Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Optimizing Inspection Intervals Through Risk Evaluation in Aircraft Structures Cover

Optimizing Inspection Intervals Through Risk Evaluation in Aircraft Structures

Open Access
|Jul 2025

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Risk assessment flowchart.

Figure 2.

No findings, probabilistic Safe-Life methodology.

Figure 3.

Damage tolerance PDTA methodology.

Figure 4.

In-Flight refueling bell crank.

Table 1.

Example of data for Safe-Life analysis (extract).

Aircraft actual FHTail numberSuspension (FH)Finding (FH)
595410015954
600110023783
518910034088
619810046198
Figure 5.

Safe-Life, Bell Crank Weibull distribution.

Figure 6.

Fleet risk comparison with different inspection intervals.

Figure 7.

Crack growth analysis (left) and the residual strength calculation (right).

Figure 8.

Max load per flight fitting - Gumbel [7.4187, 3.53].

Figure 9.

Example of Crack grown to its initial size (left), EIFS/EIDS Distribution (right).

Figure 10.

SFPOF vs. FH, with inspections.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fas-2024-0007 | Journal eISSN: 2300-7591 | Journal ISSN: 2081-7738
Language: English
Page range: 89 - 101
Published on: Jul 7, 2025
Published by: ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2025 Michea Ferrari, Juan D. Ocampo, Samson Taylor, Viola Ferrari, Dimitri Wahlen, Mattia Lüchinger, Mirco Figliolino, published by ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.