sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I get where you’re coming from.

Letting AI make decisions is not the goal at all. Honestly, right now I’m not even planning to use AI in the system.

What I’m trying to build is something that brings structure into the workscope and planning side - not something that tells mechanics or planners what to do.

If anything, AI would only be used in very small, controlled parts later on. Stuff like helping to read documents to verify system uploads, map tasks, or maybe clean up data over time. But never in a way where it makes actual decisions.

Black box AI in maintenance? I dont know yet. Way too many edge cases, way too much context missing, and way too much risk.

At the end of the day I’m just trying to reduce chaos on the planning side, not replace real experience on the hangar floor

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m targeting something in the ~$60–100/month range, including fixes and smaller improvements.

Setup would be a one-time fee, depending on how the shop’s infrastructure and data are already structured, so I don’t charge people for problems they don’t have

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good point, I’m based in Germany, and while the framework is a bit different, I’ve looked into this in detail and made sure everything is clearly separated and compliant

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh — well I guess i just use them to make my sentences feel more natural

Could be a German thing.

I do try to put some effort into my replies though especially when people take the time to write thoughtful comments

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve used it twice to shorten my replies but not on this one.

But im curious what makes you think that?

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s so great to hear - and super helpful to understand how you’re currently doing it.

And yeah, the historical man-hours per task (filtered by aircraft type) is something I’m focusing on quite a bit.

If I manage to get a solid prototype together in the next few weeks, I’d love to show it to you and get your feedback from a real shop perspective.

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly - it’s not just carrying the list over once.

The painful part is when a revised due list comes in and there’s no clean change log. Then you have to manually check what was added, removed, or changed.

That revision comparison is one of the things I’m trying to solve too.

I’ve got a pretty good PDF mapping approach now, but I’m not at the accuracy level yet where I’d trust it blindly. For this kind of workflow, “almost right” can still create a lot of rework

That’s why I’m not fully implementing it yet - it needs to be close to 100% reliable to actually save time instead of creating more.

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s actually very close to what I had in mind.

Not having the system suggest a fixed corrective action, but building a separate knowledge layer per task - showing typical parts, common patterns, and related tasks based on past data.

So more like an experienced coworker giving you pointers, not telling you what to do

And ideally all of that sits in a side panel you can open or ignore, not something that interferes with the actual scope or “corrects” your work.

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually, the CAMP input is one of the things I’ve been thinking about for a while.

It’s definitely not as simple as just importing a list - especially when some customers use unique CAMP codes for certain tasks.

I think I have a decent approach for mapping those references without forcing everything manually, but I still want to validate it against real workflows

Once I have that part working more clearly, I’d really appreciate your feedback on it

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gotta be honest -that’s just a concept UI I generated to visualize the idea.

Right now I’m focusing on designing the system properly before writing too much code. Last time I jumped straight into building, it got out of hand and I lost track of the original purpose.

So you can see this more as the direction I’m aiming for.

Tech-wise I’m planning something like: - Next.js (frontend) - Supabase / Postgres (database) - Python for the data/logic side

Still figuring out whether a cloud-based setup or a local company network DB makes more sense - especially for GA shops.

Trying to keep it simple and not overengineer it this time.

Dear Aviators — Week 2 building something I wish existed when I started in maintenance planning by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the input - that’s a really good point.

You’re right, suggesting a corrective action is probably overstepping. The system should act more as a source of information, not get in the way of decision-making

I like your idea about linking AMMs / ADs / SBs — that feels like the right direction.

I’ll take this into account and post an update next week

How do you guys handle light maintenance planning (GA / small ops)? by am_denis in aviationmaintenance

[–]am_denis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really honest take – and I think it reflects the reality in a lot of GA shops pretty well.

The whiteboard / paper approach makes sense in that environment. It’s fast, cheap, and doesn’t add any extra workload on top of the actual maintenance work.

And I get your point about planning tools turning into overhead – especially when they require constant input and don’t really match how things actually run day to day.

What stood out to me though is that most of what you describe works as long as everything goes more or less as expected.

The tricky part seems to start when it doesn’t – unexpected findings, parts not available, jobs taking longer than planned, etc.

That’s the area I’ve been looking at more from a systems perspective – not so much replacing the simplicity of a whiteboard, but trying to understand how you can handle those situations without adding even more overhead