Aerospace & Defense

A. What is your idea?1) ClassificationChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.Opportunity for improvement2) Brief descriptionWhat happened, what is missing, or what could be better? Focus on the problem or opportunity (not the solution).Add an optional, free-text “Manufacturer Part Number (MFG PN) Reference” field on the Stock Edit → Stock Number page. This field would be used at the line level, specifically to capture manufacturer part numbers that are not the same as the primary MFG number.…B. Context and scope1) Who is affected?Choose ONE or MORE: keep the applicable options and delete the rest.Internal users2) FrequencyChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.OccasionallyC. Value and impact1) What is the business outcome?Choose ONE or MORE: keep the applicable options and delete the rest.Other – MFG part number alternates, substitution info2) Impact scaleChoose ONE: keep the applicable option and delete the rest.1 — Small group3) WorkaroundIf th

We are requesting Expanding Max Rows Drop Down Selection on Search screens in Aviation Maintenix.Currently in Task Definition Search page and Edit Inventory Step 4 Task List, there are only three Max Rows returned selections which do not provide enough rows returned.  We have validated there isn’t any performance issue by increasing the Max Rows selection to higher numbers.  Additionally there is an inconvenient user experience and increase in user steps, any time there are more rows to return than the value selected, the user receives a pop up dialog box that requires being acknowledge every time, with the following message.The search results have returned more than 100 rows. Because of this, sorting will not work properly. Please refine your search criteria, or increase the number of rows returned.  Default Max Rows,Step 4 Task List = All, 100, 500, 1000 - FYI All rows selection provides a Fail message.Task Definition Search = 10, 100, 1000Tested Max Rows,Step 4 Task List = 500, 1

In aviation, we need to do month FMS database uploads. They come out every 28 days :May 29th, 2026 June 26th, 2026 July 24th, 2026 August 21st, 2026 etcIn MXI, to set up a task to track it like this, will need a different REQ for each month.That takes a long time to manage the fleet to put a new task for every month to be able to track the FMS Database with the correct release dates and due dates.How do other airlines who use MXI set up their FMS cycles per month? 

We have been notified from our client that they are expecting to phase out client-side XSLT from browsers where we running Maintenix (we are also currently working through the ICAM upgrade though it will not be done by the time of the phase out). Is there any impact to Maintenix/ICAM with this phase out that we need to raise? My research on Jasperserver implies that it is not impacted.

when i am trying to Login the Maintenix folder in Cloud … getting ‘Internal Server Error’ … any setup we have perform 

Hi Community,We are currently refining our APU life tracking and maintenance deadline control (Requirement Management) process in IFS Maintenix (CAMO).To ensure strict deadline compliance and avoid over-running our limits, we maintain system values on the conservative/safe side (Calculated Value >= Actual Value). To achieve this, we model our APU life tracking by applying a coefficient (APU Ratio) to the incoming flight cycles/hours via a CalculatedUsage Parameter.Our Current Data Flow & Dilemma:We have an "APU RDG" parameter that stores the raw, actual usage values uploaded automatically from ACARS data in real time. We have an "APU Cycle" parameter that utilizes a Calculated Parameter (similar to the CFM56 thrust rating constants) to multiply incoming flight data by the defined APU Ratio constant. Our Production Planning department periodically reviews "APU RDG" and manually adjusts the "APU Cycle" parameter via "Usage Corrections" to align the records.The Challenge:APU operat

Hello,I would like to know if it is possible to create a report for the repair code routing.The view “REPAIR_CODE_ROUT_OPERATION” is basically the report I need; however, unfortunately, the included information does not appear as “included” or “not included”.Could you please advise if this information can be added or if there is another view/report available that contains this detail?Thank you.  

IFS Maintenix already have developed API for AeroBuy from AeroExchange few years ago (pre-Covid). Do you know if there is on IFS agenda to add API for AeroRepair ? I know there are Maintenix customer is already using AeroRepair module from AeroExchange and each one is using their internal method of trying to automate processes between Maintenix and AeroRepair.

In IFS Cloud - CAMRO there is a solution to convert customer owned parts to company owned parts.However, there is no solution that I am aware to convert company owned parts in stock or wip to customer owned parts.Can you help?

PPC often has unrecoverable errors without the detail required to troubleshoot further.Often it is not possible to save when this occurs therefore PPC must be closed completely and reopened. Has anyone in the community using PPC experienced this and if so kindly provide feedback. 

Hello, I would like to know among this Maintenix community users, the ones who work with PP&C. I would like to figure if you face same issues or not. The purpose will be to share some workarounds. Many thanks for your replies. Kind regards Djamila

Hi All.I am wondering how other businesses routinely handle a Partial Fail (Reject) of Independent Inspections.Some of our Job Cards contain a mix of rebuild which is not part of the Independent Inspection and parts that are ‘Critical Maintenance Tasks’ which are subject to Independent Inspection.If for whatever reason the Independent Inspection is Rejected, all Steps on the Job Card are Failed. Although it may only be one Step of the Critical Maintenance Task the whole JIC is Failed and a new JIC is required.Our old practice was the new Labour Row added as a result of the Reject was used to record the Barcode of the new Job Card where the New Independent Inspection will be carried out. Which may involve marking some steps in the New JIC as N/A and referring to the old JIC.Our current practice is raising a Found Fault for the discrepancy and not Reject the Independent Inspection. Then assign a specific or Ad Hoc Corrective Task to rectify the discrepancy. This corrective contains a new

Hello,Can someone please share case studies on Production planning and control such as the one on Aircraft IT MRO eJournal  • SPRING 2024 (CASE STUDY: CHINA AIRLINES)?Thank you.

Is it permissible to use HTML Coloured Text  in large text fields, such as JIC Steps?Example<span style="color: #FF0000;"> Red Text Here </span>or <b> <span style="color: #FF0000;"> BOLD Red Text Here </span> </b>It appears to work in our ‘Pre Production’ instance but wondering if there are any side affects. (Jasper Report Work Capture, etc).We are aware of the issue of non-printable characters when copy and paste from MS Office into fields (Unicode errors for apostrophes).Is Html Colour Text likely to create similar errors? Mx Ver 8.3 SP5ThanksRD 

Hi all, I’m currently researching the processes of guarantees and warranties at an airline, in the position as a trainee. The department I work for doesn’t have direct touch with the Maintenix application itself so I’ve come to here to ask my question.Is there any API or other solution available to track guarantees/warranties on part numbers of consumables/rotables/expendables? I’m including all of them, since all of them are affected by contractual agreements and thus need to be monitored for adequate compliance with OAM/OEM.Thanks in advance! 

AF/KL recently experienced different alteration of the IETM link in the IETM page.Typo error in the protocol Linking shutdown the entire document access Created attachement and link incorrect to the documentWe saw that note field synchronized in the Actual and are hold when the Actual is completed.This requires IETM revision process to dispatch Révision Note after each Manual revisionDoes Operators uses this field and IETM protocol linking Are you happy with this feature?The IETM Page / révision process is only covered by EDIT  and there no history log of the change done in the VERY IMPORTANT DATA dispatched over all the Task Card.Following an Authority audit a deviation in the process to maintain and update the IETM link was not robust enough to ensure traceability and control.  What is your experience and how traceability may be improved over this page? 

Hello All MTX users and designer.  How do you proceed when a Technician need to order a Part in MTX which is unknown from the data base?Do you use a Create Part and add Part Requirement (create a MPN in Build in a PART GROUP Batch or Ser only) ? Other solution ?What is the IFS advisory in that process? Thanks 

Using IFS Cloud, how can I configure a modification to meet an airworthiness directive requirement with the following conditions:1. For Pre P&WC SB No. A63069 configuration engines installed on aircraft withmore than 100 hours of total air time since new:Within 25 hours of air time from the effective date of this AD.2. For Pre P&WC SB No. A63069 configuration engines installed on aircraft with100 or less hours of total air time since new:Within 150 hours of air time since new.3. For Post P&WC SB No. A63069 engines installed on aircraft that hasaccumulated 75 or less hours of air time since SB incorporation:Within 100 hours of air time since SB A63069 incorporation.4. For Post P&WC SB No. A63069 engines installed on aircraft that hasaccumulated more than 75 hours of air time since SB incorporation:Within 25 hours of air time from the effective date of this AD.

In the Disposition Shop Order, when I RMB on the Disposition Line → Select Part Identified. I get the below error message.“Owning Customer, no needs to have a value for Customer Owned stock” Could anyone assist me with this.

What could be the underlying reasons for the significant increase in memory usage across all Jasper/Maintenix instances following the recent upgrade to Jasper 9 and Maintenix, and what steps can be taken to diagnose and resolve this issue effectively?

AF/KL is trying to better use ietm protocol,the IETM allow several definition and adapted to the context.Default ContextTask DefinitionContextTask Context However when using the protocol in the jobcard step the Task context is not applied, Is there a technical limitation in the Job Step?Is there a way to write the IETM to make it working?

Southwest Airlines would like to know how other carriers have met item 6 of MNT 1.8.1 y, specifically the deletion of records in Maintenix.  IOSA MNT 1.8.1The Operator shall have a system for the management and control of maintenance records to ensurethe content and retention of such records is in accordance with requirements of the Authority, asapplicable, and to ensure operational records are subjected to standardized processes for:(i) Identification;(ii) Legibility;(iii) Maintenance;(iv) Retrieval;(v) Protection, integrity and security;(vi) Disposal, deletion (electronic records) and archiving. (GM) ◄

Hi All, Looking for data model ideas that other operators are using for the Advanced Part Search Feature.When an AMT is assigning Part Requirements to a task, they are likely working from approved data (Non-routine Activity)The OEM data materials generally only specify specifications. How does an operator model their consumable Materials so that the AMT can add them to task by simple adding the specification number only. Qantas has been only a recent adopter of the advanced part search but found this to be a limitation as the search only looks at part name and part number. Our Data model in current sees the OEM Spec as the Part Group code.  

Does anyone assign licenses to Task definitions? I can see some functionality around filtering work and resource/capacity planning, is there any other useful functionality that comes with the application of licenses?

In my IFS Cloud lists and report outputs, all rows currently appear with a plain white background, which makes it difficult to visually separate the data.I would like to apply alternating row colors — one white, one light gray (zebra style) — to improve readability.Is there a way to configure this in IFS Cloud, either through report layout design or list view settings?