• Sérgio M. O. TavaresEmail author
  • Paulo M. S. T. de Castro
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)


Airworthiness involves the interplay of authorities, manufacturers, operators and maintenance providers (Fig. 2.1).


  1. 1.
    N. Ohrloff, Continued airworthiness, in NTSB Airplane Fuselage Structural Integrity Forum (Washington, DC, USA, 21–22 Sept 2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Dalkilic, Improving aircraft safety and reliability by aircraft maintenance technician training. Eng. Failure Anal. 82, 687–694 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.G. Eastin, WFD- what is it and what’s LOV got to do with it? Int. J. Fatigue 31, 1012–1016 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Rapp, Aging airplanes and safety. Mater. Today 8(10), 6 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Ramsden, The geriatric jet problem. Flight Int. 112, 1201–1204 (1977)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Dixon, The maintenance costs of aging aircraft: insights from commercial aviation (RAND Corporation, RAND Project Air Force, 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    United States Air Force-USAF, Structures Bulletin EZ-SB-13-001 (Product Form, and Process Substitution Guidelines for Metallic Components, Material, 2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    United States Air Force—USAF, Scientific Advisory Board, Report on sustaining air force aging aircraft into the 21st century, Report SAB-TR-11-01 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.J.H. Wanhill, L. Molent, S.A. Barter, E. Amsterdam, Milestone case histories in aircraft structural integrity–update 2015. Report NLR-TP-2015-193 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.A. Lindgren, J. Brausch, An overview of standardized capability for US Air Force inspections, in 19th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (Munich, Germany, 2016), pp. 13–17Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    US Department of Defense–DoD, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), MIL-STD-1530C (USAF) (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.A. Babish IV, USAF ASIP: protecting safety for 50 years, in 2008 Aircraft Structural Integrity Conference (ASIP 2008) (San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2–4 Dec 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.B. Carter, Memorandum for Acquisition Professionals. US Office of the Under Secretary of Defence (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Bos, Fielding an SHM system in a legacy military aircraft: an evolutionary approach, in 2nd International Conference on Advances in Structural Health Management and Composite Structures ASHMCS2014, (Jeonju, South Korea, 27–29 Aug 2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Boller, F.-K. Chang, Y. Fujino, Encyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. Molent, B. Aktepe, Review of fatigue monitoring of agile military aircraft. Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 23(9), 767–785 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    H.-J. Schmidt, B. Schmidt-Brandecker, Design benefits in aeronautics resulting from SHM, in Encyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring, eds. by C. Boller, F.-K. Chang, Y. Fujino (Wiley, 2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Vogelfänger, Common understanding of life management techniques for ageing air vehicles, in Ageing Mechanisms and Control, RTO Meeting Proceedings 79(II) (Manchester, UK, 8–11 Oct 2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.L. Santos, F. Farahi, Handbook of Optical Sensors (CRC Press, 2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Z. Fang, K. Chin, R. Qu, H. Cai, Fundamentals of Optical Fiber Sensors (Wiley, 2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J.L. Abot (guest editor), Special issue: Integrated structural health monitoring in polymeric composites. Sensors (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Hillger, Ultrasonic methods, chapter 14, in Encyclopedia of Structural Health Monitoring, eds. C. Boller, F.-K. Chang, Y. Fujino (Wiley, 2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.A.B. Lambert, A.J. Troughton, The importance of service inspection in aircraft fatigue, in Aircraft Fatigue Design, Operational and Economic Aspects; Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Melbourne, eds. by J. Y. Mann, I. S. Milligan (Pergamon Press (Australia), 22–24 May 1972), pp. 365–402Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Lazzeri, A comparison between safe life, damage tolerance and probabilistic approaches to aircraft structure fatigue design. Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio 81(2), 53–64 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.F. Grandt Jr., Damage tolerant design and nondestructive inspection-keys to aircraft airworthiness. Procedia Eng. 17, 236–246 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Federal Aviation Administration–FAA, Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook, vol. I Fracture Mechanics; Fatigue Crack Propagation, DOT/FAA/CT-93/69.I (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Federal Aviation Administration–FAA, Damage Tolerance Assessment Handbook, vol. II Airframe Damage Tolerance Evaluation, DOT/FAA/CT-93/69.II (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sérgio M. O. Tavares
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paulo M. S. T. de Castro
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculdade de EngenhariaUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations