currently the software consider Engine and airplane as different assembly. However, there are manufacturer tasks for engine assy but followed airplane Flight cycle and flight hour which require to be created on airplane assy. But there is an issue that during engine removed from an airplane installed back the scheduling require manual intervention.
please is there anyone who experience this problem? and some sort of solution as well.
Best answer by Robert BellemareView original
From a Maintenix perspective, if it was mandatory for the task definition to be on the aircraft, we would experience the exact problem you are trying to solve. Maintenix would not have an automated method to determine that scheduling for this task needs to follow the engine, or be reset when a new engine is installed to the aircraft.
The best solution here is to add an MXFL usage data source. This is performed from the Assembly Details > Usage > Create Usage Definition.
It is most common for a Maintenix solution to track CYCLES, HOURS, ECYC, and EOT on an engine assembly to address this need. The task definition would be defined on the engine itself, but use the HOURS parameter for scheduling. These parameters could be added to the MXFL data source on the assembly, or could be added to the BULK data source. It depends on the capabilities of your flight following system. If added to the MXFL data source, your engines would automatically inherit the same usage as the aircraft when flights are complete.
I took the opportunity to review your data and I saw that some of your engines are designed with this solution, while some of the engines do not have an MXFL data source defined. Is there more detail to this issue that I’m missing? For example, is it mandatory that the task definition is defined on the aircraft assembly?
Actually it is not mandatory to define task on aircraft assembly; But does it has any effect if it must to defined on aircraft assembly?