IFS Maintenix

Hi All,Qantas currently has an open issue with IFS for Job Card Steps with “special” characters causing HTML formatting on the Task Card report to fail.  This can also cause job card steps to appear to have been edited when using show differences however it is not apparent to the task writer what has been changed.It looks like it is caused by some character encoding conversion when a task is revised.  This is only an issue since we moved to 8.3SP5, possibly related to the data type change of the step_ldesc to CLOB.  Generally this is caused when content is copied from an MS office application that has tried to be helpful and replace a " with a “.  When the task is revised, this character is replaced with a space and an ascii DC3 character(0x19).  Its these control characters that cause the Jasper reports to stop trying to apply the formatting correctly.We’re interested to learn if other operators, especially those with languages that use characters not in the latin-1 character set, hav

How do you transfer multiple inventories between locations in Maintenix?   For example, when re-organizing items in the Warehouse. 

Trying to figure out how work packages get auto generated in MXI 8.1.

Column data content is not always intuitive.Just noticed the Fleet due list tab header is also not sticky.

We are trying to identify which assets are in a kit for a Jasper Report. We wish to exclude inventory that is in a kit from the Total Stock Holding.Thanks for any advise.

Failure Category & Fault Priority Field, are BASELINE defined by Fault Definition and not modifiable on ACTUALSFault Type field, is BASELINE & ACTUAL modifiableCan IFS advise is a Parent / Child relation between Failure Category & Failure type exist ? How IFS would recommend tio uses those type of fields with Fault Definition?And finalys how to set up Fault Priority to have them reflecting a priority according to the Fault Definition? 

I just want to know what IETM stands for

Southwest Airlines is curious how other operators manage tracking of locked-out/tagged-out (LOTO) within Maintenix.  Specifically, do you have a method to track which circuit breakers have been locked out during a check, including who locked it out and for what task, or do you handle that externally?Sincerely,Shon Creese 

Southwest is currently working through demoting of parts.  We are wondering if any other carries have any feedback on demoting parts when any of following apply:Managing demotion of a part when in multiple part groups and/or TRK slots Updating open ROs after performing a part demotion  Active task definition  Open Borrow orders  

Southwest Airlines is interested in understanding how other operators setup tool kits in Maintenix and provide visibility to batch tools that are included in these kits.  We set up Tool kits as assemblies since Maintenix does not have tool kitting capability, and an assembly approach was the best choice provided by IFS at the time.  Tool kits WILL show serialized tools as children of kits, however batched “TOOLS” i.e. sockets, extensions, etc. are NOT showing in kits because they are issued out of stock to be put into the kit.  Batched inventory is never shown as installed on assemblies.The issue we are having is that Technicians do not have visibility to inventory that is contained in these kits.  We often have to AOG parts, when in reality the inventory was in kits that were in stock.  Southwest Airlines is curious how other operators are managing this gap in functionality.  We are at creating an external database to track the batch parts contained in a tool kit, but this is not idea

Curious to get feedback from other Operators who are using the Flight Disruption functionality in Maintenix.  Southwest uses other sources and means to record and track delays and cancels but we are exploring doing this within Maintenix and I was interested in getting feedback from those currently using this functionality.Best Regards,Shon Creese 

Southwest had a ship-or-shelf (SOS) program where they examine the part (quarantine) then decide if the part needs to be shipped for repair.  Southwest would like the system to auto quarantine certain parts (and also have removal reason be one of the drivers for the automation). There is a ship-or-shelf checkmark available in Maintenix, but it is for information purposes only, doesn't have any logic built into it. Curious how/if other Operators have a ship-or-shelf (SOS) program and if so how are they managing that in Maintenix, if at all.    

In an old Maintenix Fundamentals Guide(8.1) there are a lot of references to SAS Use Case XXX, are those available somewhere on Your site? 

Dears,Greetings,My company Ethiopian airlines using Maintenix, later called IFS Maintenix, starting from 2011 GC.I would appreciate on hereinafter issue, how and why component usage data in particular mentioned at the title become negative, zero. Accordingly, the other positive figure also not real.kind regards;

SWA has noted that you cannot find BATCH part-number based tasks while using the Task Search function. We see that if a task has been completed that you should be able to find it via the Task Search. We were able to see the task completions while reviewing the parent Requirement and Inventory details history. Do any other operators have a better way to search for BATCH, P/N based requirement tasks?

Hi All,Wondering if there is a way we can hide the assigned tasks tab of a work package from specific user groups. Reason: we are seeing an organisational impact with maintenance exection teams attempting to justify deferring maintenance as they can see the remaining compliance limits. This control is not in their jurisdiction to interrogate.Wondering if other Airlines have seen/heard similar. Thanks,

Increased use of FD get more frequent FD need to be removed.A FD cannot be obsoleted or deleted from the CS it was created.Today the FD are renamed starting by "OBSOLETED" which is not correct for end user in the GUI. Potential solution identified are :RSTAT2 the FD? Move the FD into an unused organisation? Any other solution?

Hi - We would like to keep using MXI v 8.1 sp3 until the end of 2027.  The plan is to request new license keys yearly in Jan 2024, Jan 2025 and Jan 2026.  Is there any issue with continuing to use version 8.1 sp3 until then?  Would there be any additional fees that we would be charged to keep using this version and get yearly license keys?

Why does Maintenix use use terms that are not industry standard?  Two examples come immediately to mind:  The term “record oil uptake”  should be “record oil service” and  using the term “inventory” when ATA codes are the industry standard.Granted both are minor issues but it illustrates a point.  That point is there seeming no consulting the people that actually use Maintenix.  The people that use Maintenix in high stress environments such as turning aircraft under time constraints. 

I remember there was some talk at one time about an analysis module for Maintenix.  Is there any recent information or documentation for it?

Good Day,Looking for guidance on implementing IFS Maintenix for Line Maintenance. Any support or guidance would be appreciated.Thanks,EC

When engineering users flag N/A more than 20 A/C at same time on   INITIALIZE REF DOC page generates "error message", which is in fact a "message built by IFS due to technical limitations "URL exeeded the maximum lenght".Please see attached docDoes other airlines have the same experience?If Yes, an IDEA could be raised to support a system improvement for Large fleet administration. 

Hello, We have the possibility to go to a Barcode with an hyperlink with the following format:http://mtx.afklmdomain.com/maintenix/servlet/ScanBarcode?aBarcodeScan=TRFX123456789&aReturnToPage=/Do you have similar hyperlink definition to go directly to a document in the baseline?like a Refdoc, a Requirement code…? by definition the baseline documents do not have Barcodes. Thanks 

The Repair Order Price Type field needs to retain the type selected by the Component Repair Analyst and not change to “Confirmed” when the order is received.  Once the CRA validates the service with the vendor that matches the price paid these should remain on the order and not automatically be changed by the system.  The field currently changes to confirmed on receipt. Need to validate the Price Type field is a text field Need to expand the Price Type field to include all services: Test, Inspect, Calibration, Minor Repair, Std Repair, Major Repair, Overhaul, Modification, RAI  

I was trying to find the Release Schedule for IFS Maintenix but couldn’t find it.I found the master article for release schedule that is tagged as a related topic. However, this article didn’t contain any information regarding when SP6 and SP7 is planned to be released.