International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology REDUCTION OF DEFECT RATE IN THE LINE
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION PROCESS USING
SIX SIGMA METHOD IN AN INDONESIAN
AIRLINE.
Uti Roysen1*.
Imbuh Rochmad2.
Rahmat3.
Puti Lenggo Ginny4.
Singgih Juniawan5.
Daruki6.
Krim Ulwy7 1,2,5,6Mercu Buana University.
Jl.
Meruya Selatan No.
Jakarta and 11650.
Indonesia 3Sains Indonesia University.
Jl.
Akses Tol No.
Bekasi and 17530.
Indonesia 4Buddhi Dharma University.
Jl.
Imam Bonjol No.
Tangerang and 15115.
Indonesia 7An-Nikmah Al-Islamiyah Institute.
Malaysia
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Defect Rate
Line Maintenance Six Sigma
5W1H
Airline ABSTRACT An airline in Indonesia conducted an average of 21 inspection activities on 99 Boeing Series aircraft during the period from January 2024 to June 2024.
The company aims to improve efficiency by reducing the number of inspections to 5 activities per aircraft.
This study aims to determine the current sigma level, identify the root causes of the high number of inspection occurrences, evaluate the outcomes of the implemented solutions, and determine the sigma level after the The research employs Six Sigma methodology and 5W1H.
The results indicate that the primary causes of defects were insufficient training for engineers/mechanics, poor component quality, and outdated inspection tools.
After implementing corrective actions such as retraining, updating SOPs, replacing lowquality components, and upgrading inspection tools, defects were reduced from 2,055 occurrences on 99 aircraft to 400 occurrences on 73 aircraft.
Consequently, the DPMO decreased from 104,309 to 27,534.
93, and the sigma level improved 796 to 3.
This study demonstrates that a systematic Six Sigma approach can enhance efficiency and quality in aircraft maintenance.
A 2024 International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology.
All rights reserved Introduction O The aviation industry is a sector that heavily relies on high safety and reliability standards to prevent failures that could lead to serious incidents .
Pressure from international regulations and customer expectations drives airlines to improve aircraft maintenance processes continuously .
With increasing competition, operational efficiency and defect reduction have become top priorities to ensure business sustainability and enhance global competitiveness .
Line inspections within the line maintenance division of an airline play a crucial role in ensuring the safety O Corresponding author.
E-mail address: singgih.
djuniawan@gmail.
and operational reliability of aircraft.
These inspections involve routine, light checks conducted Figure 1.
Inspection Activity January - June 2024 International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology between the aircraft's arrival and departure at the airport .
They include visual checks, inspections of navigation equipment, and the identification of potential defects or malfunctions that could impact flight safety, as well as ensuring the aircraft's readiness for its next flight .
rom the table for a 95% confidence leve.
, ycyycy is the proportion of 0.
5, and yccycc is the margin of error of Substituting the values into the formula yields a sample size of 79 aircraft, rounded to 80 samples.
The inspection report from an airline for the period of January 2024 to June 2024 indicates that there were 2,055 inspection activities conducted on 99 aircraft, resulting in an average of 21 inspections per aircraft (Figure .
The company aims to reduce the number of inspections to 5 per aircraft during line In the study by Rochmawati & Fahma .
, the application of the Six Sigma method successfully reduced defects in the cabin components of Boeing 737-800 aircraft, explicitly lowering the defect level for placards to 3.
73 and for tables to 3.
Meanwhile, research by Warinah & Nusraningrum .
, demonstrated that the number of defects in five Critical to Quality attributes was reduced from 3,898 to 2,056, raising the sigma level from 4.
16 to Based on this phenomenon, this research aims to determine the current sigma level, identify the root causes of the high frequency of inspections, evaluate the implementation of solutions, and measure the sigma level after improvements.
Equation 2:
Calculating Defect Opportunities:
yayaycyc = ycEycE .
yayaycuycu Defect opportunities are calculated using Where yaya is the Defect rate in the inspection process.
Q is the number of aircraft units and Do is the Defect opportunities per aircraft unit.
Calculating Current DPMO The defect per million opportunities (DPMO) is calculated to determine the sigma level before improvement, using Equation 3.
yayayayayayayaya = Define The initial activity involves defining the objectives of the engineering practice, specifically focused on reducing the defect rate in the inspection process.
This step ensures that activities remain focused and stay consistent with the main goal .
OIyaya .
Where DPMO is Defects per million opportunities, iD is the number of inspection defects, yayaycyc is the Defect rate in the inspection process.
The conversion of DPMO to the sigma level can be seen in Table 1 .
Table 1.
DPMO to Sigma Level Methods The data analysis technique, once all data has been collected, is processed using the DMAIC method and Root Cause Analysis.
The detailed sequence of processes is as follows (Figure .
yayaycyc = ycEycE .
DPMO
Sigma Level Percent Meeting CCR' 50,0000% 69,1500% 84,1300% 93,3200% 97,7300% 99,3790% 99,8650% 99,9770% 99,9997% Measure Analyze This measurement phase is crucial for obtaining objectivity regarding the existing problems through several activities, including the following .
The analysis process uses a fishbone diagram to develop comprehensive solutions to address the problems .
This activity is carried out through Focus Group Discussions consisting of members from the Working Group.
PPC, and Engineering teams, each with over five years of work experience .
Calculating the sample size The sample size in this study is calculated using Equation 1:
ycAycA.
ycsycs 2 .
Oe ycyyc.
ycuycu = ( 1 ) 4.
Improve .
cAycA Oe .
yccycc 2 .
csycs 2 .
Oe ycyyc.
) The improvement phase involves several steps, such as .
Where N is the number of aircraft in the reporting period .
Z is the confidence level score of Uti Roysen.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Puti Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Finding solutions using the 5W 1H method (What.
Why.
Who.
When.
Where, and Ho.
Calculating Future DPMO using Equation 2.
Comparing Future DPMO and Current DPMO This comparison is conducted to assess the effectiveness of the implemented solutions using the DPMO indicator .
If the post-improvement DPMO is lower than the pre-improvement DPMO, the improvement is considered successful, and further control mechanisms are established .
the post-improvement DPMO is higher, the process returns to the analysis and improvement stages .
Control This phase involves developing control procedures based on the improvement results, oriented toward Statistical Process Control (SPC) .
Daily reporting is conducted to monitor and take corrective actions if values exceed the Upper Control Limit (UCL) or fall below the Lower Control Limit (LCL) .
Pengolahan Data Current DPMO Analyze 5W 1H Improve Define is the initial stage in identifying the problems to be addressed in this research.
The critical components of this stage include:
SIPOC Diagram SIPOC stands for Supplier.
Input.
Process.
Output, and Customer, and it outlines the flow of the business process from the supplier to the customer, moving from left to right.
The SIPOC diagram for this research is presented in the table.
Critical to Quality is a component within the Define phase that serves as a key element to help the organization identify specific customer requirements and establish a benchmark for quality improvement in line inspections.
The results of the CTQ analysis for this research are presented in Figure 3.
Define Measure Define Critical to Quality (CTQ) Sigma Defect Opportunities operational testing, and commissioning .
Therefore, the quality of the inspection process plays a crucial role in ensuring that all subsequent procedures are completed effectively .
The Six Sigma method is used to eliminate quantitative deficiencies and identify the root causes of issues within the inspection process.
The stages for implementing Six Sigma include Define.
Measure.
Analyze.
Improve, and Control .
Fish-bone Diagram
Future DPMO
Air Conditioning Autoflight
Future > Current
DPMO ?
Communications Tidak Electrical Power Equipment/Furnishings Control Fire Protection Figure 2.
Research Flow Process Flight Controls Fuel Results and Discussions Ice and Rain Protection In one of the maintenance divisions of an Indonesian airline, the primary responsibility is to perform aircraft maintenance and servicing to ensure smooth service operations .
The bottleneck in the maintenance process lies in the inspection phase, which has a deterrent effect on subsequent processes, repair/replacement.
Indicating/Recording Systems Landing Gear Inspection Table 2.
SIPOC Diagram Supplier - Batik Air - Lion Air - Thai Lion - Malindo Input Trouble Aircraft Process Maintenance - Inspection - Troubleshoot - Repair/ Replacement - Operational Test - Comisioning Lights Navigation Oxygen Vacuum/Pressure Water/Waste Central Maintenance System Output Information Systems Customer Airworthiness Doors Aircraft - Batik Air - Lion Air Propellers - Thai Lion Engine Fuel and Control - Malindo Engine Indicating Engine Oil International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology 05, indicating that the data follows a normal Figure 3.
CTQ of Inspection Measure The Measure phase aims to evaluate the current quality condition of the companyAos line inspection activities using several methods, including:
Defect per Million Opportunities (DPMO) Before calculating the defect per million opportunities, an initial data check is performed through normality tests to determine whether the data In Figure 4 .
, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test resulted in a p-value greater than 0.
150, confirming that the data is usually distributed.
Having established that the data is usually distributed through the Anderson-Darling and KolmogorovSmirnov tests, the next step is to calculate the defect per million opportunities as follows:
Calculate defect opportunities using Equation 1 .
Figure 4.
Normality test for Inspection Line: .
Anderson-Darling.
Kolmogorov-Smirnof distribution is normal.
The results of the normality tests for the inspection activities are shown in Figure yayaycyc = ycEycE .
yayaycuycu In Figure 4 .
, the Anderson-Darling normality test produced a p-value of 0.
578, which is greater than Based on the calculation, the defect opportunities for 99 Boeing Series aircraft amount to 19,701.
yayaycyc = 99 .
199 = 19.
701 yccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccycc ycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycu Uti Roysen.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Puti Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Calculate Current DPMO using Equation 2 by substituting the defect opportunities result:
yayayayayayayaya = yayayayayayayaya = OIyaya .
106 = 104.
309,43
The initial DPMO before improvement is 104,309 defects per million opportunities.
Using Table 1 to convert this value, the corresponding sigma level is 796 sigma.
Control Chart The Control Chart provides an overview of the defects occurring due to suboptimal inspection Table 3 details the number of defects encountered in each inspection activity conducted on 99 aircraft over the period from January 2024 to June Table 3.
Defect Inspection January - June 2024 ATA Chapter Inspection Air Conditioning Autoflight Communications Electrical Power Equipment/Furnishings Fire Protection Flight Controls Fuel Ice and Rain Indicating/Recording Systems Landing Gear Lights Navigation Oxygen Vacuum/Pressure Water/Waste Central Maintenance Information Systems Doors Propellers Engine Fuel and Control Engine Indicating Engine Oil Total Oppurtinities Defect After obtaining the data presented in Table 3, the next step is to create a control chart using Minitab.
The results are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Control Chart Inspection Process January June 2024 Based on the plotted chart in Figure 5, data points marked as boxes with a value of 1 that fall outside the Upper Control Limit (UCL) and Lower Control Limit (LCL) indicate that the inspection process in those areas is not optimal and requires improvement.
Analyze Pareto Diagram Based on the results of the data processing for the types of inspection defects classified by ATA (Air Transport Associatio.
for the period from January 2024 to June 2024, the details are provided in Table Table 4.
Complaint Defect Inspection
System
Lights Equipment/Furnishings Navigation Air Conditioning Communications Autoflight
Flight Controls Indicating/Recording Systems Landing Gear
Ice and Rain
Fuel
Fire Protection Electrical Power
Central Maintenance Vacuum/Pressure Oxygen
Water/Waste Information Systems Propellers Doors Engine Oil
Engine Indicating Engine Fuel and Defect
Qty Percentage Cumulative 12,311% 11,582% 11,192% 12,311% 23,893% 35,085% 10,560% 10,073% 9,732% 8,954% 45,645% 55,718% 65,450% 74,404% 8,467% 82,871% 2,141% 1,946% 1,800% 1,752% 1,606% 1,460% 1,314% 1,119% 1,022% 0,876% 0,681% 0,584% 0,438% 0,292%
0,097%
85,012%
86,959%
88,759%
90,511%
92,117%
93,577%
94,891%
96,010%
97,032%
97,908%
98,589%
99,173%
99,611%
99,903%
100,000%
International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Based on the data in Figure 6, it is identified that the most frequent defects to be mitigated using a fishbone diagram in the line inspection process Figure 6.
Pareto Diagram of Complaints Defect January - June 2024 validated through the judgment of an Engineer with over twenty years of experience in the field of Aircraft Maintenance.
The fishbone diagrams for the eight identified problems are presented in Figures 714.
Based on the Fishbone Diagram analysis, it is evident that the primary causes of defects in the aircraft maintenance process are multifaceted, involving a combination of human, component, tool, method, and environmental factors, which include:
Human Factors Issues commonly found across all categories include inadequate training and high levels of operator fatigue, often exacerbated by ineffective supervision and high work pressure.
These human factors lead to errors, negligence, and improper handling of systems or equipment.
Component Quality Many defects originate from the use of low-quality or non-durable components, resulting in frequent component failures.
Problems such as sensor degradation, weak structures, and short component lifespans highlight the need for improved supplier management and the use of more durable materials.
Lights Equipment/Furnishings Navigation Air Conditioning Communications Autoflight Flight Controls Indicating/Recording Systems Fishbone Diagram The fishbone diagram is used to explore the problems identified from the Pareto analysis to gain a broad perspective for developing solutions in subsequent stages using the 5W1H method.
The creation of the fishbone diagram was carried out through Focus Group Discussion (FGD) involving experts with more than five years of work experience from the Working Group.
PPC, and Engineering.
During this activity, all participants contributed to identifying various problem causes based on their own The results of the FGD were then Short bulb lifespan Tools and Equipment The analysis indicates that outdated, inaccurate, or inadequate tools significantly contribute to defects.
The need for calibration and routine maintenance of diagnostic and repair tools reduces the effectiveness of inspections and repairs.
Method Gaps Unclear, outdated, or poorly structured Standard Operating Procedures (SOP.
, along with ineffective inspection methods, lead to inefficiencies and errors.
The lack of routine updates, inadequate documentation, and ineffective audit processes further exacerbate these issues.
Untrained operators Human error in handling Negligence during inspection Unstable socket connections Extreme weather exposure Difficult-to-understand documentation Inaccurate lighting test equipment Poor workspace lighting Excessive dust and dirt Manual checks Inadequate cleaning tools Broken light tester Figure 7.
Fishbone Diagram of Lights Defect Uti Roysen.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Puti Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Low attention to detail Non-durable components Lack of operator training Fragile furniture materials Loose bolts Miscommunication Equipment/Furnishings High noise levels Broken equipment Limited workspace Infrequent tool calibration Complicated repair procedures Inaccurate installation tools Constant aircraft vibration Figure 9.
Fishbone Diagram of Equipment Defect Damaged antenna Fatigue Lack of system understanding Components not weather-resistant Incorrect data input Outdated sensors Navigation Electromagnetic interference Outdated navigation SOP Outdated software Disrupted navigation signals Inadequate data verification procedures Unscheduled inspections Temperature fluctuations Inaccurate calibration tools Broken navigation testers Figure 8.
Fishbone Diagram of Navigation Defect Leaky ducts Improper system operation Worn-out compressor Lack of supervision Lack of operator training Poorly designed airflow systems Slow response Dirty filters Air Conditioning No scheduled Limited cleaning equipment Inefficient air quality monitors Outdated diagnostic tools Manual procedures Incomplete maintenance kits Figure 10.
Fishbone Diagram of Air Conditioning Defect International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Operators not understanding the system Weak transmitters Damaged cables Unresponsiveness Loose Miscommunication Communications High electromagnetic Irregular signal inspections Signal interference Inefficient monitoring tools Inaccurate frequency testers Insufficient spare equipment Unpredictable weather Drastic weather changes Incomplete documentation Missing equipment Outdated communication SOPs Figure 11.
Fishbone Diagram of Communication Defect Worn servo motors Lack of understanding Divided focus Faulty control modules Degraded actuators Mishandling of the system Autoflight High aircraft vibrations Poorly maintained simulators Old SOPs Ineffective inspections Insufficient spare parts.
Temperature extremes Manual testing limitations Long troubleshooting procedures Pressure changes.
Incompatible simulation tools Malfunctioning testers Figure 12.
Fishbone Diagram of Autoflight Defect Worn control cables Lack of knowledge High replacement costs Malfunctioning actuators Loose hinges Operator error Poor handoff between shifts Negligence Flight Controls Extreme turbulence Limited workspace Inadequate inspection Ineffective SOPs Broken testers Inaccurate precision tools Temperature variations Outdated methods Outdated repair Figure 13.
Fishbone Diagram of Filight Controls Uti Roysen.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Puti Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology High workload stress High cost of replacement parts Unresponsive sensors Lack of awareness of system updates Lack of system knowledge Faulty internal components Data input errors Overlapping job responsibilities Inattentive operators Cracked screens Indicating/Recording Systems Metal corrosion Extreme temperatures Ignored SOPs Lack of standardized procedures Lack of proper Manual monitoring inefficiencies Rushed inspections High humidity Outdated calibration tools Broken monitoring equipment Old software Figure 14.
Fishbone Diagram of Indicating/ Recording System Defect Environmental Challenges Environmental conditions, such as high humidity, extreme temperature fluctuations, poor ventilation, and continuous exposure to outdoor elements, negatively impact component performance and the working conditions of maintenance personnel.
Improvement The 5W 1H method (What.
Why.
Who.
When.
Where, and Ho.
is used in improvement activities to find solutions to the various root causes identified in the fishbone diagram.
This improvement activity is conducted through Focus Group Discussions (FGD.
involving different participants who have over five years of work experience and are from the Working Group.
PPC, and Engineering departments.
These FGDs are held at different times from the root cause analysis sessions.
The results of this activity are presented in Table 5-12.
Based on Table 5-12, it is evident that the solutions improvements, targeting the leading causes identified in the Fishbone analysis.
These strategies include:
5W 1H
What Why Who When Where How Enhancing Human Resource Competency Improved training and supervision to ensure operators can perform tasks effectively and minimize errors.
Improving Component and Material Quality Using higher-quality, durable materials and components to reduce the frequency of failures.
Utilizing Advanced and Well-Maintained Tools Ensuring that modern diagnostic and maintenance tools are optimally used to support inspections and repairs.
Refining Standard Operating Procedures Updating and simplifying SOPs to increase efficiency and accuracy in the maintenance Adjusting the Work Environment Improving working conditions to reduce the negative environmental impact on system performance and personnel safety.
The implementation process for the improvement activities based on the proposed solutions was conducted in July 2024, followed by a field trial from August to October 2024.
Table 5.
5W 1H on Lights Defect Number of Complaints Address defects in aircraft lighting.
Defects occur due to low-quality bulbs, unclear inspection SOPs, and untrained operators.
The Maintenance Engineering team and operators responsible for light inspections.
Immediately, to prevent flight delays caused by lighting malfunctions.
Aircraft lighting inspection areas in the hangar and on the apron.
The above problem can be solved by:
Provide retraining for operators on lighting inspection and maintenance standards.
Implement clearer and more structured SOPs for light inspections.
Replace the bulb supplier with one offering higher-quality products.
International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Table 6.
5W 1H on Equipment/ Furnishing 5W 1H Number of Complaints What Why Reduce damage to cabin furniture.
Damage occurs due to fragile materials, imprecise installation, and untrained operators.
Who The Furnishings Maintenance team and inspection operators.
When Before the next major inspection to prevent further damage.
Where Aircraft cabin areas and maintenance hangars.
How The above problem can be solved by:
Improve the quality of materials used for cabin furniture.
Provide specialized training for furniture installation and repair.
Implement scheduled inspections using high-precision installation tools.
Table 7.
5W 1H on Navigation Defect
5W 1H
Number of Complaints What Why Address issues with the navigation system Problems are caused by damaged sensors, inaccurate calibration tools, and incorrect data input.
Who The Navigation team and operators responsible for calibration.
When Within the next month to prevent navigation disruptions that could affect flight safety.
Where Navigation control areas in the hangar and calibration stations.
How The above problem can be solved by:
Replace damaged sensors and update the navigation module.
Conduct routine calibrations using more accurate equipment.
Provide additional training on correct data input and the importance of accuracy.
Table 8.
5W 1H on Air Conditioning Defect
5W 1H
Number of Complaints What Why Improve the reliability of the aircraft's air conditioning system.
Issues arise from worn compressors, dirty filters, and operators who do not understand the system.
Who The Air Conditioning Maintenance team and technical operators.
When Immediately, especially during the summer when the air conditioning system is crucial.
Where How Maintenance hangars and air conditioning areas in the aircraft.
The above problem can be solved by:
Perform regular maintenance on compressors and clean filters frequently.
Replace old or worn components.
Provide in-depth training for operators on system maintenance and operation.
5W 1H
What Why Who When Where How Table 9.
5W 1H on Communications Defect Number of Complaints Improve the reliability of the aircraft's communication system.
Issues occur due to weak transmitters, damaged cables, and outdated communication SOPs.
The Communications team and technical operators.
Within two weeks to ensure all aircraft maintain reliable communication.
Communication control areas on the aircraft and in the maintenance hangar.
The above problem can be solved by:
Replace weak transmitters and repair damaged cables.
Update communication SOPs and ensure all staff follow the new procedures.
Conduct regular audits of the communication system to detect problems early.
Uti Roysen.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Puti Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Table 10.
5W 1H on Autoflight Defect
5W 1H
Number of Complaints What Why Enhance the performance of the autoflight system.
Issues arise from worn servo motors, incompatible simulation tools, and unfocused operators.
Who The Autoflight Engineering team and operators who manage the system.
When Before the next flight to ensure the autoflight system operates optimally.
Where Maintenance hangars and autoflight simulation rooms.
How The above problem can be solved by:
Replace worn servo motors with new, more durable ones.
Update simulation tools to be compatible with the latest systems.
Provide training for operators to stay focused and understand the autoflight system better.
Table 11.
5W 1H on Flight Controls Defect
5W 1H
Number of Complaints What Why Who When Where How Improve the flight control system.
Issues arise from loose hinges, worn control cables, and inattentive operators.
The Flight Controls team and inspection operators.
Within three weeks to maintain stable flight control.
Maintenance hangars and aircraft control areas.
The above problem can be solved by:
Tighten hinges and replace worn control cables.
Introduce stricter and more thorough inspections.
Replace theProvide specialized training to ensure operators understand the importance of accuracy in i b lb ff i hi h Table 12.
5W 1H on Indicating/Recording Systems Defect
5W 1H
Number of Complaints What Why Improve the reliability of the indicating and recording systems.
Issues occur due to unresponsive sensors, outdated calibration tools, and data input errors.
Who The Indication team and technical operators.
When Immediately to ensure all flight data is accurately recorded.
Where Maintenance hangars and recording areas on the aircraft.
How The above problem can be solved by:
Replace unresponsive sensors and update the recording devices.
Use new more precise calibration tools.
Provide training for operators to ensure data input accuracy.
The results of this implementation showed a reduction in defects on seventy-three aircraft to a total of 400 occurrences.
The field data collected followed a log-normal distribution, as confirmed by the Goodness of Fit test presented in Figure 15.
After determining the type of data distribution, calculations were made to find the DPMO value using equations 1 and 2.
The calculation process is as yayaycyc = ycEycE .
yayaycuycu yayaycyc = 73 .
199 = 14.
527 yccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccyccycc ycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycuycu Based on the calculation of defect opportunities, there were 19,701 defect opportunities for 99 Boeing Series aircraft.
This result was then used to calculate the Current DPMO using equation 2 as follows:
yayayayayayayaya = yayayayayayayaya = OIyaya .
106 = 27.
534,93
International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Name ID.
Month Table 13.
Training Sheet Engineer/ Mechanic Sheet Training Type Sign Sigma Level Control Chart Figure 15.
Goodness of Fit Improvement Result The calculation result indicates that the DPMO value after the improvement is 27,534.
93, equivalent to a sigma level of 3.
Figure 16 confirms the results of the improvement implementation over the period from August 2024 to October 2024.
Based on this validation, the company plans to record the outcomes monthly and conduct evaluations every three months to ensure continuous improvement.
The Sigma Level Control Chart is created to monitor maintenance inspection activities on a monthly basis The purpose of this control chart is to track fluctuations in the sigma level each month, serving as an alert for management (Table .
Table 14.
Sigma Level Control Sheet Sigma Level Control Sheet (Yea.
Month
Aircraft Qty Opportunities Defect
DPMO
Sigma Level Conclusions Figure 16.
Control Chart Inspection Process August October 2024 Control.
The control process is carried out to maintain or improve the results achieved from the improvement The control measures include:
Check Sheet for the Training Provide to Engineer and Mechanic for One Periode This check sheet is used to monitor specific training activities conducted every four months over one week to ensure that engineers and mechanics maintain optimal performance (Table .
The findings of this study demonstrate that the implementation of the Six Sigma method using the DMAIC approach and root cause analysis effectively reduced the defect rate in the inspection process for Boeing Series aircraft maintenance at a local airline in Indonesia.
Before the improvements, the Defect Per Million Opportunities (DPMO) value was 104,309.
43 with a sigma level of 2.
Through various corrective measures, such as retraining engineers and mechanics, updating standard operating procedures (SOP.
, replacing low-quality components, and utilizing more advanced inspection tools, the DPMO value was successfully reduced to 27,534.
93, and the sigma level increased to 3.
These implemented solutions not only significantly reduced defect frequency in inspection activities but also improved operational efficiency and reliability, helping the airline achieve its maintenance targets.
Uti Roysen.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Puti Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki International Conference on Engineering.
Applied Science And Technology Recommendations for further development include regular evaluation and updates of maintenance processes and engineer/mechanic training to align with advancements in technology and safety Additionally, maintaining crossfunctional collaboration and coordination involving maintenance, planning, and quality control divisions will ensure that improvements are sustainable and integrated into the aircraft maintenance management Acknowledgment Acknowledgment is recommended to be given to persons or organizations helping the authors in many Sponsor acknowledgments may be placed in this section.
Use the singular heading even if you have many Author Contributions For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided.
The following statements should be used AuConceptualization.
Uti Roysen and Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
Singgih Juniawan.
Puty Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
and Daruki.
formal analysis.
Puty Lenggo Ginny.
Singgih Juniawan.
Uti Roysen.
data curation.
Daruki.
writingAioriginal draft preparation.
Uti Roysen.
writingAireview and editing.
Singgih Juniawan.
Daruki.
Imbuh Rochmad.
Rahmat.
funding acquisition.
Uti Roysen.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ay Please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation.
Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported.
Conflicts of Interest Declare conflicts of interest or state AuThe authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ay Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances or interest that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the representation or interpretation of reported research results.
Any role of the funders in the design of the study.
in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data.
in the writing of the or in the decision to publish the results must be declared in this section.
If there is no role, please state AuThe funders had no role in the design of the study.
in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data.
in the writing of the manuscript.
or in the decision to publish the resultsAy.
References