time to plan for the task to
remove/replace/restore the item, as required, at a convenient maintenance opportunity.
The PHM system may be performing a "failure finding" task. In this case it may not be possible
to delay maintenance once the failure is indicated.
Some PHM systems require maintenance personnel to record or download information
periodically, run checks, or check outputs. While often done after each usage, some may require
longer intervals that must be planned/scheduled. Again, the particular application and
parameters must be well understood before deciding on the frequency of these actions.
In all the above examples, once the time for required action is identified, it must be clearly
identified in maintenance manuals or programmed into the PHM and maintenance support
systems. If possible, the actions should be aligned with the overall preventive maintenance
program to avoid unnecessary disruption to operations.
4.2.5 Environmental Considerations

Environmental regulations must be taken into consideration when implementing or modifying
maintenance tasks as a result of RCM efforts. New tasks or changes in intervals that result
in changes to hazardous material usage or pollutant emissions may require additional
authorizations. By adding or increasing the frequency of a maintenance task involving a
hazardous material or pollutant emissions, numerous legal ramifications may occur including
violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, Aerospace National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), and
various other State, National, or International environmental laws/regulations.
Maintenance related materials that are regulated include, but are not limited to:
∗ Solvents
∗ Sealants
∗ Coatings (Chromated Conversion Coating and Hexavalent Chrome)
∗ Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants (POL)
∗ NDI Materials
∗ Strip Media - (e.g. Glass Beads)
∗ Brush Cadmium plating
∗ Corrosion control materials

Establishing or expanding maintenance capability at facilities where such operations were not
previously performed could affect NEPA and may require environmental assessments/
environmental impact statements as well as changes to permits. This most often occurs during
4-7
NAVAIR 00-25-403
establishment of new maintenance programs, such as the Integrated Maintenance Concept

(IMC), at operational locations where an increase in procedures such as painting, stripping,
and testing could affect the overall environmental quality thus resulting in violations. Failure to
comply with environmental law could expose the programs and individuals (including
Commanding Officers of the parent and/or tenant commands) to legal action (including possible
criminal prosecution).
The following steps are recommended when implementing or modifying maintenance tasks that
result in the use of possibly hazardous materials or changes in pollutant emissions.
∗ Review Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). If the material is considered hazardous
then the Environmental Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) coordinators or similar
personnel shall be consulted.
∗ If in doubt, ESOH coordinators or similar personnel shall be consulted for their
evaluation and recommendations.
∗ In the event there is no coordinator assigned, Navy Regional Environmental

Coordinators (REC), cognizant materials laboratories, as well as the Lead Maintenance
Technology Center - Environment (LMTCE) should be consulted.
Ensure associated handling and disposal costs of the hazardous materials are included in any cost
analysis associated with evaluation of the task (including associated repairs), if possible. The
costs can be substantial and may affect the determination of frequency or overall cost
effectiveness of the failure management strategy.
The web site for the LMTCE (http://www.enviro-navair.navy.mil) is an excellent source for
information and contacts for environmental issues.
4.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER ACTIONS

Implementation of “Other Actions” can be divided into two distinct categories: those that require
mandatory action and those that are desirable but not urgently required. While the solutions may
be similar for each category, the urgency with which they are dealt differs significantly.
Implementation of these Other Actions should be done so in accordance with the program’s
operating procedures.
4.3.1 Mandatory Action

When an RCM analysis indicates that the desired reliability of an asset cannot be achieved with a
PM task, and allowing the item to fail is unacceptable, some Other Action must be taken. This is
particularly true for failure modes whose occurrence will have an adverse affect on safety or the
environment. As discussed previously in Section 3.5.9, several options can be used to correct the
deficiency. The options include, among others, an item redesign, the incorporation of operating
restrictions, or modifying maintenance procedures.
It may be necessary to quickly alleviate an unacceptable condition for items that are in-service.
If this is the case, several possible alternative actions may be identified that can potentially
4-8
NAVAIR 00-25-403
correct the problem and achieve the level of reliability required of the item. When the selected
alternative action, for example, item redesign, is selected for implementation, and it is
determined that it will be a lengthy process, some interim action most likely will be required as a
temporary fix. The interim action itself may be one of the options that were determined to be
feasible, though less desirable than the primary alternative, but it is one that can be implemented
without undue delay. In most cases, the urgency is not as critical for items that have not yet been
put into service, so there is more time to implement the desirable primary option.
Final resolution of the appropriate action to be taken must be based on several factors. These
include, but are not limited to the cost of the option, the ability to incorporate it, how well it will
perform, and the impact it will have on operations. Since the RCM analyst alone will often be
unable to make the final determination of the most suitable solution for failure modes requiring
Other Action, the RCM Program Implementation Manager will confer with program
management representatives to evaluate the problem and select the appropriate options.
4.3.2 Desirable Action

Some Other Action might be desirable when a PM task cannot be developed that would reduce
the consequences of a functional failure that affects operations or economics, but not safety or
the environment. In this case, some Other Action is “desirable,” not mandatory. The primary
benefit is an economic or operational improvement. All options should be evaluated through a
cost-benefit analysis to determine which one offers the greatest return on investment. Among
the issues that must be considered are such things as the cost of the options and the ability to
incorporate them in a timely manner. Consideration also must be given to the confidence that
each option will meet performance expectations and their impacts on operations.
4.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF AE TASKS

Data needed to make informed decisions are often not available when performing an RCM
analysis. When this is the case, it becomes necessary to make assumptions. The assumptions are
usually set conservatively. When PM tasks are developed using these assumptions, they are
done so on a conservative basis. This causes the tasks to be less than optimally effective, and, in
most cases, schedules them to be performed more often than necessary. Age exploration tasks
are used to collect specific data from actual operational and test environments to replace the
assumptions that were made during the initial RCM analysis and PM task development efforts.
AE data may reveal the need to extend, shorten or, in some cases, establish or eliminate PM
tasks.
The first step in developing an AE task is to define what information is being sought. The
desired data must be defined in as much detail as possible to quantify who should perform the
data collection and by what means the data should be gathered. There are two general categories
of such data: data that are currently being collected and data that must be collected.
For data that are currently being collected, it is only necessary to define the frequency at which it
will be reviewed and the duration of the effort. The following methods are typically employed
for this type of AE task:
4-9
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Review data from available sources such as the NALCOMIS/CMMS database or depot
overhaul database
∗ Review data for serialized components in equipment history records (EHR) (Direction
on the use of an EHR is provided in COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 and NAVAIRINST
4790.3 (series).)
For data that must be collected, it is necessary to set up a task to collect specific data. This
includes defining the frequency and duration of the task. The method used to transmit data to the
fleet support team or the integrated program team should be defined. The following methods are
typically employed for this type of AE task:
∗ Sampling tasks that are carried out in conjunction with D-level maintenance
∗ Data collection through site visits to maintenance activities; verbal communication with
maintenance personnel
∗ Age Exploration Bulletins (AEB) - Specific direction for AEBs is given in NAVAIR-00-
25-300. This method is used for direct data collection from O-level or contractor
maintenance organizations.
Data that are collected via AE tasks should be electronically stored for retrieval and use in future
analyses. Digital photographs that illustrate problems or failure data anomalies are extremely
beneficial.
4.5 PERFORMING PM TASKS EARLY

Sometimes, the need arises to remove items from operation for some reason other than scheduled
maintenance. When this occurs it might be advantageous to perform certain PM tasks even
though they will be performed sooner than their established task schedule prescribes. Engines,
for example, are frequently reworked significantly once they have been removed, regardless of
the reason for removal. This is because the cost and operational impact of removing an engine is
too high to forgo the immediate opportunity to perform PM tasks that would otherwise require its
removal again at some future date. When an item is removed earlier than scheduled, the
maintainer must decide whether a specific PM task, or possibly a group of PM tasks, should be
performed in conjunction with the unscheduled repair. The operational and economic
ramifications of performing the PM tasks early should be considered when making this decision.
To assist in making these decisions, programs should establish guidelines for deciding whether
performing PM tasks earlier than scheduled would be beneficial. These guidelines should be a
part of the overall maintenance planning process. Several programs have established guidelines
using, among others, the following techniques:
∗ Survey item operators to determine the minimum operating time that must be remaining
between the unscheduled removal and the scheduled removal that will allow operational
commitments to be met. If it is determined that less than the required minimum time
remains between the two removal actions, then the PM task, or group of PM tasks, should
be performed.
4-10
NAVAIR 00-25-403
∗ Determine the total cost of performing the PM tasks, including the cost of removing and
replacing the item to gain access to the components being inspected or replaced versus
the cost to perform the PM tasks early, i.e., to perform the PM tasks in conjunction with
the unscheduled repair – avoiding costs to remove, replace, or gain access. If the
percentage of time remaining in the PM interval is less than the percentage reduction of
the total PM cost by performing the task early, then the PM task, or group of PM tasks,
should be performed.
4-11/(4-12 blank)

NAVAIR 00-25-403
01 July 2005
SECTION V. SUSTAINMENT OF RCM PROGRAM
5.1 INTRODUCTION
A failure management strategy and accompanying PM program that is based on the RCM philosophy
must be dynamic. This is especially true during the early stages of a new program when it is based on
limited information. Maintenance organizations must therefore be prepared to collect, analyze, review
and respond to in-service data throughout the operating life of the equipment in order to continually
refine the failure management strategy. The procedures and processes used to monitor, analyze,
update, and refine the strategy and PM program through RCM analyses will help ensure safe operations
and cost-wise readiness. The sustainment approach should be identified in the RCM Program Plan.
This dynamic process is depicted in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 RCM Closed Loop Dynamic Process
5-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
The basis for the decisions made during an RCM analysis change continuously as the program
experiences growth and maturity, which is brought about by time, use, modifications, updates, etc.
Review and refinement of the PM program must be an ongoing process, requiring organized
information systems that provide a means to conduct surveillance of items under actual operating
conditions. The information is collected for two purposes. First, it is used to determine what
refinements and modifications need to be made to the initial PM program (including task interval
adjustments). Secondly, it is used for collecting data to determine the need for taking some other
action, such as product improvement or making maintenance /operational changes.
5.2 SUSTAINING THE ANALYSIS

The objective of the sustainment process is to continually monitor and optimize the current failure
management strategy, delete unnecessary requirements, identify adverse failure trends, address new
failure modes, and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the RCM and PM programs.
Sustainment efforts should be structured such that the results can be effectively used to support RCM
analysis updates. The process of monitoring existing maintenance tasks entails reviewing the many
sources of task effectiveness information and maintaining accurate and efficient analysis data. The
types of efforts used in the RCM sustainment process include Top Degrader Analyses, Trend Analyses,
PM Requirements Document Reviews, Task Packaging Reviews, Fleet Leader programs, Age
Exploration (AE) tasks, and handling the day-to-day emergent issues.
5.2.1 Top Degrader Analysis

Top degrader ranking indicates which items are having the highest operational or cost impact. Top
degrader measurement factors may include the following:
∗ Maintenance man-hours (MMH)
∗ Equipment downtime or Not mission capable (NMC)/Partial mission capable (PMC) rates
∗ Maintenance actions (MA)
∗ Weapon uploads/downloads
∗ Aviation Depot Level Repairable (AVDLR) cost
∗ Consumables cost
∗ Failures
∗ Hazard Reports
∗ Aborts
These parameters are usually normalized to an appropriate operating parameter (such as flight hours) to
allow comparison. The identification of top degraders usually entails detailed data analyses, and
interface with operators and maintainers. This type of analysis identifies only the current worst
performing items, not those that are in the process of degradation. It also does not compare
performance to expectations. Some items may appear on a top degrader report because of their nature
and use, e.g., tires and brakes. Further analyses of these items may not be necessary. The RCM
analyses for items that are deemed problematic should be reviewed and updated as necessary. Figures
5-2 and 5-3 are examples of top degrader reports that were derived from various equipment condition
analysis (ECA) reports using NALCOMIS data.
5-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
DEGRADER RANKING
A
V N P
NEW VERIFIED B D M M
FAILURE MOD EXISTING MTBF FLEET FAILURES O/I O C L C C
SUBSYSTEM/ITEM WUC DESCRIPTION DECRIPTION MTBF (FH) (FH) COST DAY/NITE HR HR M R S S
FUSELAGE DOORS 1121A Worn Airloc Replace the 63.24 430 2848 3 / 5 18 9
111AA fasteners and existing Airloc 1301
1115A receptacles fasteners and 1559
1112G resulting in receptacles with
1113G extensive ones with
maintenance and improved
TFOAs retention
FUSELAGE HEAT 111AE Cracking resulting in Redesign 101.86 1000 17773 4 / 2 16 9 9

SHIELDS extensive increases
maintenance repair thickness and
remove stress
concentrations
BRU36A BOMB RACK 754CJ Corrosion on Replace with the 58.21 400 6015 3 / 10 23 14
numerous more reliable F-
components 18 BRU-32 Bomb
resulting in jamming Rack
CANOPY OPEN/CLOSE 11267 Worn rollers, latches Redesign with 121.27 500 18640 8 / 14 14 15
MECHANISM and mechanism improved
resulting in in-flight materials and
openings tolerances
Figure 5-2 Example Top Degrader Analysis
Figure 5-3 Excerpt from Readiness and Cost Degrader Database
5-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
5.2.2 Trend Analysis

A trend analysis provides an indication of systems or components that may be problems currently or in
the future. The measurement factors used for trending may be the same as those used for top degraders.
When performing trend analyses, however, it is the change in value, rather than the values themselves,
which is important. Trend analyses are particularly useful for sustaining RCM because they compare
expectations/predictions used during the analysis to actual in-service performance, allowing
adjustments and re-analysis when appropriate.
Trend analyses may be performed using statistical measures such as mean and standard deviations to
establish performance baselines and comparing current performance levels to established control levels.
Performance parameters can then be monitored to identify and investigate the causes of those that
exceed the control limits. After the problem has been characterized, the related RCM analysis should
be reviewed and updated as necessary. Other corrective action should also be considered, to alleviate
the causes of performance deviations. An example of trending analysis is shown in Figure 5-4.
Flight Hours/
Verified Failure
SPC Example
8000.00 -
7000.00 -
6000.00 -
5000.00 -
4000.00 -
3000.00 -
2000.00 -
1000.00 -
0.00 - I I I I I I
Apr 98 May 98 Jun 98 Jul 98 Aug 98 Sep 98
FH/VH FH/VF Average

Upper/Lower Control Limits Upper/Lower Inter. Control Limits
Figure 5-4 Example Top Degrader Trending Analysis
5.2.3 PM Requirements Document Reviews

A review of documents that contain PM requirements should be accomplished periodically to reveal
outdated maintenance processes, techniques or technologies, or to bring attention to obsolete tools and
outdated supplies. Document reviews provide opportunities to update PM requirements that will
improve effectiveness or lower lifecycle costs. Examples of opportunities afforded by this type of
review include incorporating new non-destructive inspection techniques or applying advanced PHM
sensor technology that detects smaller flaws or monitors growth rates allowing longer (or possibly
eliminating) periodic inspection intervals. Other examples include replacing older technology
5-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
materials, such as paints or sealants, with less environmentally hazardous or less expensive ones
reducing maintenance costs. Issues affecting material selection should be coordinated with and
supported by local materials laboratory personnel. Fleet representation should be included in document
reviews to address ineffective maintenance tasks and current or emergent issues that have been
identified.
The following types of documents should be reviewed:
∗ Maintenance Requirement Cards (MRCs)
∗ Depot Level Maintenance Specifications
∗ Maintenance instruction manuals, (for PM requirements that accompany or rely upon
corrective maintenance tasks)
An often overlooked element of an RCM program is the correlation of the assumptions made during the
PM program development, and the policies and processes used for corrective maintenance. For
example, if a PM task was developed utilizing a potential failure condition that was later identified as
acceptable damage requiring no repair or monitoring in the maintenance manual, the task interval
developed by the RCM process will be compromised. Another example would be a hard time task
developed assuming replacement of a sub-component during the repair/overhaul process, when a
subsequent change to the item's maintenance/overhaul process allows the sub-component to be reused.
Procedures to ensure review by RCM personnel of changes to maintenance procedures are critical to
ensuring these kinds of conflicts are prevented. The methodology and requirements for these reviews
should be included in the RCM Program Plan.
5.2.4 Task Packaging Reviews

Task packaging is the process of incorporating a number of PM tasks, each of which has a discrete
engineering interval, into optimum intervals or opportunities, such as a 550-hour phase inspection or
56-day corrosion cycle. When PM tasks are modified and updated, they are often placed back into the
same set of packaged requirements/intervals, with minimal review for optimization. As task changes
accumulate or operating/maintenance conditions change, the original set of packaged
requirements/intervals may no longer be optimal. Task packaging reviews should be conducted
periodically to evaluate the packaged requirements/intervals to ensure that as maintenance tasks are
added, deleted, or modified, they remain an effective package in the operating/maintenance
environment.
Programs that may have chosen "flexible packaging" concepts are particularly vulnerable to creating
significant impacts to the maintenance/operating environment or compromising performance of tasks if
close attention to the execution of the tasks is not maintained. Review of the methods, rules, and
adherence to underlying periodicity requirements of the PM tasks should be a regular occurrence for
these programs.
5.2.5 Fleet Leader Programs

A fleet leader program is used to detect the onset of system or component failures that were not
expected to occur based on the original reliability predictions. Fleet Leader requirements may be
established when the consequences of failure are severe, and experiential data is limited. A more recent
example of Fleet Leader inspections may be physical verification of equipment condition protected by
PHM systems to ensure the PHM system is properly predicting true equipment condition. The
objective of Fleet Leader Programs is to identify specific problem areas and to periodically inspect
5-5
NAVAIR 00-25-403
these areas on one or more “fleet leader,” or most used assets. The fleet leader program may also
include specific AE tasks. Appropriate sample sizes should be established to support
conclusions desired, based on valid statistical techniques.
Specific requirements for this program should be developed as RCM analyses are completed. Fleet
leader inspections should first consider using "opportunity" inspections. For example, FST
engineers may participate on a “not to interfere” basis with the first phase inspection of the first one
or two aircraft to reach multiples of 1000 flight hours. If the fleet leader task is accomplished in
conjunction with depot maintenance, it may be supported by regular visits to the depot line by FST
personnel. Fleet Leader inspections may be documented as "Age Exploration" tasks within IRCMS.
5.2.6 Age Exploration Tasks

An AE task may be designed and implemented when insufficient data necessitated the use of
assumed data during an initial RCM analysis. AE task data are fed back to the analyst for use in
updating the RCM analysis. The requirements for AE task become evident during the RCM
analysis. AE is covered in detail in Section 3. The RCM Program Plan should provide guidance
for implementing AE tasks.
5.2.7 Emergent Issues

An RCM program must establish a process to deal with emergent issues and unpredicted events,
and determine the appropriate response or corrective action. Emergent issues may need to be
analyzed via the RCM process. An example of such a process is shown in Figure 5-5.
Preliminary
Emergent Issue
Analysis
Non-RCM Y Non-RCM
Corrective Action
Corrective Action
Required?
N
Interim Action Y
Interim Action
Required?
N
RCM Review
RCM Update
RCM Update
Y (Revise PM,
Required? Operational Change,
Redesign, etc.)
N
Document Results
Figure 5-5 Example of Process to Address Emergent Issues
5-6
NAVAIR 00-25-403
5.2.7.1 Problem Assessment

The cause of the emergent issue needs to be identified. Performing engineering investigations and
conducting interviews with maintainers and operators are examples of methods of assessing problems.
5.2.7.2 Non-RCM Corrective Action

The emergent issues may be addressed by corrective actions for which an RCM analysis is not
required. Technical publication changes and design changes are examples of non-RCM corrective
actions.
5.2.7.3 Interim Action

The preliminary analysis may sometimes reveal problems that may need immediate attention due to
safety concerns or other programmatic requirements. Examples of interim actions include issuing
inspection bulletins, applying temporary operational restrictions, and implementing operating safety
measures.
5.2.7.4 RCM Review

The results produced from reviewing an RCM analysis will be a factor that should be considered in
determining a response to that problem. Therefore, it is imperative that an RCM review be part of the
overall methodology. The RCM review and update, if necessary, will determine if changes in the
failure management strategy or PM requirements are necessary. It will aid in determining if one-time
inspections (bulletin), redesigns (ECP), maintenance process changes, or other corrective actions are
necessary. Decisions not to update the RCM analysis should be documented for audit purposes. The
RCM review should address questions such as the following:
∗ Is the failure mode already covered?
∗ Are the failure consequences correct?
∗ Is the reliability data accurate?
∗ Is the existing task (or requirement for no task) adequate?
∗ Are the related costs accurate?
5.2.7.5 RCM Update

The RCM analysis should be updated when new failure modes or failure modes previously thought
unlikely to occur are determined to be significant. The existing analysis for a failure mode may also be
determined to be incorrect or inadequate. Inadequate analyses can result for any number of reasons,
such as revision of mission requirements or changes to operator or maintainer procedures.
5.2.7.6 Sources of Emergent Issues

Several sources are available from which emergent issues can be identified. These include, among
others, the following:
* Defect Reports – This process historically has been the primary responsibility of maintenance
engineering activities. In addition to RCM analyses, other analyses and investigations must
be performed. While not formally part of the RCM process, these analyses and investigations
are related to the RCM process.
5-7
NAVAIR 00-25-403
* Failures and other problems are reported through various means, each requiring a
specific type of response. Examples include requests for engineering investigations
(EI), Hazardous Material Reports (HMR), Quality Deficiency Reports (QDR),
Technical Publications Deficiency Reports (TPDR), and mishap investigation reports.
Specific requirements for each process are provided in COMNAVAIRFORINST
4790.2 (series) and OPNAVINST 8000.16 (series).
* Depot Discrepancy Reports – Defects discovered during Depot level inspections are
provided in the form of Depot Level Maintenance discrepancy reports or other
reporting processes. All scheduled and unscheduled D-level inspections and
rework/overhaul efforts should provide feedback to the RCM process.
* Vendor and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Discrepancy Reports – All
scheduled and unscheduled vendor and OEM inspections and rework or overhaul
efforts should provide feedback to the RCM process. Special effort may be required to
obtain this data through contractual actions, vendor visits, etc.
* Local Maintenance Requirement Cards (MRC) – In accordance with
COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 (series), operating activities are required to submit
locally-generated MRCs to FST personnel for assessment. All local MRC
recommendations should be justified via the RCM decision logic process before fleet-
wide implementation.
* RCM Updates Due to Design Changes – Design changes may be driven by a variety of
factors including a redesign decision from the RCM logic. Regardless of whether or
not a design change is driven by RCM analysis, a review and update of the analysis
may be required. The design change, which may be in the form of a single item change
or a major system modification, will be implemented through the ECP process. An
assessment of the impact on supportability should be an integral part of the
maintenance planning efforts of any proposed design change. RCM analysis reviews or
updates should be accomplished as part of the design change process in order to assess
any impact on the maintenance program.
* RCM Updates Due to Test Results – Results of tests such as fatigue tests, certification
tests, and test performed during item failure investigations may require RCM review
and update in much the same manner as in-service failures. Test data may also be used
in the course of an RCM review or update that was initiated by some other event.
* If tests are initiated to extend the service life of assets, an RCM analysis update is
required to implement the changes resulting from the tests. These results may affect
not only the item under test, but might extend to other items if the overall service life of
the asset or end item is extended beyond the assumptions made in the original analysis.
5.3 RESULTS OF SUSTAINING EFFORTS

The sustaining efforts discussed above may require changes to the RCM analysis resulting in a
changed or modified failure management strategy. Possible changes include adjusting
maintenance intervals, modifying PM task procedures, and modifying AE tasks. Other changes
that might result from these sustaining efforts include, for example, redesign recommendations,
maintenance process changes, or operational restrictions.
If it is found that an existing maintenance task is not being performed at the most effective
interval, information collected through sustaining efforts may provide the data needed to refine
5-8
NAVAIR 00-25-403
the assumptions that were used to establish the interval during the initial RCM analysis. By
applying the new data to the RCM analysis, the PM task interval can be adjusted to improve its
effectiveness.
Sustaining efforts may also identify the need to add, delete, or modify PM tasks. This could be,
for example, changing an inspection method or material, adding or deleting requirements, or
changing the type of PM task altogether, e.g., going from an On Condition inspection to a Hard
Time removal. The results should be used to update the RCM analysis to accomplish these
changes.
Sustaining efforts may also generate a requirement to modify AE tasks that are in place. The
task modification may be as simple as changing the number of samples which will undergo
analysis or as complex as rewriting the inspection task and data recording process. An effective
RCM program will necessarily impose frequent change to the AE program, such as adding new
AE candidates, deleting completed or unproductive tasks, changing sample sizes, or adjusting
task intervals.
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF RCM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

The essential performance metrics identified in the RCM Program Plan should be monitored to
measure the effectiveness of the RCM Program. The RCM analyses should have established the
units of performance measurement for the items under evaluation. For example, if an RCM
analysis assumes that bearing wear is a function of operating cycles, it would be prudent to track
failures or removals as a function of operating cycles during the sustaining analyses.
The feedback from effectiveness assessments can be used to provide justification for the
continued application of RCM to appropriate program managers and higher authorities.
Examples of effectiveness metrics are cost avoidance, maintenance performed, and operational
readiness.
5.4.1 Cost Avoidance

Cost avoidance compares the operational cost related to the original maintenance or reliability of
an item with the operational cost that result after the application of an RCM analysis. The RCM
analysis may offer any of several alternative solutions. For example, it could recommend the
addition of a new task or deletion of the existing PM task. Additionally, substantial cost
avoidance could be realized by optimizing the existing task by adjusting the interval, modifying
the procedure, or recommending a redesign. An example of the documentation used when
assessing cost avoidance is shown in Figure 5-6.
5-9
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Figure 5- 6 Example of a Cost Avoidance Document
5.4.2 Maintenance Performed

The man-hours expended in performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance may provide an
indication of the maintenance program’s effectiveness. Comparison of man-hours consumed
prior to implementation of RCM-generated PM tasks with man-hours used afterward may
identify opportunities for improving the program.
5-10
NAVAIR 00-25-403
5.4.3 Operational Readiness

The availability of the end item may be an indication of the effectiveness of the RCM-generated
maintenance tasks. Items that had been operating without benefit of PM may have required extensive
unscheduled (corrective) maintenance, which significantly impacted availability. Other items may have
been “over maintained,” also impacting availability. Compare the readiness of the end item before and
after implementation of RCM-generated tasks to determine the effectiveness of the changes.
5.4.4 Other Parameters

A review of other parameters before and after a change generated by the RCM program may provide an
indication of its effectiveness. Some of these parameters may include unscheduled removal rates, abort
rates, and BCM rates.
5-11/(5-12 Blank)

NAVAIR 00-25-403
01 July 2005
Appendix A
EXAMPLE RCM PROGRAM PLANS
The following F/A-XX Aircraft RCM Program Plan and Propulsion and Power System (PPS) RCM
Program Plans are provided for examples only, and not to imply every RCM Program Plan should be
an exact replication. RCM Programs are of varying complexity and developed for various life cycle
phases, and the RCM Program Plan should be tailored as necessary. Some may only require a few
pages, while others be quite extensive. Utilize the guidelines of the contained in basic portion of this
guide to determine the content required for each program.
A-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
F/A-XX Aircraft Sustaining Reliability-

Centered Maintenance Plan
A-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
F/A-XX T/M/S
RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE

PROGRAM PLAN
DATE
Prepared by: _______________________________________

F/A-XX RCM Implementation Manager
NAVAIR Depot
Reviewed by: _______________________________________

RCM Site Coordinator
NAVAIR Depot
Reviewed by: _______________________________________

F/A-XX Fleet Support Team Lead
NAVAIR Depot
Approved by: ________________________________________

F/A-XX Director of Logistics, PMA-123
NAVAIR Patuxent River, MD
A-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1 – EXAMPLE RCM PROGRAM PLAN
1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................A-6
2 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................A-6
3 SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................... A-6
4 SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM .............................................................................................A-6
4.1 General ...............................................................................................................................A-6

4.2 Database Management........................................................................................................A-7
4.2.1 Depot Failure Database................................................................................................A-7
4.2.2 RCM Analysis Databases ............................................................................................A-7
4.2.3 RCM History Log ........................................................................................................A-7
4.2.4 Maintenance Specification Management.....................................................................A-7
4.3 Ground Rules And Assumptions ........................................................................................A-7
4.3.1 Aircraft Data ................................................................................................................A-8
4.3.2 Acceptable Probability of Failure ................................................................................A-8
4.3.3 Labor Rates ..................................................................................................................A-9
4.3.4 System Boundaries and Interface Items.......................................................................A-9
4.3.5 Performance Parameters ..............................................................................................A-9
4.3.6 Analytical Methods......................................................................................................A-10
4.3.7 Mandated Tasks ...........................................................................................................A-10
4.4 RCM Process Flow.............................................................................................................A-10
4.4.1 Analysis Method ..........................................................................................................A-13
4.4.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................A-13
4.4.3 Data Sorting (Potential or Functional).........................................................................A-14
4.4.4 Failure Modes (FMs) ...................................................................................................A-15
4.4.5 Potential Failure to Functional Failure (PF) Interval Determination...........................A-15
4.4.6 Wear Out Characteristic Determination ......................................................................A-15
4.4.7 Categorization of Failure in Accordance with Risk Assessment Matrix.....................A-15
4.4.8 Integrated Reliability-Centered Maintenance System (IRCMS) .................................A-18
4.4.9 Task Interval Calculation.............................................................................................A-18
A-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4.10 Collection of Cost Data:.................................................................................... A-22

4.4.11 RCM Process Outcomes .................................................................................. A-23
4.4.12 Age Exploration (AE) ....................................................................................... A-23
4.4.13 Packaging.......................................................................................................... A-23
4.5 Task Review and Approval .......................................................................................... A-23
4.5.1 Analyst ............................................................................................................. A-23
4.5.2 Fleet Review and Input ..................................................................................... A-24
4.5.3 Evaluator and Estimator (E & E) Input............................................................ A-24
4.5.4 Manufacturer’s Input ....................................................................................... A-24
4.5.5 Lead Logistician Review ................................................................................. A-24
4.5.6 Cognizant Engineer Review ............................................................................. A-24
4.5.7 RCM Team Leader Final Approval .................................................................. A-25
4.6 Task Implementation ................................................................................................... A-25
4.6.1 Implementing a Depot Level Change .............................................................. A-25
4.6.2 Implementation of Organizational or Intermediate Level Changes.................. A-25
4.6.3 Work Unit Code (WUC) Manual Updates........................................................ A-25
4.7 Performance Monitoring............................................................................................... A-25
4.7.1 Monitoring Methodology.................................................................................. A-26
4.7.2 Recognition of Undesirable Trends ................................................................. A-26
4.8 Review Frequency ....................................................................................................... A-27
4.9 Documentation and Reporting Requirements............................................................... A-27
4.10 Work Prioritization ....................................................................................................... A-27
5 RCM Training........................................................................................................................ A-27
5.1 RCM Analysts and RCM Team Leaders ..................................................................... A-27
5.2 Fleet Support Team Leaders ......................................................................................... A-28
6 TEAM STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................... A-28
7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................. A-30
A-5
NAVAIR 00-25-403
1 INTRODUCTION
This is an example of an RCM Plan that describes the efforts and processes by which the F/A-XX
aircraft systems and equipment will be evaluated and failure management strategies determined and
sustained utilizing RCM methods.
2 BACKGROUND
The establishment and sustainment of a Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) program is
essential to ensure the safety, readiness and affordability of naval aviation systems. RCM analysis
must not be considered a separate, independent effort, but rather a continuous, integrated activity
based on sound engineering and logistics principles for making affordable, and effective failure
management decisions. RCM is a process to ensure Cost-wise Readiness, and therefore is applicable
throughout the entire acquisition life cycle.
3 SCOPE
This RCM Program Plan documents how the United States Navy F/A-XX FST will sustain the
maintenance program. This Plan is applicable only to United States Navy F/A-XX aircraft. F/A-XX
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers may use this Plan at their discretion.
4 SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM

To sustain the F/A-XX Maintenance Program as an accurate reflection of the aircraft’s need for
attention, five events are considered primary drivers for an update to the RCM analysis. They are as
follows:
• Routine review of existing task processes and intervals with fleet or maintenance personnel.
• Sudden decreases in reliability or increases in man-hours/costs for assets.
• New requirements to address system/equipment failures that have not occurred previously or
which reflect a need to update the original the original FMECA/RCM assumptions.
• Addition of new components or modifications to existing components.
• Change in primary mission profiles.
Although the level of effort that is required to address each of these issues might differ, they all
require a common RCM process. The RCM process used for the F/A-XX Aircraft is described in the
following sections.
4.1 General
The F/A-XX Sustaining RCM Program entails a full spectrum of maintenance planning including,
but not limited to, database management, RCM process flow, task review and approval, task
implementation, reliability monitoring, documentation and reporting, and work prioritization. Each
of these subjects is addressed in detail in the following sections.
Although this Plan refers to the redesign and engineering change proposal (ECP) processes, both are
beyond the scope of this Plan. References are made only to illustrate how they interface with the
A-6
NAVAIR 00-25-403
RCM process. Refer to NAVAIR 00-25-300 for additional information.

4.2 Database Management
To conduct F/A-XX Sustaining RCM Program properly, it is essential to effectively manage data
pertaining to the Program. Much of this data is already managed through databases external to the
F/A-XX Program such as Naval Aviation Logistics Data Analysis (NALDA). However, databases
unique to the F/A-XX Aircraft Program also must be managed. Each of these databases can be found
on the F/A-XX server. A description of each of the databases follows.
4.2.1 Depot Failure Database
This database is a record of defects discovered during Depot Maintenance. It includes data for
discrepancies regardless of the action taken to correct the defect or the level of maintenance
responsible for repairs. The database uses Microsoft Access software.
4.2.2 RCM Analysis Databases
These databases are all the RCM analyses performed on the F/A-XX Aircraft. It includes records for
analyses that resulted in preventive maintenance requirements and for those that did not. The
database uses the Integrated Reliability-Centered Maintenance System (IRCMS) software and any
previous analyses considered pertinent.
4.2.3 RCM History Log
The RCM History Log serves as a means for tracking changes to the established failure management
strategies and preventive maintenance (PM) requirements over time. It identifies not only the factors
that led to changes, but also identifies when reviews were performed that did not lead to any changes.
It also quantifies the effort expended performing RCM efforts and provides a method of evaluating
the effectiveness of the RCM program.
The latest version of IRCMS (see Paragraph 4.4.8) has a built-in capability to mark records as
“Historical.” This serves as a log of changes to failure management strategies. The software also
provides the ability to record the cost of performing or updating analyses
An RCM history log entry is completed any time an RCM analysis is reviewed, regardless of whether
an update is actually performed. The history log is filled out incrementally when the process is
initiated, at completion of the RCM review or update, and when updated requirements are
incorporated in the PM program.
4.2.4 Maintenance Specification Management
All requirements determined from the RCM analysis process will be passed to the appropriate FST
sub-team for completion of the maintenance planning effort to determine logistics resources and
update the maintenance manuals or specifications. No changes to preventive maintenance
requirements will be made without evaluation via the RCM process.
4.3 Ground Rules And Assumptions
To ensure a consistent approach to carrying out the F/A-XX Sustaining RCM Plan, it is necessary to
define the following ground rules and assumptions. Additional ground rules and assumptions may
be required as the analysis efforts proceed. These will be added as necessary.
A-7
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.3.1 Aircraft Data

Standard information to be used in all RCM analysis for the F/A-XX Aircraft include the following:
Aircraft Design Life: 10,000 Flight Hours
4,500 Arrest Cycles
4,500 Catapult Cycles
Acquisition Cost: $80 million fiscal year 2000 Constant Dollars
Fleet Size: 100 Aircraft
Average Utilization: 45 Flight Hours per Month, 40 Landings per Month
4.3.2 Acceptable Probability of Failure

Acceptable probabilities of failure per flight hour for all F/A-XX systems, assemblies, and
components for RCM analysis purposes shall be as defined in Figure 1 as derived from MIL-STD-
882. For hidden failures, the acceptable levels from the table shall be considered to apply to the
multiple failure (or failure on demand).
Severity Acceptable Probability of Failure

Classification (Pacc)
I .000001
II .00001
III .0001
IV .001
Figure 1. Acceptable Probability of Failure
The numerical values and definitions of severity classification used in Figure 1 are derived from the
F/A-XX Hazard/Risk Assessment included later in this document (Figure 4). Severity Classifications
are considered equivalent to Hazard Categories of Figure 4. Severity Classifications are defined as
follows:
Severity Classification I - Possible death or permanent disability, loss of aircraft, major system
loss/secondary damage exceeding $1 million, or significant breach of
environmental regulation
Severity Classification II - Possible injury to personnel, primary mission loss, or major system
loss/secondary damage between $100,000 and $1 million.
Severity Classification III - Possible minor injury/illness, mission loss, or system loss/ secondary
damage between $10,000 and $100,000
A-8
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Severity Classification IV - Unscheduled maintenance or repair, damage below $10,000
Deviation from the values or definitions specified herein shall only be permitted with Program
Management concurrence.
4.3.3 Labor Rates
Labor rates used in performing an RCM analysis should be consistent with approved labor rates at
the time of the analysis. Labor rates change over time, but their relationship to other costs may
remain fairly stable. However, cost and labor rate assumptions should be periodically updated,
especially for analysis results on items with significant cost impacts to the program. Changes to
analysis results as a result of changing rates should be carefully examined as to return on investment,
stability of the rates, and disruption to the total maintenance program (due to changing existing
requirements, packaging, etc.) before implementing changes.
4.3.4 System Boundaries and Interface Items
System boundaries define where one analysis item ends and another begins. Interface items are items
that do not clearly fall on either side of a system boundary. System boundaries are usually obvious,
but may require special consideration in certain cases. In general, system boundaries should be kept
consistent with the WUC structure. Deviations from general guidance should be documented in the
memo field of IRCMS. The following should be used as additional guidance in determining system
boundaries and analyzing interface items:
• Hydraulic or electrical components associated with systems such as flight controls or
landing gear should be included with those systems. However, the associated lines,
and/or wires that connect those components to the hydraulic or electrical systems should
be analyzed with the hydraulic or wiring system respectively. For example, when
analyzing a hydraulic actuator that opens a landing gear door, the actuator is analyzed
with the landing gear door. The hydraulic lines that go to the actuator are analyzed under
the hydraulic system.
• Attaching hardware such as clamps, brackets, and fittings associated with systems
components should generally be analyzed as part of the system containing the attached
component. Exceptions may include situations where a bracket or fitting is coded with a
structural WUC or where the fitting or bracket is an integral part of a structural or other
system.
• Wiring will be identified as a separate subsystem in the hardware breakdown and all
wiring failure modes should be addressed under the wiring subsystem.
• Failure modes of hoses and tubes should be analyzed under the fuel, hydraulic, or other
systems as applicable.
4.3.5 Performance Parameters
•Acceptable Hydraulic Leakage rate – X drops per minute (if no other leakage rate specified)
•Visually detectable crack size – X in
A-9
NAVAIR 00-25-403
•Inspection probability of detection – refer to paragraph 4.4.9.2.1

4.3.6 Analytical Methods
Microsoft Excel worksheets have been developed to assist in determining task intervals. These
worksheets and their use are described in the guidance for task interval calculations, section 4.4.9 of
this Plan.
4.3.7 Mandated Tasks
Any maintenance task that is mandated by either law or policy shall be subjected to the same RCM
process as any other task. If the results of the analysis do not justify the task, supporting
documentation including an estimate of the resulting unnecessary cost to the Navy shall be prepared
and provided to the Program Manager. Any mandated task that is not justified shall be retained in the
F/A-XX Maintenance Specification(s) until the Program Manager provides formal disposition.
4.4 RCM Process Flow
The process used to generate, update, or review RCM analysis for the F/A-XX Aircraft is outlined in
Figure 2 and described in the following sections. This process is applicable to all analyses performed
for the F/A-XX Aircraft and any of its systems, subsystems, or components. Accordingly, all steps
defined by the appropriate flowchart path must be executed in the order prescribed.
A-10
NAVAIR 00-25-403
New Data
Failure
Implement Age Connect
Need for Analysis
Exploration task B
Routine
Design Change
Data
Is there a current Collection
Is there an analysis
task to address this No No - EI
for this failure mode?
failure mode? - NALDA
- etc.
Yes
Sort Data
No - Potential
Is there an analysis - Functional
to justify the task?
Perform Trend
Analysis
- W eibell Definitions of Potential
- Actuarial and Functional Failure
- etc.
Yes
Categorize Failure in
accordance with Risk
Assessmemnt Matrix
Yes
W hat is the Severity

Class I Class III or IV
Classification?
Class II
Collect Cost
IRCMs Yes Is it Safety Related? No
Data
Connect
A
Figure 2. RCM Update Process Flow (Sheet 1 of 3)

A-11
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Connect Connect
A B
Redesign
Has a Task Been

Yes No
Identified?
Is the Failure Safety Was there a Task

No Yes
Related Previously?
Engineering Change
Proposal (ECP)
Yes
Is Redesign
No
desirable?
Yes
No Preventive Interim
No
Maintenance
Identify Preliminary Task

Yes and Interval
No
Has an Age
Management
Exploration task also Yes
Approval?
been Identified?
Propose Elimination of
Existing Task No
Connect
C
Figure 2. RCM Update Process Flow, Sheet 2
A-12
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Analyst
Maintenance
Readiness
Review
Connect
Standing Team
C
Signature
Maintenance
Readiness
Signature
Is the Task
D Level Organizational or O&I Level
Depot level?
E & E Input Internal Review Manufacturer's Input Internal Review
Implement Change (ICN)

Fleet Review/Input
Update Maintenance Generate MCR/IRAC

Plans
Figure 2. RCM Update Process Flow Sheet 3

4.4.1 Analysis Method
Per NAVAIRSYSCOM Instruction 4790.20, all RCM analyses are to be performed in accordance
with the guidelines set forth in NAVAIRSYSCOM 00-25-403, Guidelines for the Naval Aviation
Reliability Centered Maintenance Process.
The IRCMS software program is the primary tool for performing RCM analysis. The program
includes a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) module and all the features
necessary to document, review, and approve RCM analyses.
4.4.2 Data Collection
To enable the F/A-XX Maintenance Program to remain an accurate reflection of the aircraft’s needs,
it is necessary to collect data that identifies how well the existing maintenance program is working
and where additional maintenance may be necessary. There are extensive data available through
existing preventive and corrective maintenance databases to fulfill this need for information. The
following list identifies the primary sources of this data:
A-13
NAVAIR 00-25-403
• 3M Maintenance and Material Management

• ASPA Aircraft Service Period Adjustment
• EI Engineering Investigation
• HMR Hazardous Material Report
• NALCOMIS Naval Aviation Logistics Command Management Information System
• NALDA Naval Aviation Logistics Data Analysis
• NAMDRP Naval Aviation Maintenance Discrepancy Reporting Program
• PDMSS Program Depot Maintenance Scheduling System
• DLM Depot Level Maintenance (Organic, OEM, CSS, Depot Report Point (DRP))
to include SDLM, IMC, PMI, PDM
• MRB Material Review Board
• CAWIR Critical Area Wire Inspection Repair
• PWI Periodic Wire Inspection
• Zonal General material condition inspections
• Safety Center Navy wide mishap reports
Execution of F/A-XX Sustaining RCM Program Plan will not require initiation of any new data
collection efforts other than those identified in conjunction with Age Exploration (AE) tasks. AE is
addressed in Section 4.4.12.
Data collection is essential for RCM analysis to substantiate the need for all maintenance
requirements. The data are used to support a clearly documented analysis. It provides the technical
justification for each maintenance requirement. In addition, it serves as the backbone for the audit
trail for each maintenance requirement and helps to establish the baseline from which adjustments to
the maintenance program can be made.
Data are also collected to provide feedback on the effectiveness of the maintenance program through
in-service equipment performance, to investigate and correct maintenance related problems, and to
identify hardware design and manufacturing deficiencies.
Collection of data is also necessary to document specific resource savings that are achieved through
the RCM process. It enables a comparison of cost, manpower, and readiness levels that were
achieved by the previous maintenance approach to the revised RCM-justified maintenance strategy.
4.4.3 Data Sorting (Potential or Functional)
To avoid unnecessary maintenance tasks, all data should be sorted to clearly separate potential
failures from functional failures as much as practical. Each F/A-XX FST team should develop a
detailed list of discrepancies that define whether the failure is a potential failure or a functional
failure. During the sorting process, all data should be scrutinized to ensure that data for the failure
mode under consideration is used appropriately.
A-14
NAVAIR 00-25-403
failure. During the sorting process, all data should be scrutinized to ensure that data for the failure
mode under consideration is used appropriately.
4.4.4 Failure Modes (FMs)
Since the F/A-XX Aircraft has been in service for a long time, many failure modes already have
preventive maintenance requirements established. At a minimum, an RCM analysis for each of these
failure modes is necessary. To ensure that failure modes are not overlooked, analysts must carefully
evaluate what condition each of the existing maintenance tasks is designed to detect or prevent.
Although most failure modes will already be identified from existing maintenance tasks, the analyst
should also identify any other feasible failure modes based on a review of maintenance data,
discussion with operators and maintainers, or by a review of equipment characteristics.
4.4.5 Potential Failure to Functional Failure (PF) Interval Determination
F/A-XX Aircraft and equipment operators and maintainers are in a prime position to observe how
failures occur and should be consulted when determining PF intervals. They should understand that,
when establishing PF intervals, the information regarding the rates at which deterioration progresses
are as important, if not more so, than how often the failures occur.
For failures that have safety/environmental consequences, it will often be necessary to consult the
hardware manufacturer or obtain laboratory data to identify the PF interval.
For a failure mode that is being addressed by an existing effective PM task, the value of the PF
interval may be able to be estimated from the results of the existing task.
4.4.6 Wear Out Characteristic Determination
If an item that is under evaluation exhibits wear out characteristics, the shape of the wear out curve
should be determined if possible. This will help determine the appropriate strategy for addressing the
failure mode.
All failure modes will exhibit one of six characteristic conditional probability of failure curves (see
Figure 3). The three curves on the left illustrate wear out. Only items that illustrate one of these
three curves are likely to benefit from setting a life limit. However, the wear out curve alone does
not provide sufficient evidence to determine a valid life limit. In cases where PF intervals are
sufficiently long, other, more effective, maintenance tasks may be possible, even for items that
illustrate wear out characteristics. Each of the four maintenance tasks discussed in Section 4.4.9
must be evaluated to determine the most effective maintenance strategy.
Life limits should not be assigned to items that produce any of the three (conditional probability of
failure) curves shown on the right side in Figure 3. An item conforming to one of these three patterns
will not benefit from a life limit because there is no correlation showing an increasing probability of
failure as time progresses. Imposition of life limits on items conforming to one of the non-wear out
patterns will result in discarding or reworking items unnecessarily. At a minimum, this will result in
excessive costs. It may even increase the probability of failure through the introduction of infant
mortality.
4.4.7 Categorization of Failure in Accordance with Risk Assessment Matrix
The F/A-XX FST developed a Hazard/Risk Assessment Matrix (Figure 4) to categorize and prioritize
failures. This matrix should be used to determine the severity classification for all failures. Only
hazards that fall into Categories 1 and 2 should be considered to be safety /environmental
A-15
NAVAIR 00-25-403
W ear C o n d itio n al
O ut P ro b a b ility O f
C u rv e s F a ilu re
Figure 3. Wear Out Characteristic Curves
consequence failures for the purposes of RCM analyses. Category 1 will always be considered to
have safety/environmental consequences, while category 2 can fall into either the
safety/environmental or operational/economic category. Categories 3 and 4 will not be classified as
safety/environmental consequence failure modes.
The acceptable probability of failure for each of the four hazard severity categories is derived from
the F/A-XX Hazard/Risk Assessment Matrix. Severity Classification I hazards are considered
acceptable if they fall outside the matrix boundaries (< 1/1,000,000) after review. The boundary
between the acceptable and undesirable zones determines the acceptable probability of failure for
Severity Classification II, III, and IV hazards. For hidden failures, the acceptable levels from the
matrix shall be considered to apply to the multiple failure (or failure on demand).
A-16
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Severity Frequency FREQUENT (A) PROBABLE (B) OCCASIONAL (C) REMOTE (D) IMPROBABLE (E)
(*)
Category > 1 per 0.1 to 1 per 0.1 to 1 per .1 to 1 per < 1 in 1,000,000
1,000 hours 10,000 hours 100,000 hours 1,000,000 hours hours
CATASTROPHIC (I)
Death or Permanent disability
Aircraft loss
1 3 5 7 10 **
Major system loss/secondary
damage > $1 million
Significant breach of
environmental regulation
CRITICAL (II)
Injury to personnel
Primary mission loss 2 6 8 12 14

Major system loss/secondary
damage> $100,000 (< $1
million)
MARGINAL (III)
Minor injury/illness
Mission loss 4 9 13 16 17
System loss/ secondary
damage > $10,000 (<
$100,000)
NEGLIGIBLE (IV)
Unscheduled maintenance or
repair
11 15 18 19 20
Damage below $10,000
RCM Analysis required to ensure RCM Analysis may provide

RISK
appropriate failure management benefit; however, consider costs
LEVELS: High Low
strategy applied to ensure safety and and other program priorities prior
mission reliability. to proceeding.
RCM Analysis required, subject to

Medium
availability of resources.
∗ Replace hours with numbers of catapults, arrestments, or landings for failures related to these conditions.
Change the frequency definition to reflect the ratio between the metric being evaluated and flight hours. See
Section 4.3.1 (example, 1 FH = 0.45 catapults, 1 FH = .88 landings)
** Hazards that have frequencies below 1 in 1,000,000 are acceptable regardless of hazard category; however,
management review of potentially catastrophic failure modes is required before accepting failure mode as
"improbable".
Figure 4. F/A-XX HAZARD/RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
A-17
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4.8 Integrated Reliability-Centered Maintenance System (IRCMS)

The IRCMS software requires preparation of a FMECA as part of the analysis process. In the event that a
valid FMECA already exists for the system or item under evaluation, it will be necessary to enter information
from the FMECA into the appropriate fields in the IRCMS database.
Results of the IRCMS analysis are used to determine the need for PM tasks. Any decisions to add, delete,
or change existing maintenance tasks must be justified through an RCM analysis and documented in the
IRCMS. Maintenance tasks, which are mandated for the F/A-XX Aircraft by organizations that are external
to the F/A-XX FST, should be subjected to an RCM analysis and challenged for validity if they cannot be
justified. Consequences of implementing mandated tasks that are not RCM-justified should be conveyed to
Program Management. Maintenance efforts that are directed for systems e.g., Common Support
Equipment, which are not under the cognizance of the F/A-XX FST are the responsibility of the managing
authority.
4.4.9 Task Interval Calculation
The assumptions used in performing each RCM analysis shall follow the guidelines set forth here and in
Section 4.3 of this Plan. Deviation from these guidelines must be approved and documented in the IRCMS
along with the supporting rationale. These guidelines are specific to the F/A-XX program.
Because the IRCMS software does not have built in equations to calculate task intervals, Microsoft Excel
worksheets have been developed to assist in this effort. Worksheets for On Condition, Hard Time, and
Failure Finding task interval determination are addressed in sections that follow. A worksheet has not been
developed for Service and Lubrication tasks since they are usually based on the manufacturer’s
recommendation, or service history.
The equations used to perform the interval calculations for each type of task are identified along with the
spreadsheet. A description of each equation variable is also provided. The PF interval is discussed in
Section 4.4.5.
4.4.9.1 On Condition Task Analyses
On Condition tasks are divided into safety/environmental and operational/economic categories for evaluation.
Different worksheets are used depending upon the category being analyzed. Each of these is explained and
illustrated in the following sections.
4.4.9.2 Probability of Detecting Failure:
Both the safety/environmental and operational/economic categories of On Condition tasks use the probability
of detecting failure in one inspection (θ) to help determine the appropriate inspection interval.
Analysts should ensure that the value of theta (θ) used in the analysis is equal to (or less than) the estimated
probability of detecting the failure mode via the task being considered. Any uncertainty should err towards a
lower probability of detection since it will ensure necessary inspections are performed.
In the case of nondestructive inspection (NDI), techniques must be certified for the intended use. The
Materials Laboratory should be able to provide additional data regarding the reliability of such techniques.
A-18
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4.9.3 Safety/Environmental Consequence Failures:

Evaluation of safety/environmental related On Condition tasks require that the actual probability of
failure be reduced to less than or equal to the acceptable probability of failure. The formula used to
ensure this is as follows:
PF ln Pacc
t= and n=
n ln(1 − θ)
Where:
t = task interval
n = number of inspections during the PF interval (calculated from “n” equation)
PF = the potential to functional failure interval
Pacc = acceptable probability of failure (from Figure 1) (For hidden failures, the
acceptable probability of failure will be higher, based on the probability of the failure/event
that makes the hidden failure evident. Therefore Pacc of the hidden failure equals the Pacc
from Table 1 (for the multiple failure/demand event) divided by the probability of the
protected failure or demand event)
θ = probability of detecting failure in one inspection
This equation is programmed into the On Condition Safety Analysis Worksheet.
To use the worksheet, it is first necessary to determine the value of the PF Interval. Methods for
determining this value, if it is not known, are provided elsewhere in this document. MTBF shall not
be used as the value of the PF Interval.
4.4.9.4 Operational/Economic Consequence Failures:
Operational/Economic related On Condition tasks are only required to cost less than the failure
consequences they are designed to prevent. The formulae used to calculate the optimum cost
effective interval are as follows:
 − MTBF * C i 
 PF 
PF ln  
t= and  (C npm − C pf ) * ln(1 − θ ) 
n
 
n=
ln(1 − θ )
Where: t = task interval

PF = the potential to functional failure interval
A-19
NAVAIR 00-25-403
n = number of inspections during the PF interval

MTBF = Mean Time Between Failure
Ci = cost of preventive task
Cnpm = cost of not during preventive maintenance (allowing functional failure to
occur, to include cost of lost operations, if defined)
Cpf = cost of correcting potential failure
θ = probability of detecting potential failure in one inspection (assuming it exists)
This equation is programmed into the On Condition Non-Safety Analysis worksheet. To use the
worksheet the analyst must first determine or estimate the value of the PF Interval. Discussions of
methods to determine this value, if it is not known, are provided in section 4.4.5 of this document.
4.4.9.5 Hard Time Task Analyses
Hard Time tasks are broken into safety/environmental and operational/economic categories for
evaluation. Only operational/economic Hard Time tasks can be evaluated using a worksheet.
4.4.9.6 Safety/Environmental Consequence Failures
Operational data for a safety/environmental related failure that is likely to benefit from a Hard Time
task is typically unavailable. As a result, task intervals are most often determined either analytically
or from laboratory data. Analytical techniques such as Notch Strain Analysis are typically used to
predict the safe life for fatigue-related failure of items. A number of techniques, including
refinement of previous analytical models and Weibull analysis, can be used to determine safe life if
laboratory data is available.
4.4.9.7 Operational/Economic Related Failures
Operational/Economic related Hard Time tasks are only required to cost less than the failure
consequences they are designed to prevent. The formula used to ensure this is as follows:
(C BF × N S ) + (C AF × (1 − N S ))
N S t + [(1 − N S ) MTTFP ]
CBR =
C AF
MTBF
Where: CBR = cost benefit ratio

CBF = cost of rework/replacement before failure
NS = the percent of items that survive to the proposed task interval
t = the proposed task interval
CAF = cost of repair/replacement and collateral damage (if any) after failure
A-20
NAVAIR 00-25-403
MTBF = mean time between failure (with no preventive task in place)

MTTFP = mean time to failure of items that fail before the proposed task interval
This equation is programmed into the Hard Time Non-Safety Analysis Worksheet. Tasks that have
CBR values of less than 1 are considered cost effective. Since MTTFP may be difficult to obtain, the
worksheet provides a reasonable estimate using the estimated percentage of the proposed
replacement age premature failures will achieve (on average). Items with infant mortality issues
following rework or replacement will generally have a lower percentage. If premature failures are
expected to be evenly distributed throughout the period before replacement, 50 percent may be a
reasonable estimate for this entry.
4.4.9.8 Failure Finding Task Analyses
Failure-Finding tasks are only performed for hidden failures. A hidden failure is one that is the result
of loss of some function that is not exercised as part of normal operations or is not evident to the
operator and its failure goes undetected without failure of some other function or the occurrence of an
event that demands its functionality. The function that must be lost (or demand event) to cause a
hidden failure to become evident is referred to as the protected or evident function. Task interval
determination for Failure-Finding tasks is therefore based upon two independent failures. If a failure
is solely a result of some other failure, it is not a hidden failure, but rather secondary damage of the
initial failure.
Use of the Failure-Finding worksheet requires knowledge of MTBF for both the hidden and protected
functions in order to determine task intervals. The Failure-Finding spreadsheet is based on an
exponential (random) failure distribution pattern and uses the following iterative equation to
determine the appropriate task frequency:
Pacc(t) = PPF(t) x PHF(t) or,
− t MTBF − t MTBF − t MTBF

1− e AC
=1− e PF
x1− e HF
Where: Pacc(t) = Acceptable Probability of Failure over time (t)

PPF(t) = probability of failure of protected function (or probability of demand event)
over time (t)
PHF(t) = probability of failure of hidden function over time (t)
t = task interval
MTBFAC = desired mean time between failure for the aircraft
MTBFPF = mean time between failure for the protected function (or mean time between
demand event)
MTBFHF = mean time between failure for the hidden function
A-21
NAVAIR 00-25-403
MTBFAC is determined from the desired Pacc using the Hazard/Risk Matrix of Figure 4, and setting
time (t) to 1 FH (or other single event).
4.4.10 Collection of Cost Data:
For Operational/Economic related Severity Class II and Severity Class III and IV hazards, it is
necessary to assemble information regarding the cost of maintenance actions. A Cost-Benefit
analysis is performed to determine whether a PM task is warranted. Collection of the following
logistics data is necessary to perform the analysis:
∗ Cost to Inspect for Failure
∗ Cost to Remove, Replace, Rework or Discard Item Before Failure
∗ Cost to Remove, Replace, Rework or Discard Item After Failure
∗ Skill Level Required to Perform Inspection and/or Repair
4.4.11 RCM Process Outcomes

4.4.11.1 Identification of Preliminary Task and Interval
If the results of RCM analysis indicate that PM is appropriate, a record of the analysis (including the
recommended task and task interval) should be prepared and submitted to management for review.
This should include the recommended packaging interval for the task.
Pertinent supporting data should be included with the analysis to allow management to properly
review the recommendation. Most of this information should be documented in IRCMS. Complete
development of all specifications, procedures, required equipment, and personnel is not necessary or
recommended at this stage.
4.4.11.2 Redesign or Other Action
If the result of an RCM analysis recommends that redesign or other action is mandatory, the analyst
should bring this to the attention of the appropriate team leader. Management will then have to make
a decision on how to address the recommendation. In some cases, PM tasks deemed “not
recommended” may have to be implemented on a temporary basis until a design change can be
incorporated, if they reduce or help mitigate the consequences of failure. In other cases, operational
restrictions may be necessary.
4.4.11.3 No Preventive Maintenance
If the result of an RCM analysis recommends that preventive maintenance should not be performed,
the analyst should review the applicable maintenance specifications to ensure that a maintenance task
is not specified. This is very important because retaining unnecessary maintenance tasks is a waste
of time and money, and is potentially damaging to an otherwise stable system.
Failures for which no preventive maintenance has been identified should be monitored for changes in
failure rates and repair costs. In the event that either of these parameters changes, the RCM analysis
should be revisited to assess whether a task is warranted.
A-22
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4.12 Age Exploration (AE)

For the F/A-XX Aircraft, each AE task identified during RCM analysis shall be documented in the
Age Exploration Plan. Documentation shall include the following types of information:
∗ Information to be collected
∗ Special skills or equipment required for its collection
∗ Who is responsible for collecting it
∗ How often it is to be collected
∗ How long it will be collected
∗ To whom the information should be provided
4.4.13 Packaging
Since the “ideal” frequency for each maintenance task identified through the RCM process will most
likely be different, it is necessary to group tasks into packages of work.
While it is tempting to place newly developed PM tasks requirements within established packages, it
should be done only if there are compelling reasons to do so. The cost of performing tasks at some
interval other than what is necessary must be weighed against the savings that may be realized by
packaging them within existing schedules. In some cases, particularly when the intervals between
tasks are long, it may prove more cost effective to establish stand-alone tasks, or consider changing
the "packages".
All packaging efforts must ensure that tasks developed to deal with safety/environmental
consequences are not deferred beyond the interval projected by the RCM analysis. Task intervals
that are extended beyond the recommended interval results in the acceptance of increased risks
without appropriate understanding or authorization. Similarly, care must be taken to avoid packaging
economic based tasks at intervals that reduce their cost effectiveness.
Prior to submitting any PM task to management for review, a recommendation for packaging should
be developed in accordance with the preceding guidelines. Supporting rationale should be provided
when there is significant deviation from the task frequency stemming from the RCM analysis.
4.5 Task Review and Approval
4.5.1 Analyst
RCM analysts are responsible for reviewing completed analyses to ensure that justification of any
resultant PM tasks is sound. Reviews include recommendation of the task interval and selection of
the appropriate PM package for the task. It is also the responsibility of the analyst to update the
RCM database and History Log. Upon management’s approval, the analyst is responsible for
developing the PM task procedures. This includes informal verification of analysis results and
maintenance procedures through collaboration with operators, maintainers, and cognizant engineers
to ensure completeness and correct sequencing of the packaged tasks. During this collaboration, it is
important to obtain feedback to ensure maintainer "buy-in" of the changes. Any significant issues
should be addressed prior to implementation.
A-23
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.5.2 Fleet Review and Input

Because Fleet personnel perform much of the required aircraft maintenance, it is important to
continually interact with them while developing maintenance requirements. This will add value to
the analysis and expedite the review process. Regardless of their involvement during the analysis
process, Fleet review of proposed maintenance tasks is necessary following the internal review. This
review ensures that the necessary skills, equipment, and capability to perform the task(s) exist within
the Fleet maintenance environment. Fleet reviewers typically will be aircraft maintenance personnel
from squadrons and wings, but aircrew and aircraft type commanders may provide valuable
comments.
4.5.3 Evaluator and Estimator (E & E) Input
For changes that affect Depot Level Maintenance, the analyst should solicit E & E input to assist in
determining the validity and supportability of the proposed maintenance task. E & E will review and
provide input on the level of effort, resources required and procedures necessary to accomplish the
maintenance task.
4.5.4 Manufacturer’s Input
As part of the overall review process, the manufacturer should be solicited for comments to a
proposed maintenance task or task change. Manufacturer’s input should be solicited in the following
areas:
∗ Manufacturer’s specification
∗ Design limitation for item
∗ Maintenance requirements
∗ Future upgrade and design improvements
∗ Item availability and supportability
Comments from the manufacturer should be reviewed by the RCM Analyst and the cognizant FST
Engineer for validity and incorporated as necessary.
4.5.5 Lead Logistician Review
Lead Logistician review of all new and revised maintenance tasks is necessary. Lead Logisticians
who are cognizant of the asset affected by the maintenance task should review each analysis for the
following:
∗ Executability of the maintenance task in the operating environment
∗ Availability of supporting spares, support equipment, manpower/skills, etc.
∗ Impact on support elements such as technical publications, operations and maintenance
facilities.
4.5.6 Cognizant Engineer Review
Cognizant Engineer review of all new and revised maintenance tasks is necessary. Engineers who are
A-24
NAVAIR 00-25-403
cognizant of the asset affected by the maintenance task should review each analysis for the following:
∗ Accuracy of the FMECA
∗ All appropriate data was used to support the analysis
∗ Output of the analysis is valid
The Cognizant Engineer should forward all reviewed RCM analysis packages to the RCM Team
Leader for final approval and implementation.
4.5.7 RCM Team Leader Final Approval
RCM Team Leader is the final step in the RCM analysis approval process. The RCM Team Leader
should review the analysis to ensure correct usage of assumptions and definitions, and for
documentation of background information.
The RCM Team Leader shall only authorize tasks for implementation when all of the necessary
documentation and prior signatures is provided.
4.6 Task Implementation
4.6.1 Implementing a Depot Level Change
A depot specification revision is used to implement a depot maintenance task change identified
through RCM analysis. Upon approval, the specification is distributed for release and sent out to all
organization elements affected by the change.
Generation of a Naval message may also be necessary to notify maintenance activities of the change.
4.6.2 Implementation of Organizational or Intermediate Level Changes
Manual Change Releases (MCRs) and Interim Rapid Action Changes (IRACs) are the vehicles used
to incorporate changes into the Maintenance Requirements Cards (MRC) deck and Periodic
Maintenance Information Cards (PMIC). Periodic update of the MRC deck is performed to formally
incorporate MCRs and IRACs. Changes to the Maintenance Information Manuals (MIMs) as a result
of RCM analysis are also handled via MCRs and IRACs.
4.6.3 Work Unit Code (WUC) Manual Updates
It is common for maintenance tasks to be identified for which a unique WUC does not exist. While it
is not necessary for every task to have its own WUC, it is essential to be able to evaluate how
effective the task is at achieving the desired reliability. If the existing WUC Manual does not provide
sufficient ability to track task effectiveness, recommended changes to the manual that will allow
tracking should be forwarded to the WUC Manager.
4.7 Performance Monitoring
Once changes to the maintenance program have been made, it is essential to monitor the changes to
determine if they were successful. Tracking the in-service performance over time will accomplish
this requirement. This should be done for each of the items subject to RCM analysis. The metrics
most commonly used are MTBF (or a related parameter like MFHBF), Direct Maintenance Man-
Hours (DMMH) per flight hour, and removals (for cause) per flight hours. Readiness rates may also
be tracked however; readiness has historically shown itself to be less stable than other parameters.
A-25
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Figure 5 illustrates a typical trend chart that will be generated from the tracking effort. As illustrated,
trended and individual values will be plotted on the same chart. Additionally, upper and lower
control limits will be established to help identify when unusual trends are encountered. Details of
how this process is conducted are defined in the sections that follow.
1
Lower limit
0.9
0.8
MFHBF
Upper limit
0.7
Measured
0.6
0.5 Trended
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Figure 5. Typical Trend Chart

4.7.1 Monitoring Methodology
To prevent isolated incidents causing sudden inaccurate changes in reliability, a trend line will be
projected from the tracked parameter. EXCEL offers several trend line options, but often either the
moving average or the polynomial trend lines offer the best fit for forecasting future performance.
Using the trend line allows parameters to be effectively monitored while eliminating the sensitivity to
single data points. The methodology also allows establishment and refinement of upper and lower
boundary limits used to alert analysts to unusual trends.
4.7.1.1 Determining the Trended Value
Since an initial measure of each trended parameter should have been recorded for all RCM analyses,
that measure should always be used as the initial value in the trending model. It provides the starting
point for the trend analysis while providing a measurement of the existing maintenance concept.
4.7.2 Recognition of Undesirable Trends
Simply recording the measured and trended values over time provides some indication of what
direction the trend is moving. While this is useful information, it provides no definitive indication of
when corrective action is required. Therefore, boundary limits are constructed to identify
unacceptable conditions. When both the measured and trended values overrun the boundaries for two
consecutive periods, the cause of the excursion will be investigated. Once the cause has been
identified, it may be necessary to redefine the boundaries. Proper construction and revision of the
boundaries is detailed in the following section.
4.7.2.1 Upper and Lower Boundaries
Upper and lower boundaries are initially determined by adding the standard deviation to the trended
A-26
NAVAIR 00-25-403
value. The initial standard deviation is calculated using the first twelve values of trended parameter.
4.8 Review Frequency
To enable adverse trends to be identified and addressed promptly, trending data will be updated on a
quarterly basis. Because it may not be practical to investigate all excursions, priorities will be
established by the RCM Team Leader in conjunction with the cognizant Engineering Team Leaders.
RCM analyses corresponding to the trended data will be reviewed and updated as necessary, based
on investigation findings. In general, it will not be necessary to update RCM analysis unless the
trending model shows significant improvement or degradation. Unexpected or new failure modes
will require a new analysis to be generated.
4.9 Documentation and Reporting Requirements
Documentation of all analysis is performed via data entry into the IRCMS software. Any additional
useful information should be included in the memo field provided in the software. In addition to the
reports available from IRCMS, the RCM analyst should provide reports to FST team leader
concerning negative trends, problem solutions, recommendations, and any new RCM analysis
performed.
These reports include, but are not limited to:
∗ RCM Cost Avoidance - Summary of cost avoidance calculations associated with the RCM
analyses performed.
∗ AE Status - Summary of AE inspections and data, which was collected and analyzed during
the reporting period and the RCM results of those inspections.
∗ Effectiveness metrics - Status of metrics performance during the reporting period.
∗ RCM Status - Summary of RCM analyses performed during the reporting period, i.e., RCM
History Log.
4.10 Work Prioritization

Although the full benefits of the F/A-XX RCM Program cannot be realized without analysis of all
aircraft systems and their associated functions, budget and personnel limitations prohibit this from
being accomplished. As a result, it is important to ensure that the limited resources available are
applied to the systems and functions whose risk of failure presents the most imminent danger to the
program. Although meticulous application of the RCM philosophy stipulates that it is premature to
assess failure consequences before it has been determined what causes them; a risk assessment matrix
will help to ensure that available resources are applied sensibly. Accordingly, all efforts will be
prioritized using Figure 4 to ensure resources are expended on analyses offering the most opportunity
for return.
5 RCM TRAINING
5.1 RCM Analysts and RCM Team Leaders
All analysts and team leaders should be certified to the appropriate level in accordance with the
NAVAIR 00-25-403.
A-27
NAVAIR 00-25-403
5.2 Fleet Support Team Leaders

Fleet Support Team (FST) leaders should have received the NAVAIR RCM Management Brief so
that they understand the RCM background, philosophy, application, benefits, and limitations. They
should also be familiar with NAVAIR RCM policy (NAVAIRINST 4790.20) and NAVAIR 00-25-
403, Guidelines for the Naval Aviation Reliability Centered Maintenance Process. Although it
would be beneficial, it is not essential that team leaders be trained in the use of the IRCMS software.
6 TEAM STRUCTURE
Sustainment of the F/A-XX RCM-based maintenance program requires active participation from
each of the standing teams comprising the FST. A dedicated team that is well versed and
experienced in the application of RCM is the most effective means of supporting the maintenance
program. The core sustaining RCM team should be comprised of individuals from the avionics,
flight systems, airframes, power and propulsion, and electrical systems teams. Figure 6 illustrates the
composition and reporting requirements of the sustaining team.
A-28
NAVAIR 00-25-403
XXX FST Leader
Maintenance Engineering
RCM Team Leader
Team Leader
Avionics Readiness
Team Leader
Avionics Analyst(s)
Flight Systems Readiness

Team Leader
Flight Systems
Analyst(s)
Airframes Readiness
Team Leader
Airframes Analyst(s)
Power & Propulsion

Team Leader
Power & Propulsion

Analyst(s)
Electrical Systems
Readiness
Team Leader
Electrical Systems
Analyst(s)
Figure 6. RCM Team Structure
A- 29
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Support from the logistics and documentation teams will be necessary even though they will not be actually
performing RCM analysis. Each team within the FST should be prepared to provide the necessary
resources to support a dedicated effort.
7 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
Funding requirements for the F/A-XX RCM Program will be developed and updated annually. For FY __,
they are as follows:
Manpower Cost
Organic 10 man-years $1.5 M
CSS 5 man-years $.5M
Materials and Travel $300K
Total 15 man-years $2.3M
A-30
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NAVAIR 00-25-403
[AIRCRAFT ID] PROPULSION AND POWER SYSTEM

(PPS)
RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

PLAN
[FST ID] FST [LOCATION]
INITIAL ISSUE: [DATE]
(A-31 Blank)/A-32
NAVAIR 00-25-403
A-33

NAVAIR 00-25-403
[ACFT ID] PPS

RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM PLAN & MILESTONE
Prepared by:
Reviewed
Approved ([ENGINE ID] RCM Program
Approved ([FST ID] FST Site Leader)
Approved (Navy PPS RCM Lead Engineer)
Approved (RCM SITE Lead, [LOCATION])
Approved (Navy RCM Steering Group Signee)
Approved [ENGINE ID] APML
A- 35

NAVAIR 00-25-403
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. A-39
1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ A-39
1.2 Scope............................................................................................................. A-39
1.3 Background.................................................................................................... A-39
1.4 Referenced Documents ................................................................................. A-40
1.5 Change Recommendations ........................................................................... A-42
1.6 List of Acronyms ............................................................................................ A-42
2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................ A-47
2.2 [FST ID] Fleet Support Team (FST) [LOCATION] .........................................A-47
2.3 Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) ....................................................... A-49
2.4 Vendor (OEM) or Contractor Support Services (CSS) ................................... A-50
3.0 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ A-51
3.1 Initial Analysis Guidelines and Steps ............................................................. A-51
3.2 Sustaining Analysis Guidelines and Tasks .................................................... A-55
4.0 RCM ANALYSIS GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS ................................ A-57
4.1 Analysis Coverage ......................................................................................... A-57
4.2 Methods for Prioritizing Failure Modes for Analysis ........................................... A-58
4.3 Analysis Assumptions ................................................................................... A-60
4.4 RCM Program Metrics .................................................................................. A-62
4.5 Single Inspection Effectiveness ..................................................................... A-63
4.6 Minimum Detectable Flaw Sizes ................................................................... A-63
4.7 Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis ................................................ A-63
4.8 Task Analysis................................................................................................. A-65
4.9 Sustaining Task Priorities ............................................................................... A-65
4.10 Design Changes ........................................................................................... A-66
5.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ A-66
5.2 Integrated Reliability Centered Maintenance Software (IRCMS) ................... A-66
5.3 AE Database.................................................................................................. A-67
5.4 RCM Audit Log .............................................................................................. A-67
5.5 Quarterly RCM Reports ................................................................................. A-68
A-37
NAVAIR 00-25-403
6.0 RCM PROGRAM EVALUATION......................................................................... A-68

7.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................. A-68
8.0 MILESTONE CHART........................................................................................... A-69
9.0 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................... A-69
Attachment (1) [ACFT ID] Propulsion and Power Systems
Attachment (2) RCM Based Maintenance Process
Attachment (3) Detailed Information for Calculating [ACFT ID] PPS Metrics
Attachment (4) [ACFT ID] PPS Major Intermediate And Depot Preventive Task Interval
History And RCM Goals
Attachment (5) Example of Quarterly Report
Attachment (6) [ACFT ID] PPS RCM POA&M
A-38
NAVAIR 00-25-403
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
1.1.1 This plan provides the requirements, procedures, and responsibilities for
implementation of an effective and pro-active Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)/Age
Exploration (AE) Program for [ACFT ID] Propulsion and Power System (PPS). The [ACFT
ID] aircraft and aircraft components are covered under a separate plan. The [ACFT ID]
PPS consists of [ENGINE ID] engine and [GTS/APU ID] Gas Turbine Starter/Auxiliary Power
Unit (GTS/APU). Attachment (1) provides Logistic Control Numbers (LCN) and Work Unit
Codes (WUC) for the [ACFT ID] PPS. The purpose this plan is:
1.1.1.1 To develop the appropriate failure management strategy for the
Propulsion and Power System (PPS) components through the RCM process, including
identification, implementation, and support of any preventive maintenance (PM)
requirements to ensure cost-wise readiness.
1.1.1.2 To integrate the RCM analysis process into an overall RCM-Based
Maintenance Process (Attachment (2)).
1.1.1.3 To identify various statistical analysis methods to determine
appropriate failure management strategies to include any PM tasks.
1.1.2 This plan is not intended to duplicate existing guidelines but to capitalize on
resources and processes currently available to Propulsion & Power (P&P) engineers,
logisticians, and management, and provide specific information and plans applicable to the
[ACFT ID] Propulsion and Power System (PPS). Specific RCM terms or tasks are fully
defined in NAVAIR 00-25-403.
1.1.3 An RCM-Based Maintenance Process will provide preventive maintenance
updates, substantiate redesign recommendations for the Component Improvement Program
(CIP), and identify safety, logistic, maintenance process, and life cycle cost
recommendations. This plan is generated in response to the initiatives to improve the
[ACFT ID] PPS readiness, reliability, and cost effectiveness.
1.2 SCOPE The RCM/AE Implementation Plan is applicable to the [ACFT ID] PPS and
shall be updated as required. It is developed using the guidelines of NAVAIR 00-25-403.
1.3 BACKGROUND
1.3.1 The RCM analysis process is used to develop failure management strategies,
considering the design and operational environment of equipment, that ensure effective PM
requirements and other actions for a required level of safety and readiness. The process
recognizes that sufficient information is often unavailable at the time of analysis to
accurately determine the best strategy and PM task intervals. The RCM analysis process
allows for the prudent use of best available data and engineering judgment. The RCM/AE
program will provide the plans to obtain the information necessary to verify or update those
estimates and judgments, where justified.
1.3.2 The RCM/AE program will provide data on the effectiveness of the PM
program and focus attention where RCM analysis update may provide cost savings,
A-39
NAVAIR 00-25-403
increased weapon system availability, or increased safety.

1.3.3 The RCM/AE program also assists in substantiating CIP requirements for
funding and the continuous evaluation of the failure management strategy by:
1.3.3.1 Application of statistical analysis (Weibull, Log-normal, etc.) methods
1.3.3.2 Documentation of information including data, assumptions, analysis
methods and final recommendations
1.3.3.3 Determination of System Safety Hazard Risk Index values
1.3.4 The PM program will be dynamic throughout the remaining [ACFT ID] PPS
program life (see paragraph 4.3.2).
1.3.5 As the [ACFT ID] PPS program matures, the RCM/AE program will be
structured to capitalize on data from:
1.3.5.1 Maintenance program execution
1.3.5.2 In-service component reliability
1.3.5.3 Operating environment issues and constraints
1.3.5.4 Failure/repair/problem history
1.3.5.5 Readiness degraders
1.3.5.6 High cost drivers.
1.3.6 The Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) program monitors the weapon
system for signs of unsatisfactory or unexpectedly decreased operational reliability (or
excessive costs) utilizing the metrics of paragraph 4.4, as a minimum. Upon such an
indication, the RCM analysis is reviewed and/or updated, as necessary, to determine if a
change in the failure management strategy (to include PM) is necessary to ensure adequate
levels of safety, readiness, and cost effectiveness.
1.4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS AND RCM TOOLS The following items were used to
develop or are references in this RCM program plan.
1.4.1 Instructions
1.4.1.1 COMNAVAIRFOR- Naval Aviation Maintenance Plan
INST 4790.2
1.4.1.2 NAVAIRINST 4790.3 Aeronautical Time Cycle Management
Program
1.4.1.3 NAVAIRINST 4790.2 Reliability Centered Maintenance Program
1.4.2 Military Standards (Canceled - Listed for historical information only)
1.4.2.1 MIL-STD-1388.1A Logistic Support Analysis
1.4.2.2 MIL-STD-1629 Procedures for Performing a Failure Modes,
Effects, and Criticality Analysis
A-40
NAVAIR 00-25-403
1.4.2.3 MIL-STD-2173(AS) Reliability Centered Maintenance,

Requirements for Naval Aircraft, Weapons
Systems, and Support Equipment
1.4.3 Manuals
1.4.3.1 [MANUAL #] [ENGINE ID] Illustrated Parts Breakdown
(IPB)
1.4.3.2 [MANUAL #] Intermediate and Depot Maintenance IPB,
GTS/APU Part Number [PART NUMBERS]
1.4.3.3 [MANUAL #] Organizational and Intermediate Level
Maintenance with IPB, QECA [PART
NUMBERS]
1.4.3.4 NAVAIR 00-25-403 Guidelines for Reliability Centered
Maintenance Program
1.4.4 Training Materials
1.4.4.1 NA Propulsion and Power RCM Training Hand-
Book (Obtain from Navy Propulsion and
Power RCM Lead ([CODE], [LOCATION]))
1.4.5 Specifications/Plans
1.4.5.1 ILS-DS-30A084G [ACFT ID] Integrated Logistics Support
Detail Specification
1.4.5.2 [ACFT ID]RCM Plan Reliability Centered Maintenance/Age
Exploration Plan
A-41
NAVAIR 25-403
1.4.6 RCM Tools

1.4.6.1 IRCMS Integrated Reliability Centered Maintenance
Software (IRCMS) (Obtain from
http://www.logistics.navair.navy.mil/rcm)
1.4.6.2 Weibull P&P Weibull Analysis Module (Excel
Workbook) (Obtain from [ACFT ID] RCM
Lead Engineer or Navy Propulsion and
Power RCM Lead ([CODE], [LOCATION]));
Weibull Support Module Workbook (Excel)
(Obtain from [ACFT ID] PPS RCM Lead
Engineer or Navy Propulsion and Power
RCM Lead ([CODE], [LOCATION]))
1.4.6.3 Detection Probability Single Inspection Effectiveness Workbook
(Excel) (Obtain from [ACFT ID] PPS RCM
Lead Engineer or Navy Propulsion and
Power RCM Lead ([CODE], [LOCATION]))
1.4.6.4 Inspection Intervals PP_PM_Task_Analysis_Module.xls Obtain
from [ACFT ID] PPS RCM Lead Engineer or
Navy Propulsion and Power RCM Lead
([CODE], [LOCATION]))
1.5 CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS
1.5.1 Change/corrections/update recommendations to elements of this plan are
encouraged and should be submitted to:
[ADDRESS]
1.5.2 Upon receipt of a change/correction/update recommendation, the [FST ID]
Fleet Support Team (FST) will acknowledge receipt, review, and conduct liaison as
necessary with the affected organization. [FST ID] FST will contact the submitting activity if
additional information or clarification on the change recommendation is needed.
1.5.3 Upon completion of review of all submitted information, [FST ID] FST at
[LOCATION] will approve/disapprove the recommendation and notify all concerned of the
action taken.
1.6 LIST OF ACRONYMS
3M Maintenance Material Management

ACI Analytical Condition Inspection
ADP Automated Data Processing
AE Age Exploration
AEB Age Exploration Bulletin
A-42
NAVAIR 25-403
AEMS Aircraft Engine Management System

AIRRS Aviation Inventory Readiness and Reporting
System
APML Assistant Program Manager, Logistics
ASMET Accelerated Simulated Mission Endurance Test
ATCM Aeronautical Time Cycle Management
AVDRL Aviation Depot Level Repairable
AWS Automated Worksheet Software
AYC Accessory Change
BSI Business Sensitive Information
CDF Cumulative Distribution Function
CDRL Contract Deliverable Requirements List
CETS Contractor Engineering and Technical Services
CIP Component Improvement Program
CLS Contract Logistic Support
CMP Composite Mission Profile
CNATRA Chief of Naval Air Training
CTF Central Tracking Facility
D-Level Depot Level Maintenance Activity
DMDS Depot Maintenance Data System
ECA Equipment Condition Analysis
ECP Engineering Change Proposal
EFH Engine Flight Hour
her Equipment History Record
EI Engineering Investigation
ERAP Engine Reliability Analysis Program
FE Fleet Exchange
FH Flight Hour
FMECA Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis
FMU Fuel Metering Unit
FOD Foreign Object Damage
FSPDI Failure Starting Point Development Interval
A-43
NAVAIR 25-403
FSP-FFI Failure Starting Point to Functional Failure Interval

FST Fleet Support Team
GTS/APU Gas Turbine Starter/Auxiliary Power Unit
HCF High Cycle Fatigue
HEMP Hourly Engine Maintenance Program
HMR Hazardous Material Report
HSI Hot Section Inspection
I-Level Intermediate Level Maintenance Activity
ILS-DS Integrated Logistics Support - Detailed
Specification
IPB Illustrated Parts Breakdown
IPC Illustrated Parts Catalogue
IPE Industrial Process Exchange
IPL Illustrated Parts List
IPT Integrated Program Team
IRAC Interim Rapid Action Change
IRCMS Integrated Reliability Centered Maintenance
System
LCF Low Cycle Fatigue
LCL Lower Control Limit
LCN Logistics Control Number
LM Logistics Manager
LORA Level of Repair Analysis
LSA Logistics Support Analysis
MA Maintenance Advisory
MALS Marine Aviation Logistical Support
MCR Manual Change Release
MEI Major Engine Inspection
MMH Maintenance Man Hour
Mod Modification
MP Maintenance Plan
MRA Major Repairable Assembly
A-44
NAVAIR 25-403
MRB Material Review Board

MRC Maintenance Requirements Card
MTBF Mean Time Between Failure
NADEP Naval Air Depot
NALDA Naval Aviation Logistics Data Analysis
NAMDR Naval Aviation Maintenance Discrepancy Report
NAMSO Naval Aviation Maintenance Support Office
NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command
NDI Non Destructive Inspection
NMC Not Mission Capable
NOC Not Otherwise Coded
O-Level Organizational Level Maintenance Activity
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OT Operating Time
P&P Propulsion and Power
PACC Acceptable Probability of Failure
PACT Actual Probability of Failure
PF Potential Failure
P-F Interval Potential to Functional Failure Interval
PMA Program Manager, Air
PMIC Periodic Maintenance Inspection Cards
PPD Propulsion and Power System Department
PPC Power Plant Change
PPS Propulsion and Power System
PM Preventative Maintenance
P/N Part Number
QDR Quality Deficiency Report
RA Repairable Assembly
R&M Reliability and Maintainability
RCM Reliability-Centered Maintenance
RILSD Resident Integrated Logistics Support Detachment
A-45
NAVAIR 25-403
ROR Repair of Repairable

SAR Safety Action Record
SE Support Equipment
SOI Safe Operating Interval
SOO Safety of Operations
TDC Technical Directive Compliance
TPDR Technical Publication Deficiency Report
TSN Time Since New
TSR Time Since Repair
TYCOM Type Commander
UCL Upper Control Limit
VIDS/MAF Visual Information Display System/Maintenance
Action Form
WUC Work Unit Code
A-46
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
2.1 The basic composition and responsibilities of a RCM team is defined in NAVAIR 00-
25-403. The specific responsibilities within the [ACFT ID] PPS RCM team are defined as
follows:
2.2 [FST ID] FLEET SUPPORT TEAM (FST) [LOCATION]
2.2.1 FST Leader - The [FST ID] FST Leader is responsible for development and
implementation of an RCM program for the [ACFT ID] PPS in accordance with NAVAIRINST
4790.20, the RCM plan, and direction provided by PMA-[CODE]. The FST Leader’s
responsibilities:
2.2.1.1 Reviews and recommends approval for the [ACFT ID] PPS RCM
Program Plan.
2.2.1.2 Obtains funding to perform all RCM/ R&M tasks defined by this
program plan. When required funding level cannot be obtained, the FST Team Leader is
required to review and approve prioritized reduced RCM program.
2.2.1.3 Obtains adequate trained/experienced RCM personnel to perform
RCM analysis as defined by this program plan.
2.2.1.4 Reviews the RCM/R&M program tasks and divide task responsibilities
between organic and commercial RCM organizations.
2.2.1.5 Participates in resolving IPT team conflicts that relate to PPS
RCM/R&M issues.
2.2.1.6 Obtains all software and Automated Data Processing (ADP)
equipment required to implement and maintain the [ACFT ID] PPS RCM Program.
2.2.2 [ACFT ID] PPS RCM Lead Engineer (RCM Implementation Manager) - The
detailed management of the RCM program will be performed by an organic
trained/experienced RCM Lead engineer. The RCM Lead Engineer’s responsibilities:
2.2.2.1 Reviews, approves, and provides signature authority for all RCM and
R&M analyses. Provides all resulting PM and Age Exploration (AE) task changes, and other
action recommendations, to [ENGINE ID] Engine Sub-team Leader for approval.
Contractual products shall also be accepted by the organic RCM Lead Engineer prior to
approval/implementation.
2.2.2.2 Exercises technical authority for the resolution of RCM and AE
development, implementation, and utilization problems.
2.2.2.3 Reviews the implementation and sustainment of the overall RCM/AE
effort. This includes development and sustaining the AE plan, including identification of
budget/manpower requirements and workload projections.
2.2.2.4 Provides briefs, answers data calls, and arranges training associated
with the [ACFT ID] PPS RCM program.
2.2.2.5 Ensures AE data from depot and fleet sampling engines, modules,
assemblies, and components is compiled, correlated, and entered in the AE database in an
accurate and timely manner. Modifies and upgrades database structure and format as
A-47
NAVAIR 00-25-403
required to meet the requirements identified in paragraph 5.3. Ensures AE inspection status
reports are up to date.
2.2.2.6 Develops and provides inspection requirements and changes to AE
publications, i.e., AE depot or field sampling specifications.
2.2.2.7 Maintains liaison with squadrons, MALS, depot, and Type
Commanders (TYCOM) to identify and schedule engine candidates for AE Depot inductions
and/or field inspections. Also, ensures compliance with specification requirements, support
accuracy of depot/fleet AE work documents, and provides engineering input to workload
standards review. Reviews all engine discrepancies with Quality Evaluators and depot/fleet
maintenance personnel. Periodically monitors AE samples to ensure engineering disposition
of all AE discovered discrepancies are documented with consultation from FST engineers
as required.
2.2.2.8 Coordinates and monitors AE depot and fleet sampling engines,
modules, assemblies, and components.
2.2.2.9 Prepares engineering instructions designating specific AE inspections
to be performed and any emergent or investigative inspection requirements to be performed
on each engine, module, assembly, and component.
2.2.2.10 Prepares and revises RCM Analysis Packages to identify the most
effective failure management strategies and develop PM and AE sampling inspection
requirements, as well as redesign or other action recommendations.
2.2.3 RCM Analysts - The RCM analysis functions will be performed by various
RCM-trained and certified [ACFT ID] PPS organic and vendor personnel. RCM Analysts
responsibilities:
2.2.3.1 Prepares and revises RCM Analysis Packages to identify the most
effective failure management strategies and develop PM and AE sampling inspection
requirements, as well as redesign or other action recommendations.
2.2.3.2 Ensures that publications reflect the results of RCM analyses and that
any local MRC cards are reviewed for fleet wide application.
2.2.3.3 Reviews Supportability Analyses and Maintenance Plans for proper
incorporation of PM and AE requirements.
2.2.3.4 Compiles Age Exploration, operational, and test failure data.
Performs failure distribution analyses (Weibull, trending, etc.) of compiled data.
2.2.3.5 Reviews all new or changed maintenance procedures to ensure failure
modes have been considered and maintenance instructions are compatible with RCM
assumptions and requirements.
2.2.4 Integrated Maintenance Concept (IMC) Team Leader - The IMC Team
Leader is responsible for maintenance plan, Level of Repair Analysis (LORA), PM
documentation, and overall maintenance program reviews. The IMC Team Leader is
responsible for ensuring the results achieved through the RCM analyses are implemented
into the maintenance program.
A-48
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2.3 NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVAIR)

2.3.1 NAVAIR Logistics (AIR 3.0) and the NAVAIR RCM Steering Committee
2.3.1.1 AIR-3.0 is responsible for the overall program management of RCM and
Age Exploration policy and procedures for NAVAIR. The RCM Steering Committee is
chartered to bring together RCM subject matter experts to establish and refine RCM policies
and procedures for NAVAIR. The Steering Committee Chairman is a required reviewing
official for the RCM/AE plan, prior to submittal for approval.
2.3.1.2 [ACFT ID] Assistant Program Manager, Logistics (AIR-[CODE])
responsibilities:
2.3.1.2.1 Ensures that AE Program requirements are based on RCM in
accordance with applicable instructions, that preventive maintenance requirements are
based on RCM and that RCM is correctly integrated into the maintenance planning process.
2.3.1.2.2 Implements RCM analysis recommendations/ changes and
ensures that all logistics areas are addressed.
2.3.1.2.3 Approves the RCM/AE plan.
2.3.2 Propulsion and Power Systems Department (PPD) (AIR-4.4)
2.3.2.1 Air-4.4 RCM-related responsibilities:
2.3.2.1.1 Reviews and approves all RCM tasks that have a direct
impact on service life limits.
2.3.2.2 Systems Engineering and Systems Integration Division (AIR-[CODE])
RCM-related responsibilities:
2.3.2.2.1 Integrates the activities of all involved PPD areas, disciplines,
and specialties into a team effort for system effectiveness.
2.3.2.2.2 Develops CIP requirements and justification in support of
developing Engineering Change Proposal’s (ECP) for the weapon platform’s P&P systems.
Provide support for CIP Contract preparation, implementation, and monitor subsequent
contractor performance.
2.3.2.2.3 Develops Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) and Power
Plant Change (PPC) and /or Accessory Change (AYC) justification, acquisition and
implementation.
2.3.2.2.4 Acts as PPD advocate to the Program Manager's staff or
PMA IPT and act as the Program Manager's or PMA IPT(s) advocate within PPD.
2.3.2.2.5 Ensures PPD IPT structure, staffing, and resource allocation
are appropriate for the engineering effort planned, and are accurately reflected in the Work
Unit Assignment.
2.3.2.2.6 Participates in all trade-off decisions, and performs a
disciplined risk management process, which identifies and tracks both technical and
programmatic impacts and specific actions recommended.
A-49
NAVAIR 00-25-403

2.3.2.3 Engine Support Branch (AIR-[CODE]) RCM-related responsibilities:
2.3.2.3.1 Monitors, refines, and enforces model specifications,
statements of work, and warranty technical contents.
2.3.2.3.2 Updates Life cycle master plan with the establishment of
design integrity and quality assurance standards.
2.3.2.3.3 Identifies design improvements based on Fleet experiences
and RCM recommendations.
2.3.2.4 Engineering Specialties Division (AIR-[CODE]) RCM-related
responsibilities:
2.3.2.4.1 Acts as the technical expert in the areas of component
life/performance and acquisition in the PPD for integrated program support.
2.3.2.4.2 Develops CIP requirements and justification in support of
developing ECP(s) that will improve safety, cost, performance, reliability and maintainability
for the P&P systems for the weapon platform and components.
2.3.2.4.3 Participates in all trade-off decisions, and performs a
disciplined risk management process, which identifies and tracks both technical and
2.3.2.4.4 Leads Engine Reliability Analysis Program (ERAP)
development effort.
2.3.3 NAVAIR Propulsion and Power RCM Lead Engineer ([CODE],
[LOCATION]) - The Propulsion Management Board has assigned responsibility for expert
consultation to IPT members and Competency Managers for RCM as applied to Propulsion
Systems to the NAVAIR Propulsion and Power RCM Lead Engineer. This individual as
serves as the propulsion and power representative to the NAVAIR RCM Steering
Committee with the following responsibilities:
2.3.3.1 Provides training and tools to Propulsion RCM teams on RCM analysis
techniques, implementation procedures and sustaining requirements peculiar to Propulsion
systems.
2.4 VENDOR (OEM) OR CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES (CSS)
2.4.1 The contractor(s) shall provide support to the [ACFT ID] Propulsion and Power
RCM Program, including updating and maintaining engine and engine accessory FMECA
and RCM analyses as specified in contract delivery orders. This support shall apply to all
items contained in [ENGINE IPB] and all (OEM) supplied items contained in [QECA
MANUAL]. All analyses shall be performed following NAVAIR 00-25-403, Guidelines for the
Naval Aviation RCM process, and shall utilize the latest version of the Integrated Reliability
Centered Maintenance System (IRCMS) software.
A-50
NAVAIR 00-25-403
NOTE
The following requirements are performed by vendor (OEM) or CSS
only if covered by appropriate contracts.
2.4.2 Perform complete FMECA and RCM analysis for all Class I and II engineering
changes. Provide the completed analysis to [FST ID] FST for review, approval, and
implementation of results.
2.4.3 Review organic RCM/R&M analysis as requested by [FST ID] FST.
2.4.4 Perform AE data collection and provide results to [FST ID] FST.
2.4.5 Perform RCM analysis on in-service problems as requested by [FST ID] FST.
2.5.6 Provide necessary attendance at quarterly RCM review meetings.
2.5.7 As requested by [FST ID] FST, using IRCMS approved Preventive
Maintenance task data, develop source data for incorporation into appropriate maintenance
instruction manuals.
3.0 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
3.1 INITIAL ANALYSIS GUIDELINES AND STEPS
3.1.1 Level of Analysis
3.1.1.1 Complete engine FMECA was provided using AWS 5.3 software.
Updated FMECA/RCM analyses will be documented into IRCMS 6.2.5 as issues arise, or
based on hazard/risk rankings and available funding. These analyses will use best
available data and conservative assumptions to support RCM decisions when information is
insufficient.
3.1.1.2 Complete GTS/APU FMECA was provided to MIL-STD-1629 format
and in hardcopy format only. Initial assessment determined that the GTS/APU had no
Safety Category I or II failure modes. Therefore no RCM analysis was deemed necessary at
the time. Subsequent in-service failures have resulted in Safety Category I and II failures,
and other failure modes may justify analysis to determine appropriate failure management
strategies, therefore RCM analysis is required. Safety Category failures will be analyzed on
a priority basis, followed by non-safety failure modes with current PM Tasks. The GTS/APU
will be documented in a separate IRCMS 6.2.5 database.
3.1.2 Hardware Partitioning and Analysis Boundaries
3.1.2.1 The [ACFT ID] PPS RCM program will only cover the hardware listed
in the following Illustrated Parts Breakdowns:
3.1.2.1.1 [MANUAL #] for the [ENGINE ID]
3.1.2.1.2 [MANUAL #] for GTS/APU, [PART NUMBERS]
3.1.2.1.3 [MANUAL #] for [ACFT ID] QECA, [PART NUMBERS]
A-51
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.1.2.2 The top level for the hardware partitioning will be:
3.1.2.2.1 The [ENGINE ID] engine for the Engine IRCMS database.
3.1.2.2.2 The [GTS/APU ID] for the GTS/APU IRCMS database.
3.1.2.3 The [ACFT ID] PPS will be divided into sections and systems
identified in the manuals listed in paragraph 3.1.2.1. Hardware partitioning will be to a level
that identifies the functional sub-systems (normally at least one level above the WRA’s), as
a minimum. Lower level partitioning may be required depending on complexity and
maintenance concepts developed during the analysis.
3.1.3 FMECA
3.1.3.1 Using the IRCMS software and instructions contained in NAVAIR 00-
25-403, FMECA documentation will be created/sustained for the hardware listed in
paragraph 3.1.2. (The initial delivered FMECA was done in AWS 5.3 software and will be
converted to IRCMS software.)
3.1.3.2 For failure mode effects and consequences, the end item will be the
AV-8B aircraft.
3.1.4 Failure/Problem Related Reviews/Analysis
3.1.4.1 The process for responding to reported problems will vary depending
on the criticality of failure, means of reporting, and whether a vendor or organic activity must
perform the failure analysis. The interfaces with the RCM/AE program are described in the
following paragraphs.
3.1.4.2 The following paragraphs are general guidance. There may be
additional actions required for specific issues. Coordination with other activities such as
contractors may also be required. Some actions may be directed by higher authority. All of
these steps are not necessarily performed by assigned RCM analysts. However, RCM
analysts and leaders should be aware of all actions related to their assigned systems and
be involved in recommendations for PM or other actions affecting the failure management
strategy. Although this process shows a specific logical order, in some cases the steps may
be performed concurrently or in a different order.
3.1.4.3 Step 1: Problem Reported/Recognized
3.1.4.3.1 The process is started upon receipt of a report or recognition
of a problem requiring RCM action. The problem could be reported/recognized through:
• El request
• Hazard Material Report (HMR)
• Quality Deficiency Report (QDR)
• Technical Publication Deficiency Report (TPDR)
• Deficiency Report from vendors
• MRB reviews
A-52
NAVAIR 00-25-403
• Mishap report (organic and vendor)

• Vendor specification compliance reports
• Test, laboratory, analysis results and reports (organic and vendor)
• Reports/calls from [ACFT ID] PPS maintenance personnel
• Deviations from established/expected data trends
• Identification of high readiness, reliability, or cost degraders
• Proposed design changes (e.g., CIP projects, ECP’s, RAMEC’s)
3.1.4.3.2 Depending upon the type of report, an initial response, such
as a preliminary El report with shipping instructions for the El exhibit, may be required. The
FST Leader will assign an individual primary responsibility for the problem. The RCM lead
engineer will be provided an information copy of the problem report or conversation record
copy if the report was verbal. Primary responsibility for reviewing the impacts on failure
management strategies will be assigned to an RCM analyst. The RCM analyst address
RCM related issues by working closely with the primary individual assigned to the problem.
3.1.4.4 Step 2: Failure Mode Determination - This step is the primary
research and analysis part of the process. This step may include failure analysis by
organic/contract engineers or the materials lab, background data collection from squadron
or maintenance personnel, etc. It may also include actions such as fatigue, stress, fracture
mechanics, and statistical analyses to determine PM task intervals, or probability of future
occurrences of this failure mode. Although a specific failure mode should be determined
before final changes to the failure management strategy or PM are imposed, certain actions
will often be required during this step. For instance, an inspection bulletin may be required
immediately when a specific failure mode creates safety of flight concerns. The FST
assigned primary individual is responsible for leading the activities to determine appropriate
actions, although other individuals or organizations may also be involved. If the assigned
primary individual is not the RCM analyst, the RCM analyst should work closely to obtain
data/information as the investigation progresses.
3.1.4.5 Step 3: RCM Review - At this step, the failure management strategy is
reviewed or determined. If the assigned individual is not the cognizant RCM analyst, the
RCM analyst will provide recommendations on PM or other actions to the assigned
individual. Any decisions on PM or other actions must be based on the results of an RCM
analysis.
3.1.4.5.1 If this is a completely new failure mode, the RCM process
will be conducted to determine the appropriate failure management strategy.
3.1.4.5.2 If there is a previous RCM analysis, it will be reviewed to
ensure that the current problem does not change any of the data/assumptions/conclusions
in the analysis. If it does, an RCM update will be performed to determine any adjustments
to the failure management strategy currently in place.
3.1.4.5.3 If the current failure management strategy is adequate, a
documentation of the review shall be made in the IRCMS database. A separate summary
A-53
NAVAIR 00-25-403
report may be required to program personnel, dependent on the nature and origination of
the problem. If PM changes or other actions are required, continue with Step 4.
3.1.4.6 Step 4: One Time Inspection or Interim Action - If not accomplished
previously, the need to issue an inspection bulletin (technical directive) or take other interim
action is based on the potential safety or operational implications. If the possibility of
additional unacceptable failures exist before completion of the investigation, a bulletin or
other interim action is required. An Age Exploration Bulletin (AEB) may also be used to
gather data to better refine the problem. NAVAIR 00-25-300 provides direction for
preparing and issuing technical directives.
3.1.4.7 Step 5: PM or Other Action - PM or other actions necessary for final
resolution of the problem are determined. This may be a single action or a combination of
solutions, as determined by the RCM analysis. Corrective actions will be agreed upon by
the assigned primary individual, the cognizant RCM analyst, and others as applicable.
3.1.4.7.1 Any change to PM requirements will be determined through
RCM analysis. Changes to PM requirements directed by higher authority that disagree with
RCM recommendations be pursued for resolution. If still directed to taken action
inconsistent with the RCM results, the direction will be documented in IRCMS and the RCM
audit log (paragraph 5.4), without modifying properly determined RCM results.
3.1.4.7.2 Design changes may be required to preclude additional
failures. Design changes are implemented through the ECP process. Recommendations to
incorporate ECP(s) may or may not be a result of the RCM analysis.
3.1.4.7.3 A change to maintenance procedures or processes may be
identified during the analysis of the problem. Examples of such actions include: changing a
type of sealant used in an assembly process, changing torque requirements, or adding
quality assurance steps to a maintenance requirement. These types of actions may be
revealed through the course of the RCM analysis or may be used to make a current
requirement more effective.
3.1.4.7.4 Clarification of an ambiguous current requirement or
emphasis to ensure proper performance of maintenance requirements may be necessary
when failures are the result of improper maintenance procedures. Clarifications and/or
emphasis can be accomplished by changes to the appropriate documentation (MRC,
manual, etc.) using Interim Rapid Action Changes (IRAC), Manual Change Releases
(MCR), through Maintenance Advisory Reports (MA(s)), or by maintenance awareness visits
to the performing activities. These actions will be documented in the IRCMS memo of the
associated failure mode and the RCM Audit Log (paragraph 5.4).
3.1.5 Initial Task Packaging - Task packaging is the process of incorporating a
number of maintenance requirements with discrete RCM preliminary intervals into optimum
packages such as a 250 hour phase inspection or major engine inspection (MEI). Task
Packaging shall be accomplished per NAVAIR 00-25-403 instructions. Changes to PM
requirements shall be issued in accordance with standard FST procedures and documented
in IRCMS and the RCM audit log.
A-54
NAVAIR 00-25-403
3.2 SUSTAINING ANALYSIS GUIDELINES AND TASKS

3.2.1 The implemented failure management strategies will be continually assessed
for needed changes including the following activities:
3.2.1.1 Engine Degraders having adverse impact on readiness and cost will
be assessed for updates to the RCM analysis to improve the failure management strategy.
3.2.1.2 Design changes will be assessed for required RCM updates.
3.2.1.3 AE results will be used to update/refine the RCM results for the
targeted failure modes.
3.2.1.4 Maintenance data trends/ primary metrics will be monitored for
unacceptable performance. RCM analysis updates will be triggered based on investigation
into causes of unacceptable trends or metrics.
3.2.2 Sustaining Tasks - The objective of sustaining tasks is to optimize current
PM requirements, delete unnecessary requirements, address adverse failure trends,
address previously unforeseen failure modes, and improve the overall efficiency and
effectiveness of the failure management strategy. The following analysis processes will be
used to meet these objectives.
3.2.2.1 Condition Monitoring/Data Analysis - Condition monitoring is used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the failure management strategy and indicate where
improvements are needed. Items that may require improvements are those that have high
or increasing failure rates and unacceptably impact maintenance costs or aircraft
availability, those that have high PM costs, or those that have unacceptable impacts to
safety. Items with higher than expected reliability, lower than expected costs, or for which
safety concerns have been alleviated, will be evaluated to determine if PM can be reduced
or eliminated.
3.2.2.1.1 Condition monitoring data is primarily acquired through the
Maintenance Material Management (3M) system and/or vendor equivalent. The Naval
Aviation Logistics Data Analysis (NALDA) system will be used to provide the required data
for condition monitoring. The Engine Reliability Analysis Program (ERAP) will be used if
available to provide various reliability, maintainability, and availability data. ERAP operating
procedures and requirements (specifically user qualifications, equipment hardware/
software, and NALDA databases) are contained in ERAP operating manual. ERAP will
generate twelve reports, which should be obtained at least on a quarterly basis. The
following other data sources/tools may be used:
• Aircraft Engine Management System (AEMS) or vendor equivalent
• Equipment Condition Analysis (ECA) reports or vendor equivalent
A-55
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Depot Maintenance Data System (DMDS) or vendor equivalent

• Aircraft Inventory Readiness and Reporting System (AIRRS) or
vendor equivalent
• Aeronautical Time Cycle Management Program (ATCM) or vendor
equivalent
3.2.2.1.2 Condition monitoring will be accomplished by analysis of
the metrics defined in paragraph 4.4.1. The RCM analysis for the top degraders and items
exceeding the control limits will be reviewed and updated, if necessary.
3.2.2.1.3 The results of any RCM reviews or updates, resulting from
condition monitoring, will be documented. Reports will be prepared to summarize the
results of the quarterly condition monitoring analyses.
3.2.2.2 Age Exploration (AE) Tasks - Specific AE tasks will be developed
through the RCM analysis process to update decisions made on the basis of estimated data
or conservative assumptions, when justified. For any RCM analysis performed or updated,
the analyst will consider the desirability of AE inspections, and determine if there is potential
return on investment. If implemented, the analyst will incorporate the results into the RCM
analysis upon collection of the information, and delete the AE requirement when complete.
Upon completion of the AE requirement, a summary of the results will be documented in the
RCM audit log (paragraph 5.4), whether or not a change to PM requirements is made.
Guidance for the development of specific AE inspections is contained in NAVAIR 00-25-403.
Following are some methods planned for implementing AE inspections:
3.2.2.2.1 Data collection by the cognizant RCM analyst from
available vendor and organic sources such as 3M (NALDA, AEMS), EI(s), maintenance and
test records and AE databases.
3.2.2.2.2 Depot level sampling tasks (AE) carried out concurrently
with depot level maintenance.
3.2.2.2.3 Age Exploration Bulletins (AEB) as described in NAVAIR
00-25-403 and NAVAIR 00-25-300. This method will be used for direct data collection from
organic/CLS maintenance locations. Compliance and AE inspection data will be reported as
directed by the AEB. The result of the AEB will be documented in the IRCMS and AGE
databases (paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3).
3.2.2.2.4 Equipment History Records (EHR) to track serialized
components, where a hard time task has not been assigned. Direction on the use of
EHR(s) is provided in COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 and NAVAIRINST 4790.3.
3.2.2.2.5 Fleet Leader Program/Analytical Condition Inspection
(ACI) Program to determine/validate assumptions (particularly for critical failures), or identify
unpredicted failure modes. The objective is to identify specific suspected problem/critical
areas and periodically review these areas on one or more of the highest usage engines or
components. This program is intended to be specific and limited. The fleet leader program
may include specific AE inspections.
3.2.2.2.6 Periodic sampling may be used on an opportunity basis
(such as during repairs or major inspections). Sample sizes will be determined through
A-56
NAVAIR 00-25-403
statistical analysis to determine the minimum required number of samples to draw valid
conclusions
3.2.2.3 Preventive Maintenance Requirement Document Reviews - Annual
reviews of PM documents will be conducted with maintenance activities/personnel to
validate maintenance processes, techniques, tools, or supplies, allowing update to increase
effectiveness or lower cost. These reviews will also afford the maintenance community an
opportunity to identify ineffective or excessive maintenance requirements for reevaluation by
the RCM process.
3.2.2.4 Task Packaging Reviews - Task packaging process is described in
paragraph 3.1.5. As requirements are updated, they will normally be placed into these
packaged intervals. As changes accumulate over time, the original packaged interval may
no longer be optimal. Task packaging reviews will be conducted periodically to re-evaluate
the packaged maintenance intervals, considering the maintenance tasks that are added,
deleted, or modified. Changes to operational scenarios may also generate a need to review
the task packages to maximize availability.
3.2.2.5 Class I Design Changes - Design changes may be driven by a variety
of factors including a redesign recommendation from the RCM analysis. Design changes
are implemented through the ECP process. An assessment of the impact on supportability
is a part of any proposed ECP. RCM analysis reviews or updates should be accomplished
before completion of the design change in order to determine the most appropriate failure
management strategy.
3.2.2.5.1 [FST ID] FST has input into the initial ECP development
through the [ACFT ID] Configuration Action Team. Any new change proposals presented to
the should be brought to the attention of the cognizant RCM analyst.
3.2.2.5.2 The Vendor/OEM may be assigned responsibility for
delivering an updated RCM analysis as part of their design changes. If so, the cognizant
RCM analyst or RCM Lead Engineer shall interface with the vendor/OEM to ensure
consideration and compatibility with the overall RCM program.
4.0 RCM ANALYSIS GROUND RULES AND ASSUMPTIONS
4.1 ANALYSIS COVERAGE
4.1.1 Interface Items
4.1.1.1 All items listed in Attachment 1 are considered part of the [ACFT ID]
PPS RCM program.
4.1.2 Repair Procedure Reviews
4.1.2.1 Before being approved for service, all component repair procedures
will be reviewed against the RCM Analysis to ensure that the failure mode is properly
addressed, the repair approach is consistent with the PM requirements and assumptions,
and evaluate whether the post-repair configuration will require additional analysis due to
changes affecting the failure mode, failure onset, or progression.
4.1.2.2 All repair procedures that adversely affect PM program shall have
program approval before being implemented.
A-57
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.2 METHODS FOR PRIORITIZING FAILURE MODES FOR ANALYSIS

4.2.1 STEP 1. Using the Hazard Risk table, determine the safety category and
frequency for each failure mode.
4.2.2. STEP 2. Obtain the costs associated with each failure mode.
4.2.3 STEP 3. Determine the failure mode effects on the operations.
NOTE
If a failure consequence is hidden, then the risk is assigned based on
the failure/event that would make the failure evident.
4.2.4 STEP 4. All failure modes in the Hazard Risk table red and gold zones
(HRI 1-10) shall be analyzed first. The order of analysis will be from the smallest to largest
number located in each Hazard Risk table red block.
4.2.5 STEP 5. Anytime an operational metric of paragraph 4.4.1 moves into the
red, an analysis shall be made to determine underlying causes/failure modes. These
causes/failure modes shall be analyzed at a priority above the failure modes in Step 6.
Failure management strategies should be developed through RCM analysis that would
move the metric into the green.
4.2.6 STEP 6. All failure modes in the Hazard Risk table yellow zones shall be
analyzed next, if funding/resources allow. The order of analysis will be from the smallest to
largest number located in each Hazard Risk table yellow block.
A-58
NAVAIR 00-25-403
FIGURE 1. [ACFT ID] PPS HAZARD RISK TABLE
HAZARD SEVERITY
CATEGORIZATION CATASTROPHIC (1) CRITICAL (2) MARGINAL (3) NEGLIGIBLE (4)
F
FREQUENT (A)
R = OR >100/100K FLT
1 3 7 13
HRS
E
Q PROBABLE (B)
U 10-99/100K FLT HRS
2 5 9 16
E
N OCCASIONAL (C) 4 6 11 18
1.0-9.9/100K FLT HRS
C
REMOTE (D)
Y
0.1-0.99/100K FLT HRS 8 10 14 19
IMPROBABLE (E)
= OR >0.1/100K FLT
12 15 17 20
HRS
CNO/TYCOM/FLEET
ACCEPTABLE WITH PMA ACCEPTANCE
UNACCEPTABLE ACCEPTANCE
REVIEW 11-17 LOW SAFETY RISK
1-5 HIGH SAFETY RISK
PEO/AIR 1.0 ACCEPTANCE IPT/FST/SSWG ACCEPTANCE

ACCEPTABLE
UNDESIRABLE 6-10 MEDIAN SAFETY RISK 18-20 VERY LOW SAFETY
WITHOUT REVIEW
RISK
SEVERITY is the worst credible consequence of a hazard in terms of degree of injury, property damage, or
effect on mission defined below:
CATASTROPHIC (1) - CLASS A (damage > $1M / fatality / permanent total disability)
CRITICAL (2) - CLASS B ($200K < damage <$1M / permanent partial
disability / hospitalization of 5 or more personnel
MARGINAL (3) - CLASS C (($10K < damage <$200K / injury results in 1 or
more lost workdays. Mission aborts
NEGLIGIBLE (4) - All other injury / damage less than CLASS C
A-59
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.3 ANALYSIS ASS UMPTIONS (ESTIMATED VALUES)

4.3.1 Cost Benefit Analysis Factors
LABOR RATES: Organizational = $xx.xx per hour
(1)
Intermediate = $xx.xx per hour

(1)
Depot = $xx.xx (1)
AIRCRAFT COST: [ACFT ID] = $xx.xx
NEW ENGINE COST: [ENGINE ID] = $xx.xx(2)
MISHAP REPORTABLE ENGINE [ENGINE ID] = $xx.xx(2)

REPAIR COST:
NOTES:
(1) Labor rates listed are for RCM task cost comparisons only and may not be
representative of actual labor rates. These rates will be used for both organic and
commercial.
(2) Costs information obtained from COMNAVSAFECEN NORFOLK VA WEB SITE
posted document (FILE NAME: 2003eng.txt, SUBJECT: 2003 Engine Cost Data For
Aviation Mishap Reporting). These costs are not actual, but are used when actual costs are
not known.
4.3.2 Hardware Utilization Rates and Life
UTILIZATION RATES (AVERAGE): [ACFT ID] = xx.x FH per Month
UTILIZATION RATES (MAX.): [ACFT ID] = xx.x FH per Month
NORMAL MISSION TIME [ACFT ID] = xx.x hours
CROSS COUNTRY MISSION TIME [ACFT ID] = xx.x hours
TRANSOCEANIC MISSION TIME [ACFT ID] = xx.x hours
AIRCRAFT OPERATING LIFE: [ACFT ID] = xxxxx FH
ENGINE DESIGN LIFE: [ENGINE ID] = xxxxx FH
A-60
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.3.3 Maximum Operating Population Size - This information is used in the

prediction of when various failures can be expected to occur.
NOMENCLATURE IRCMS ITEM MAX.

ID. POPULATION
[ACFT ID] FLEET SIZE: =
[ENGINE ID] ENGINE POPULATION =
Low Pressure Compressor Module or Assembly =
High Pressure Compressor Module or Assembly =
Combustion Module or Assembly
High Pressure Turbine Module or Assembly =
Low Pressure Turbine Module or Assembly =
Exhaust Diffuser Module or Assembly =
Exhaust Duct Module or Assembly =
Accessory Gearbox Assembly =
Fuel Control Unit =
All other Assemblies Various =
4.3.4 Maintenance Task-Related Assumptions - The following table information

is used in the calculation of the cost due to lost operations:
Maintenance Task-Related Assumptions
ENGINE TASK TOTAL DIRECT NO. OF NO. OF

MAINTENANCE REPAIR DAYS MISSED
MANHOURS SORTIES
(LSA Prediction)
ENGINE remove/replace (R/R) xx.x x x
Fuel Control Unit R/R xx.x x x
ACCESSORY GEARBOX R/R xx.x x x
IGV CONTROLLER R/R xx.x x x
PERFORMANCE LOSS xx.x x x
DIGITAL ENGINE CONTROL UNIT xx.x x x

R/R
OIL SYSTEM xx.x x x
NOTES: Average number of days to complete repair is from fleet input.

Component maintenance man-hours is from 3M data for [DATE] to [DATE].
A-61
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4 RCM PROGRAM METRICS

4.4.1 Operational and Cost Metrics - The following minimum list of metrics shall
be monitored to determine the effectiveness of the RCM-Based Maintenance Process.
Detailed instructions for calculating each metric is provided in Attachment 3.
[Below values are examples only, replace with appropriate values]
BOUNDARY LIMITS DATA
METRIC
GREEN RED SOURCE
Mean Engine Flight Hours between 800 EFH 333 EFH PMB Tracked Metric
Removal (MEFHBR)
Engine Availability (Spares) 26 5 PMB Tracked Metric
Cost / Flight Hour (FH) $400.00 $550.00 VAMOSC
Direct Maintenance Man-hour / Engine 0.5 0.7 ERAP

Flight Hour (DMMH/EFH)
Maintenance Actions/EFH 0.03 0.055 ERAP
5% of total 10% of total

Infant Mortality (< 150 EFH) number of number of
ERAP
unscheduled unscheduled
removals removals
Abort Rate / 1000 EFH (In-flight and 0.5 0.8 ERAP

Preflight)
Unscheduled Removal Cause / 1000 1 2
Hours
Percentage of engines removed for 60% 40% AEMSDSS
scheduled maintenance
Percentage of modules and assemblies 60% 40%
removed for scheduled maintenance
Top 10 Engine/Component Degraders NA NA
Cause for in-flight aborts

NA NA
(Non-recoverable)
Number of active Safety Action Records NA NA
(SAR)
System Safety Working Group Top Ten NA NA
Action Items for PPS.
A-62
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.4.2 RCM Goals for Major Intermediate and Depot PM Task Intervals
Attachment 4 provides charts that show the PM task interval History and Goals for various
engine modules and starting system components.
4.4.3 RCM Acceptable Probability of Failure (PACC)
4.4.3.1 Safety PACC
Safety PACC
Severity Class
I 1 x 10-6
II 1 x 10-6
III 1 x 10-3
IV NA
4.5 SINGLE INSPECTION EFFECTIVENESS – Single Inspection Effectiveness

Workbook (Excel) provides estimated single inspection effectiveness values for various
inspection methods, materials, defect sizes, surface condition, etc.
4.6 MINIMUM DETECTABLE FLAW SIZES - Single Inspection Effectiveness Workbook
(Excel) provides estimated minimum detectable flaw sizes for various inspection methods,
materials, defect sizes, surface condition, etc.
4.7 FAILURE MODE EFFECTS AND CRITICALITY ANALYSIS
4.7.1 Sources for Hardware Nomenclature
4.7.1.1 For in-service hardware, obtain hardware nomenclature from the IPB
section contained in the manuals listed in paragraphs 3.1.2.1.1 through 3.1.2.1.3.
4.7.1.2 For new hardware, obtain hardware nomenclature for the applicable
hardware drawing.
4.7.2 Hardware Indenture Level Numbering System
4.7.2.1 The hardware indenture level numbering system will be based on the
LCN numbering system used in the [ENGINE ID] LSA.
4.7.3 Function Identification Data Sources and Methodologies - Refer to
NAVAIR 00-25-403 manual for required information.
4.7.4 Failure Mode Identification Data Sources and Methodologies - Refer to
NAVAIR 00-25-403 manual for required information.
4.7.4.1 Failure modes will also be identified using inspection tables from
[ACFT ID] PPS Maintenance Manuals. These inspection tables normally cover defects that
have occurred in-service.
A-63
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.7.5 Mission Profiles

The following table defines the various mission phases and duration of each. Additional
details of the composite mission profile can be obtained from NAVAIR AIR–[CODE].
[AIRCRAFT MODEL ID] COMPOSITE MISSION PROFILE

REFERENCE DURATION (hrs)
PHASE
NO. ENGINE FLIGHT
1 Preflight and Taxi
1A Preflight and Ground Start 0.175 -
1B Taxi
2 Takeoff and transition
2A STO or CTO to V1 takeoff speed 0.004 0.004
2B V1 takeoff speed to transition
3 Transition to conventional flight 0.427 0.427
4 Close air support 0.050 0.050
5 Interdiction 0.050 0.050
6 Air to air combat 0.080 0.080
7 Climb and return to base 0.385 0.385
8 Transition and vertical landing 0.004 0.004
8A Hover
9 Taxi, post flight and ground checkout 0.125 -
TOTAL 1.300 1.000
4.7.6 Failure Detection Methods - Refer to NAVAIR 00-25-403 manual for required
information.
4.7.7 Failure Distribution Curve Methodologies
4.7.7.1 Weibull Analysis
4.7.7.1.1 Weibull Analysis is a statistical technique useful for various
aspects of failure analysis. P&P Weibull Analysis Module (Excel Workbook) for performing
Weibull analysis for RCM, RCM-P01, is contained in Propulsion and Power RCM Training
Handbook. Weibull Analysis can provide information such as the following:
• The conditional probability of failure of a part versus a given age.
• The expected number of failures over any period. The type of
failure mode, i.e. infant mortality, wear-out, batch problems,
combinations of failure modes, etc.
• The percentage of items expected to fail by a given age.
A-64
NAVAIR 00-25-403
• The impact of design changes on failure risk.

• The number of samples required for specific AE inspections.
4.7.7.1.2 When enough failure data is not available to do a proper
Weibull analysis, a Weibayes analysis will be performed using Default Beta and ETA values
supplied by the OEM or from Weibull Support Module Workbook (Excel).
4.7.7.2 Fracture Mechanics Analysis
4.7.7.2.1 Fracture mechanics is an analytical method for determining
crack growth rates. Fracture mechanics analysis predicts the number of cycles of some
applied load required to "grow' a crack from detectable size to critical size at which complete
fracture of the part occurs. Its primary benefit to the RCM analysis is to help determine the
interval from potential to functional failure for structural components or other components
subject to cracks. RCM uses this information to determine an effective inspection interval.
4.7.7.3 Other Methods
4.7.7.3.1 Propulsion and Power RCM Training Handbook provides
preferred calculation methodologies used to determine a Failure Distribution Curve for each
failure mode.
4.7.7.3.2 Calculation methodologies not listed in the NAVAIR 00-25-
403 manual or Propulsion and Power RCM Training Handbook can be used provided:
• The reasons for use and the methodology is documented in the
memo field in the IRCMS database.
• If used repeatedly, the methodology will be submitted to the
NAVAIR RCM Steering Committee for consideration to be added
to the NAVAIR 00-25-403 manual and to the Propulsion and
Power RCM Training Handbook.
4.7.8 Mean Time between Failures (MTBF) Data Sources and Calculation
Methodologies - Propulsion and Power RCM Training Handbook, RCM-P12, provides
calculation methods for MTBF.
4.8 TASK ANALYSIS
4.8.1RCM task analyses will be conducted using IRCMS, the RCM Analyst Course
Student Guide, Propulsion and Power RCM Training Handbook, and NAVAIR 00-25-403.
4.8.2 Re-design costs shall be obtained from [ACFT ID] PPS CIP program.
4.9 SUSTAINING TASK PRIORITIES

4.9.1 DUE TO FUNDING CONSTRAINTS, PERSONNEL LIMITATIONS, OR
OTHER FACTORS, ALL OF THE DESCRIBED ELEMENTS OF THE RCM
PROGRAM MAY NOT ALWAYS BE PERFORMED. DURING TIMES OF
REDUCED EFFORT, ELEMENTS WILL BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO
PRIORITY.
A-65
NAVAIR 00-25-403
4.9.2 Priorities are assigned to each task. Tasks within each priority group are listed
in descending order of importance. In the event that not all tasks can be performed, they will
be performed according to priority. The RCM/AE task priorities are provided in the following
table:
RCM/AE TASK PRIORITIES

Perform AE tasks to ascertain service use I
risk (HRI)
RCM analysis required to ascertain HRI I
level
Resolve SOO Problems to the extent I
necessary to mitigate HRI to below 5
RCM analysis and recommend solutions to II
HRI 6-20 failure modes, top cost drivers
and readiness degraders
RCM analysis and recommend solutions of III
remaining failure modes, top cost drivers
and readiness degraders that affect full
mission capability
4.10 DESIGN CHANGES - RCM analysis will be reviewed or updated to assess

supportability during the ECP process. When an ECP (or formal change: PPC, AYC, etc.) is
received from the contractor for review, the RCM update, if applicable, should also be
available for review. The cognizant RCM analyst will ensure that action is being taken by
the contractor to update the RCM analysis, if required, and that the RCM analysis is
acceptable. The ERAP results and RCM analyses will be utilized to justify the CIP tasks in
accordance with the procedures specified in the Component Improvement Program process
manual.
5.0 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
5.1 A secondary goal of the RCM/AE program, beyond providing the most efficient
failure management strategy, is to provide a reliable information source for historical failure
mode decisions and rationale. This goal is accomplished by two documentation methods:
5.2 INTEGRATED RELIABILITY CENTERED MAINTENANCE SYSTEM (IRCMS)
5.2.1 IRCMS software, in addition to being an analysis tool, is the primary method
for documentation of the decisions that led to a specific failure management strategy. The
master propulsion RCM database will be stored electronically for each program at the Fleet
Support Team (FST) primary server. Back-ups will be maintained by the cognizant RCM
analysts for their assigned systems on their individual PCs, or other reliable location.
5.2.2 IRCMS database will be supported by two other databases. These databases
are:
A-66
NAVAIR 00-25-403
5.2.2.1 Failure mode database which documents the failure distribution

curves, failure intervals, fatigue related information (resonance bands, time at resonance,
crack propagation rates, etc).
5.2.2.2 PM task log database that tracks task numbers and records
information not documented in IRCMS database.
5.2.3 Additional documents (failure data information, pictures, test results, etc) will
be created and maintained as required. These documents should be in electronic format,
and maintained in a directory with the [ACFT ID] PPS IRCMS database files.
5.2.4 All supporting document file names will be included in the Failure Mode Memo
Field in the IRCMS software.
5.3 AE DATABASE - The AE database will be maintained on the [FST ID] FST server.
The AE Database shall be used to:
5.3.1 Record all data required to develop a failure distribution curve for each failure
mode (both potential and functional failures). The data required include failure cause,
failure component time since new and time since repair, and the total number of failures for
each failure mode.
5.3.2 Record all data used to determine various failure intervals of each failure
mode. The data required includes crack growth rates, wear rates, time in resonance bands,
and stress loads which propagate defects to failure.
5.3.3 Adequately track the life of all engines, assemblies, and components as
required by the RCM analysis.
5.3.4 Adequately track all discrepancies, and AE inspection requirements.
5.3.5 Adequately track the status of AE engines, modules, assemblies, and
components.
5.3.6 Data sources used to document the AE database include:
5.3.6.1 El reports (organic and vendor)
5.3.6.2 HMR and vendor equivalent report
5.3.6.3 QDR and vendor equivalent report
5.3.6.4 TPDR and vendor equivalent report
5.3.6.5 Mishap report (organic and vendor)
5.3.6.6 Vendor specification compliance reports and mission profile models
5.3.6.7 Test, laboratory, 3D modeling results and reports
5.3.6.8 MRB and scrap reviews (organic and vendor)
5.3.6.9 3M/NALDA system and/or vendor equivalent
5.4 RCM AUDIT LOG – The RCM Audit Log database shall be maintained as a record
A-67
NAVAIR 00-25-403
of actions taken to modify or change Preventive Maintenance requirements and identify

needed RCM updates and reviews so they can be planned and prioritized. The RCM Audit
Log database shall be maintained on the [FST ID] FST server
5.5 QUARTERLY RCM REPORTS
5.5.1 These reports provide the results of trend analysis and RCM metrics results.
5.5.2 Attachment 5 provides a sample report. Distribution of Quarterly reports shall
be to the FST Lead, the APML, and others as directed. The RCM Lead Engineer shall be
responsible for developing and issuing the report.
6.0 RCM PROGRAM EVALUATION
6.1 RCM REVIEWS - Annual RCM reviews will be used to as a method of
verifying/adjusting the RCM analysis. The reviews will be scheduled annually and chaired
by the [FST ID] FST at [LOCATION].
6.1.1 Attendance by CLS contractor, other pertinent vendors, and CSS support
contractors is recommended, as applicable.
6.1.2 At least two weeks prior to the review, a letter will be sent announcing the
meeting date, site, and agenda. As a minimum, candidates for the review will be
determined from data collected, (i.e. AEB, fleet usage data, MRB actions, EI(s), etc), since
the last review.
6.1.3 The RCM analysis will be updated to reflect the results of the review and
published, in a timely manner, based on severity classification.
6.1.4 The most current RCM analysis, reflecting all updates, will be available on the
NAVAIR Propulsion Online Web site (https://www.napol.navy.mil).
6.1.5 Failure management strategies that are determined ineffective shall be
modified, eliminated, or replaced by new requirements resulting from updated analyses,
using best available information. The results of these analyses will be clearly documented
in the IRCMS and RCM Audit Log databases. The following methods can be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the failure management strategies program on an annual
basis:
6.1.5.1 ECA reports and NALDA queries can provide an indication of overall
maintenance effectiveness. These can be used to compare maintenance data from one
year to the next. Any significant changes in the maintenance or availability data should be
cause for investigation. However, there are many factors that can affect maintenance
effectiveness indicators and care must be taken to ensure the actual cause or causes of the
change are determined.
6.1.5.2 RCM Audit Log (paragraph 5.4) reports can provide an indication of
which RCM/AE program tasks generated most of the PM changes, and which RCM/AE
program tasks required the most effort. Using NALDA data to estimate maintenance
effectiveness and this information from the RCM Audit Log, an estimate of the return on
each program task can then be developed. Note that this will always be a rough estimate
because the actual effects of not having a task in place where one currently exists or vice
A-68
NAVAIR 00-25-403
versa can only be assumed.

7.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
7.1 All personnel (organic and contractor) involved in the application of the [ACFT ID]
PPS RCM program shall meet the training and certification requirements contained in
NAVAIR 00-25-403 and/or local team training requirements.
8.0 MILESTONE CHART
8.1 Attachment 6 is the milestone chart for implementing [ACFT ID] PPS RCM program.
9.0 PERSONNEL/FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
9.1 MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS: Manpower listed below is to implement and
maintain the [ENGINE ID] RCM-Based Maintenance Program described herein. It includes
manpower to perform analysis, collect data, analysis data, make and implement
recommendations and ensure program goals are met.
MAN YEARS
CATEGORIES
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
PRL Funded xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
IMC Funded xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
SOO Requirements xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
FY Total xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
MAN YEARS
CATEGORIES
FY08 FY09 FY10
PRL Funded xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
IMC Funded xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
SOO Requirements xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
FY Total xx.xx xx.xx xx.xx
9.2 ADDITIONAL FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS – To adequately implement RCM-base

failure management strategies, it is assumed that $xxK are available in the CIP budget, $xxK
in the APN budget, and that adequate depot and AVDLR funding is available to execute
rework strategies.
A-69/ (A-70 Blank)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT

NAVAIR 00-25-403
XXX PROPULSION AND POWER SYSTEMS
DESCRIPTION WUC (from WUC LCN

manual)
Turbofan Engine
GTS/APU
QEC
OTHER ITEMS
NOTE:
ALL OTHER LCN(s) ARE COVERED IN THE AIRCRAFT/AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS
RCM/AE PROGRAM PLAN
THE FOLLOWING INTERFACE ITEMS ARE ALSO INCLUDED AS PART OF THE

[AIRCRAFT MODEL ID] PPS
NOMENCLATURE PART NUMBER WUC
INTERMEDIATE DUCT ASSEMBLY B480388 29E41
INTERMEDIATE DUCT ASSEMBLY B480389 29E42
FRONT EXHAUST NOZZLE B510762 29E4E (LH) / 29E4F (RH)
TOP & BOTTOM 4% TRIMMER B514385/B514386 27AG120
LH MOUNTING RING B480060 29E46
RH MOUNTING RING B480062 29E47
LH BEARING RING B508525 29E4A
RH BEARING RING B508522 29E4B
CHAIN B415618 29E4C (LH) / 29E4D (RH)
WATER INJECTION SUPPLY TUBE B436502/B512311 NOC
ASSEMBLY
LH ELECTRICAL ASSEMBLY B513154/B512800 NOC
RH ELECTRICAL ASSEMBLY B513155/B512801 NOC
Tube Assembly (Cabin Pressurization Air) B510947/B513139 NOC
Air Tube (Equipment Bay Cooling) B496361/B511707 NOC

Tube Assembly (Water Injection Pump B512027 NOC
Air)
ATTACHMENT (1)
A-71/(A-72 Blank)

NAVAIR 00-25-403
RCM BASED MAINTENANCE PROCESS

RCM PROCESS FEEDBACK PROCESS
RELIABILI TY AND MAINTAINABILITY DATA ANALYSIS
DESIGN OF EQUIPMENT RCM DECISION LOGIC FAILURE RATES
FUNCTIONAL BREAKDOWN FAILURE DISTRIBUTIONS
PERFORMANCE SPECS AGE EXPLORATION DATE COLLECTED
TEST DATA FMECA
AGE EXPLORATION DATA ANALYSIS
PPC(s)
DATA UPDATE WEIBULL & TRENDING ANALYSIS
REDESIGN IN-SERVICE ENGINEERING / LOGISTICS

(CIP)
SSWG
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATIONS
REVIEW &
INSPECTION BULLETINS
INPUTS DOCUMENT TASK REWORK / REPAIR
FATIGUE LIFE MONTORING
PMA/APML PREVENTATIVE NO
DIRECTED MAINTENANCE PREVENTATIVE
TASKS REQUIREMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
AGE EXPLORATION (AE) REPAIRS

MAINTENANCE PLAN
CORRECTIVE
SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS LORA
MAINTENANCE
3M FAILURES
PERFORMED
(UNSCHEDULED) EI/MISHAP
LOGISTICS SUPPORT TPDR/REI
MELR
PREVENTATIVE HMR/QDR
IMPLEMENT PM REQUIREMENTS MRB/SCRAP REVIEWS
MAINTENANCE
PERFORMED PROCESS REVIEWS
LOGISTIC ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS SITE VISITS
(SCHEDULED)
IPE OPERATIONS
SUPPLY & TRAINING SUPPORT CIP
PPB
THRESHOLD SAMPLING
LEAD THE FLEET / ACI
ACQUISITION
OPERATIONAL
RCM ANALYSIS TASKS IMPLEMENTATION TASKS FEEDBACK TASKS
RCM Based Maintenance Process is made up of two processes:
1. FEEDBACK PROCESS:
a. Flight operations and reporting
b. Unscheduled and scheduled maintenance tasks
c. Data collection programs:
(1) Navy wide data collection programs (e.g., 3-M, Ecomtrack, ERAP, etc.)
(2) Program data collection tasks (e.g., Engineering investigations, Age and power plant bulletins,
Fleet meetings and messages, etc.)
d. The various data sources are gathered together and sorted.
e. The sorted data then analyzed using:
(1) Weibull and trending analysis
(2) Fatigue life monitoring
(3) Age exploration data analysis
(4) Failure consequences & rates analyzed
ATTACHMENT (2)
A-73
NAVAIR 00-25-403
2. RCM PROCESS:
a. RCM ANALYSIS TASKS:

(1) All the failure data is inputted into IRCMS database and is analyzed using
RCM decision logic.
(a) If required, the FMECA is updated.
(b) New PM actions recommended.
(c) Changes to existing PM tasks are identified.
(2) SSWG to review of RCM recommendations.
(3) Documenting and recommending:
(a) CIP actions
(b) Fatigue life-monitoring changes
(c) Age exploration tasks
(d) Failure consequences & rates change
b. IMPLEMENTATION TASKS:
(1) Determine manpower, support equipment, and material requirements for PM
task.
(2) Input PM costs into the IRCMS database.
(3) Perform cost effectiveness analysis of RCM recommended PM tasks.
(4) Perform packaging of accepted RCM PM tasks.
(5) Update LSA/MP.
(6) Update publications including MRC decks.
ATTACHMENT (2)
A-74
NAVAIR 00-25-403
DETAILED INFORMATION FOR CALCULATING [AIRCRAFT MODEL ID] PPS METRICS
Note:
(1) Engine Flight Hours (EFH) = Aircraft Flight Hours x
Number of Engines
(2) Goals/Norms should be established for Metrics 1,2,3,4.
1. Cost / Engine Flight Hour - Total cost of engine operation, including Contractor
Engineering and Technical Services (CETS), Modification (Mod) Kits, CIP, Depot engine
rework cost, I and O level consumables and labor, and Aviation Depot Level Repairable
(AVDRL), divided by total Engine Flight Hours (EFH).
2. Time on Wing (Mean Time between Removal) - The total number of EFH(s) divided by
the total number of items removed from that system during a stated period. Mean engine
flight hours between unscheduled removals, excluding removals to facilitate maintenance
and removals for product improvement (Change incorporation).
3. Abort Rate / 1000 EFH (In-flight and preflight) - Based on VIDS/MAF records with:
a. A transaction code of 11 or 12
b. A when discovered code of –A- or –C-
c. A maintenance level of 1
d. The job control number suffix blank and an action taken code other than J, K, L, M, N,
Q, S, or T
Rate is computed by dividing the number of aborts by the total EFH over the same period
and then multiplying by 1000.
4. Direct MMH / EFH - Total maintenance man-hours (scheduled and unscheduled)
expended on an engine divided by the total engine flight hours over the same period of time.
5. Unscheduled Removal Cause / 1000 Hours - All engines having a status-star code of
2474 and not having a reason code of:
3W Cannibalization
3X Cannibalization (Administrative)
4D Direct Removal
5G High Time
6A Mod/Technical Directive Compliance (TDC) Incorporation
6V LCF
7C High Time Component
7D High Time Engine
ATTACHMENT (3)
A-75
NAVAIR 00-25-403
7E Hourly Engine Maintenance Program (HEMP)/Hot Section Inspection (HSI)

Rate is computed by dividing the number of removals for each cause by the total EFH over
the same period and then multiplying by 1000.
6. Top 10 Engine/Component Degraders - A ranking list of aircraft/engine components,
developed by the Assistant Program Managers, Logistics (APML)/Logistics Managers (LM),
which are having the highest adverse impact on readiness and operational support cost.
7. Cause for in-flight aborts - A ranking of the major causes of aborts also showing the
number of aborts for each cause. Ranking may also be broken down to the module or
component level.
8. Maintenance Actions / EFH - A count of O-level jobs (Visual Information Display
System/Maintenance Action Form (VIDS/MAF) records) divided by the total EFH for the
same period.
9. Number of active Safety Action Records (SAR) - The number of open and monitor
category SAR(s) obtained from the program System Safety Working Group.
10. System Safety Working Group top ten action items, Propulsion and Power related
- A ranking from the System Safety Working Group of the propulsion and power related top
concerns from a safety stand point.
ATTACHMENT (3)
A-76
NAVAIR 00-25-403
AI AV-8B PPS MAJOR INTERMEDIATE AND DEPOT PREVENTATIVE

TASK INTERVAL HISTORY AND RCM GOALS
9 RCRAFT MODEL IDX
F402-RR-408A/B PM Intervals History/Goals
3000 LPC 2 Spacer LCF life driven
2500
2000
Entry Into
Service
1500 Reduction in PM
Interval
Current Interval
RCM Goal
1000
500
0
Engine LPC MRA HPC Rotor Combustion HPT MRA LPT MRA Exhaust Exhaust Duct
MRA Diffuser MRA MRA
ATTACHMENT (4)
A-77/(A-78 Blank)

NAVAIR 00-25-403
EXAMPLE OF QUARTERLY REPORT

1. OBJECTIVE: This condition monitoring report was developed as part of the [ACFT ID] PPS
RCM/AE Program to identify potential problem areas and PM actions.
2. DESCRIPTION: The condition monitoring report provides the results of trend analysis and
top degrader analyses performed on the [ENGINE ID] PPS for (specified time period).
a. Trend analysis is performed by using failure data from the baseline period (calendar
year 19__) to develop a mean and upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL) of the analysis
parameters. The analysis parameters are derived from the metrics identified in paragraph
4.5.1. The UCL and LCL are three standard deviations from the mean. Data is analyzed
quarterly to identify items exceeding the UCL or LCL. An investigation is performed to
determine the cause action is proposed. The item is then monitored to ensure the action has
the desired effect.
b. Top degrader analysis identifies the top ten degraders in terms readiness, reliability and
cost. An investigation is performed to determine the cause of the problem, and action is
proposed.
3. DATA SOURCE: Data is obtained through Naval Aviation Logistics Data Analysis (NALDA)
queries of Naval Aviation 3-M data. Data is obtained and analyzed through the ERAP program.
4. CURRENT TREND ANALYSIS INVESTIGATIONS: (For each item that is outside the
control limits for the current data period or for items which have previously been investigated
and are open for action.)
NOTE
Items may be removed from the report after being closed in a
previous report.
a. Investigation results.
b. Recommendation (Should include RCM efforts/results).
c. Action required.
d. Status (open or closed).
e. A plot of the current trend data.
5. TOP DEGRADERS
a. List of top degraders for each analysis parameter.
b. Investigation results for each item.
c. Recommendation for each item.
d. Action required for each item.
e. Status for each item
6. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM ACTIVITY
Changes made to PM program to enhance Cost-wise Readiness.
ATTACHMENT (5)
A-79/(A-80 Blank)

NAVAIR 00-25-403
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
RCM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (FY)

2000 2003 2004 2005 2006
ACTION
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
A. RCM DEFINITION
PROGRAM PLAN UPDATES A A A
IDENTIFY METRICS UPDATES A A A A
B. RCM IMPLEMENTATION
POPULATE IRCMS FMECA DATABASE C
FROM AWS FMECA DATABASE
COMPLETE FUNCTIONS AND

FUNCTIONAL FAILURES ENTRIES
VENDOR REVIEW OF FUNCTION &

FUNCTIONAL FAILURE ENTRIES
COMPLETE FAILURE MODE

ENTRIES
VENDOR REVIEW OF FAILURE

MODE ENTRIES
PERFORM RCM ANALYSIS
REVIEW ANALYSIS RESULTS
PACKAGE PM TASKS
RCM REVIEW MEETINGS Q Q Q Q

IMPLEMENT PM TASK CHANGES
AGE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ISSUED
IMPLEMENT AE TASKS
CORRECT OTHER PUBLICATION

DEFICIENCIES
ATTACHMENT (6)
A-81
NAVAIR 00-25-403
C. RCM SUSTAINMENT
COLLECT FAILURE DATA
PERFORM RCM REVIEWS S S S S

UPDATE IRCMS DATABASE S S S S
REVIEW ANALYSIS RESULTS S S S S
PACKAGE PM TASKS S S S S
IMPLEMENT PM TASK CHANGES S S S S
IMPLEMENT AE TASKS A A
PERFORM RCM PROGRAM A A
EVALUATIONS
RCM PROGRAM REVIEW MEETINGS A A

ISSUE RCM PROGRAM QUARTERLY Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
REPORTS
LEGEND: - Planned time to complete task

- Slippage
- Continuing task
A - Annual task
C - Task Completed
S - Semi annual task
Q - Quarterly task
ATTACHMENT (6)
A-82
NAVAIR 00-25-403
01 July 2005
APPENDIX B
RCM METHODS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 On condition task interval determination ................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Using Acceptable Probability of Failure and Task Effectiveness ........................ 2
1.2.2 Optimizing Task Intervals for Failure Modes with Non-Safety Consequences ... 4
1.2.3 Methods for Estimating Potential-to-Functional (PF) Interval............................. 5
1.3 Hard time task interval determination ..................................................................... 7

1.3.1 Weibull analysis.................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2 Testing................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.3 Fatigue analyses .................................................................................................... 7
1.3.4 Determining Hard Time Intervals for Non-Safety Related Failures..................... 7
1.4 Failure Finding Task interval Determination .......................................................... 8
B-1
NAVAIR 00-25-403
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Various methods are available for meeting the quantitative and qualitative needs of the RCM
analysis process. Some methods are widely accepted, while others are applicable only under
certain circumstances or applications. Additionally, some methods that were previously used
have been found to be suspect after review. Care must be taken to ensure that any method
adopted for performing RCM analysis is appropriate, and that any mathematical or statistical
methodology is consistent with the data inputs or assumptions used. No method or formula
should be used unless there is a clear understanding of their derivations and of the
appropriate data or assumptions that must be made for them to be valid. The following RCM
methods have been developed for computing or estimating task intervals for the various types
of RCM tasks. These methods have been reviewed and are endorsed by the NAVAIR RCM
Steering Committee for use in applications where appropriate. Other methods may be found
at the NAVAIR RCM web site or by contacting the Steering Committee. It is the
responsibility of the user to determine the appropriateness of a given method to a specific
application. Programs are encouraged to submit additional methods found helpful in
conducting the analysis to the Steering Committee via the NAVAIR RCM web site.
1.2 ON CONDITION TASK INTERVAL DETERMINATION
1.2.1 Using Acceptable Probability of Failure and Task Effectiveness

On Condition task intervals are usually based on some fraction of a potential failure to
functional failure (PF) interval. One method of determining an On Condition task interval is
based on the premise that any inspection will not be 100% effective. When acceptable
probability of failure is the basis for an on-condition task interval (such as for safety and
environmental failure modes), it will require some number of inspections over the PF interval
to ensure that the probability of failure is reduced to an acceptable level. Shown
mathematically:
NOTE:
In some cases the following equation will require modification due to the
continuous operation of a system (i.e., the inspection is performed while
the equipment is operating), or the inability to take corrective action
immediately upon recognition of the potential failure. In these cases, time
must be allotted to the time shut down the system (or make it available)
prior to having the ability to repair the potential failure. This will be
referred to as the “time to correct” or deferral time (TC), and the equation
is modified to: I=(PF-TC)/n. This should only be used when the
equipment will be used unrestricted or unmonitored following the
recognition of a potential failure condition, prior to repair.
Equation (1) I = PF/n

Where:
B-2
NAVAIR 00-25-403
PF = Potential failure to functional failure interval

n = Number of inspections in the PF interval
Assigning an acceptable probability of failure to detect a potential failure condition (and

therefore expose the item to functional failure) yields a second equation that can be used to
determine n.
Equation (2) n = ln (Pacc) / ln (1-θ)
Where:
θ = Probability of detecting a potential failure with one occurrence of the
proposed On Condition task, assuming the potential failure exists
Pacc = Acceptable probability of failure
The derivation for this method is as follows:

If θ is the probability of detecting a potential failure in one inspection, assuming the potential
failure exists, the probability of not detecting it is (1 - θ). The probability of not detecting the
n
potential failure in n inspections is (1 - θ) . The intent of the task is to reduce probability of
missing the potential failure to an acceptable level, Pacc. The Pacc is that established for a
single failure mode. (For hidden failures, the acceptable probability of failure will be based
on the probability of the failure/event that makes the hidden failure evident. Therefore Pacc of
the hidden failure equals the Pacc established for the critical failure (i.e., for the multiple
failure/demand event) divided by the probability of the protected failure or demand event)
Described mathematically: Pacc = (1 - θ)n. Solving for n yields equation (2) above.
NOTE:
Recognize this equation is not precise in that it calculates the Pacc based
on the assumption the potential failure exists. This is a conservative
assumption and encourages the use of highly reliable inspection
techniques. If a more precise interval were desired, the actual failure
rate and failure mechanism and distribution would need to be
considered in more detail. However, as more precision is pursued, the
loss of conservatism must be weighed against the confidence in the data
sources to ensure adequate levels of protection against failure are
maintained. If more precision is attempted, the analyst must also
consider, when establishing the acceptable levels of probability at the
end item level, that there are usually multiple safety/environmental
consequence failure modes.
B-3
NAVAIR 00-25-403
This method is appropriate for failure modes with safety/environmental and hidden
safety/environmental consequences. It may also be used to provide an estimated value for n
for non-safety consequences provided an acceptable probability of failure is identified.
However, for economic failure modes an additional step to ensure that the task is cost-
effective must be performed as follows:
Cpm + Ccm < Cnopm

Where:
Cpm = Cost of the preventive maintenance program
Ccm = Cost of corrective maintenance with preventive maintenance in place
considering the potential and functional failures that will occur
Cnopm = Cost of correcting functional failures as they occur without the preventive
maintenance program in place
1.2.2 Optimizing Task Intervals for Failure Modes with Non-Safety Consequences
Another method for determining the number of inspections, n, in the potential failure to
functional failure interval for failure modes with non-safety consequences is to use a cost
optimization formula such as the following:
 − MTBF 
 Ci 
ln PF n
 
(Cnpm − Cpf ) ln (1 − θ )
=
ln (1 − θ )
Where:
PF = Potential failure to functional failure interval
CI = Cost of one preventive maintenance task
= (DMMH for inspection) (Labor Cost per hour) + Consumable cost
Cpf = Cost of correcting one potential failure

= (DMMH to correct potential failure) (Labor Cost per hour) + Spares and
Material costs
Cnpm = Cost of not doing preventive maintenance

= Ccm + Copc
B-4
NAVAIR 00-25-403
Note
If Cnpm is equal to Cpf, there is no benefit in discovering
potential failure before functional failure.
Ccm = Cost of corrective maintenance

= (DMMH for repair) (Labor Cost per hour) + (Spares and material costs)
Copc = Costs due to operational impact (if established). (If not easily defined, one
method to quantify this impact is to divide lost operational time due to
unscheduled repair of functional failures by total planned operational time
(e.g., divide unscheduled downtime hours by total planned available hours)
and multiply by the acquisition cost of the end item.)
θ = Probability of detecting a potential failure with the proposed On Condition
task, assuming the potential failure exists
If the solution to the above equation shows n ≤ 0, it is not cost effective to perform an On
Condition task to address the failure mode under evaluation. If n ≥ 1, divide the PF by n to
determine the appropriate task interval. If 0 < n < 1, the minimum cost effective task interval
is obtained by setting n = 1 and PF becomes the task interval.
The above equation should be used carefully since it is built on the assumption that each
potential failure prevents one functional failure. If the equation is being used to evaluate a
task that is expected to result in repeated potential failure repairs to prevent one functional
failure, the cost of all repaired potential failures for each functional failure must be
considered. Failure to do so will invalidate the equation and promote implementation of
tasks that are not cost effective.
1.2.3 Methods for Estimating Potential-to-Functional (PF) Interval

Various methods may be used to estimate PF intervals, including engineering judgment,
maintenance and operating personnel input, test and engineering data, material properties,
and statistical methods using maintenance and operations data. One method that has been
used to estimate the PF interval is to utilize findings from an existing On Condition task.
If an existing task is effective at finding potential failures and preventing functional failures,
it may be reasonable to conclude the PF interval is significantly longer than the current
inspection interval. Discussion with maintenance and operational personnel, evaluation of
the inspection technique (to estimate probability of detection), and review of maintenance
data (to determine how far into the failure/degradation process the potential failures have
progressed) will aid in establishing the estimated PF. Once the PF is determined, the above
methods can be used to set the inspection interval. However, care should be taken not to be
overly conservative in estimating the PF such that the new task interval is significantly
shorter than an existing effective task, without justification.
If an existing PM task is less effective than desired (i.e., more than an acceptable number of
functional failures have occurred with the current task in place), and that task is being
considered for continued use, an estimate of PF can be made from the current task interval.
B-5
NAVAIR 00-25-403
However, this method requires significant in-service data on potential and functional failures
found, to determine the current task's effectiveness, as follows:
If PF is expected to be longer than the existing inspection interval, PF can be estimated by
the following:
PF = ( ln (1 - α) / ln (1-θ)) * I
When PF expected to be shorter than the existing inspection interval, the formula becomes:
PF = (α / θ) * I
NOTE:
If the first equation is used, and PF is determined to be shorter than I,

consider whether θ may be less effective than estimated and recalculate, or
recalculate PF using the second equation. If the second equation is used, and
PF is determined to be longer than I, consider whether θ may be more
effective than estimated and recalculate, or recalculate PF using the first
equation.
Where:
α = Task Effectiveness (i.e., number of potential failures found divided by total
failures (potential and functional)
θ = Probability of detecting a potential failure with the current On Condition task
(assuming the potential failure exists)
I = Current Task Interval
Care should be taken in using this method as it is dependent on good in-service data and
estimates of θ. The resulting PF should be evaluated using engineering judgment,
maintainer/operator input, and any other information sources to ensure it is reasonable and
consistent with the failure mode under consideration. The analyst must also consider
whether the information from the existing task is indicative of a situation where a consistent
PF condition or progression is not a characteristic of the failure mode under consideration,
and therefore an OC task would be inappropriate. Once the PF is determined, the methods
described in previous paragraphs can be used to set the new inspection interval.
If a different inspection method will be considered for replacing an existing task for a given
failure mode, the new inspection interval should be based on the probability of detection of
the PF condition (θ) using the new inspection method.
B-6
NAVAIR 00-25-403
1.3 HARD TIME TASK INTERVAL DETERMINATION
1.3.1 Weibull analysis

Weibull analysis is a statistical technique that uses failure data to provide accurate failure
predictions. It provides a method for determining probability of failure as a function of time.
This is useful for determining Hard Time task intervals by selecting the time at which the
number of occurrences of the failure mode reaches an unacceptable level.
1.3.2 Testing
Testing is another means to determine safe-life limits or wear out ages of items. Many
components require certification tests that ensure that the component will operate for a
certain period without failure. Aircraft structure, for example, is usually tested to failure
under a full-scale fatigue test to ensure that it will remain crack-free for the life of the
aircraft. When airframe cracks are found unexpectedly, coupon testing is sometimes
performed to determine the life to crack initiation of the suspect component. Statistical
techniques such as Weibull may then be applied using the test data to determine appropriate
task intervals.
1.3.3 Fatigue analyses

Fatigue analysis can be used to determine an item’s life to crack initiation, which, in turn, can
be used as a basis to establish a Hard Time task interval. In-service failures that occur
because of fatigue may be avoided by setting Hard Time limits at or below the life to crack
initiation limit. Appropriate safety factors must be considered and included when
establishing these limits.
1.3.4 Determining Hard Time Intervals for Non-Safety Related Failures

Non-safety related Hard Time tasks are only required to cost less than the failure
consequences they are designed to prevent. The formula used to ensure this is as follows:
(C BF × N S ) + (C AF × (1 − N S ))
N S t + [(1 − N S ) MTTFP ]
CBR =
C AF
MTBF
Where: CBR = cost benefit ratio
CBF = cost of rework/replacement before failure
NS = the percent of items that survive to the proposed task interval
t = the proposed task interval
CAF = cost of repair/replacement and collateral damage (if any) after failure
(if operational impacts have been converted to costs, ensure they are
included)
B-7
NAVAIR 00-25-403
MTBF = mean time between failure (with no preventive task in place)

MTTFP = mean time to failure of items that fail before the proposed task interval
Tasks that have CBR values of less than 1 are considered cost effective. Since MTTFP may
be difficult to obtain, a reasonable estimate may be made using the estimated percentage of
the proposed replacement age premature failures will achieve (on average) (i.e., replace
MTTFP with (K x t) where K is estimated percent of task interval premature failures
achieve). Items with infant mortality issues following rework or replacement will generally
have a lower percentage (i.e., lower MTTFP). If premature failures are expected to be evenly
distributed throughout the period before replacement, 50 percent may be a reasonable
estimate for this entry (K).
1.4 FAILURE FINDING TASK INTERVAL DETERMINATION

The probability of multiple failure can be set to a level that is acceptable to a program
following the same logic as that used in establishing the acceptable probability of functional
failures for evaluating On Condition tasks for hidden safety/environmental failure modes.
The following equation can be used to model the probability of multiple failure condition:
Equation (1) Pmf = Phidden x Padditional

Where:
Pmf = Probability of multiple failure occurring
Phidden = Probability of the hidden failure occurring
Padditional = Probability of an additional failure occurring
Assuming a random failure distribution for Phidden and Padditional, equation (2) can be used to
model these probabilities of failure from equation (1) by establishing the probability over
time:
Equation (2) P = 1 - e-t / MTBF

Where:
P = Probability over the time period
t = Time period
MTBF = Mean Time Between Failures
The desired MTBF for the function (i.e., multiple failure) can be established by setting an
acceptable probability of failure over a known timeframe (e.g., life of the item) and solving
for MTBF. If the MTBF for the hidden and additional failure (or event) can be determined
(or estimated), the equation is easily solved by iterating the two equations on a spreadsheet to
find the appropriate time period (t), which becomes the inspection interval.
B-8

RCM Methodology - NAVAIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCM Methodology - NAVAIR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCM Methodology - NAVAIR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://www.everyspec.

GUIDELINES FOR THE NAVAL AVIATION

This manual supersedes NAVAIR 00-25-403 dated 01 March 2003.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. - Approved for public release; distribution is

PUBLISHED BY DIRECTION OFCOMMANDER, NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND

NATEC ELECTRONIC MANUAL

PLACE THIS NOTICE SHEET BEHIND MANUAL TITLE PAGE AFTER

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES

PAGE NO. #CHG PAGE NO #CHG PAGE NO #CHG

*Zero (0) in this column indicates an original page

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES.................................................................................................. A

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................i

I INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

2.4.5 Extent of Analysis.................................................................................................. 2-14

3.4 RCM DECISION LOGIC.......................................................................................... 3-12

3.6.1.1 Cost ................................................................................................................. 3-29

5.2.7.2 Non-RCM Corrective Action.................................................................... 5-7

5.4 ASSESSMENT OF RCM PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS..................................... 5-9

2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... A-3

3 SCOPE ............................................................................................................. A-6

4 SUSTAINING THE PROGRAM........................................................................ A-6

4.4.3 Data Sorting (Potential or Functional)......................................................... A-14

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ A-39

6.0 RCM PROGRAM EVALUATION ................................................................... A-68

7.0 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................ A-69

8.0 MILESTONE CHART ..................................................................................... A-69

9.0 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... A-69

∗ Hardware Partition– The logical hierarchical division of an asset into progressively

∗ COMNAVAIRFOR Commander, Naval Air Forces

∗ OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

1.5 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

RCM PLAN Plan that describes how the RCM

FEEDBACK In-service data

Figure 2-1 RCM Process Map

2.2 RCM DURING ACQUISITION PHASES

2.2.1 Prior to Milestone A (Concept & Technology Development)

∗ RCM should be identified as an integral function of the Maintenance

2.2.2 Prior to Milestone B (System Development and Demonstration)

∗ A Baseline Comparison Study of preventive maintenance requirements (using like

2.2.3 Prior to Milestone C (Production & Deployment)

∗ The Baseline Comparison Study of preventive maintenance requirements should be

∗ An Age Exploration program should be established as an integral part of the overall

∗ The Baseline Comparison Study of preventive maintenance requirements should be

2.3 RCM TEAM ESTABLISHMENT (Management, Analysis, Sustainment)

2.3.1 RCM Team Composition

2.3.1.1 Program Management

2.3.1.2 Fleet Support Team

2.3.1.4 Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or Supporting Contractors

2.3.1.5 Equipment Controlling Custodians, Operators, & Maintainers

2.3.2 Ancillary Support Requirements

2.3.3 Knowledge and Skills Requirements

2.3.4 Contracting For RCM

2.3.5 Conducting The Analysis

2.4 SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

2.4.1 Determining Scope of Analysis

∗ Identify analysis approach to include:

2.4.2 Hardware Partitioning