For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
This AE6005 sample extract shows how a group might approach the second Kingston University AE6005 report: a 2,000-word planning report for a ten-year A320 base maintenance solution. It follows the structure set out in the AE6005 Aircraft Maintenance Report 2 brief and is abridged: the task list, network and register are shortened, and every operator figure, duration and cost is illustrative rather than taken from a real airline. For the method behind each section, see our guide on how to write an A320 base maintenance planning report.
Planning table
| Brief part | Suggested words | What markers look for |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction, aims, objectives, deliverables (20 marks) | 350–400 | Clear scenario, measurable objectives, deliverables tied to the ten-year horizon |
| Task list and Gantt chart or AON network (40 marks) | 700–800 | Logical work breakdown, dependencies, durations, named owners, critical path |
| Communication plan (10 marks) | 200–250 | Who, what, when, how; escalation route; fit to a multi-site team |
| Risk register (15 marks) | 300–350 | Specific risks, likelihood and impact scoring, owners and mitigations |
| Summary (5 marks) | 100–150 | Recommendation and next steps, no new material |
| Readability (10 marks) | Whole report | Consistent layout, labelled figures, Harvard referencing |
Check your own brief and module handbook for the exact word limits, what counts towards the total and the group and individual submission rules.
If you want a planning report built around your own group scenario, our engineering assignment help team can scope it with you.
Introduction, aims, objectives and deliverables
Scenario
The scenario assumes a UK-based operator running a fleet of A320-family aircraft on short-haul routes. The operator needs a ten-year base maintenance solution that covers heavy checks, line support at outstations and component support, while keeping aircraft availability high. The fleet size, hub location and check slots used below are illustrative assumptions, stated so that every later figure can be traced back to them.
Base maintenance for this fleet is performed under an approved maintenance programme, with scheduled tasks and intervals defined by the operator’s programme, which is normally derived from the manufacturer’s maintenance planning data and approved by the competent authority (UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2024; Kinnison and Siddiqui, 2013). This report does not set check intervals; it plans the project that delivers the capability to carry them out.
Aim and objectives
Aim: to plan the selection, set-up and mobilisation of a ten-year A320 base maintenance solution that meets the operator’s availability and airworthiness requirements.
- Define maintenance requirements for the fleet over ten years from the approved programme.
- Appraise three delivery options: in-house hangar, outsourced Part-145 provider, and a hybrid arrangement.
- Assess facilities, equipment and personnel needed at the hub, base and outstations.
- Produce a task list, network diagram, communication plan and risk register for mobilisation.
Option appraisal
A short weighted comparison shows how the group reached its preferred option. Weights and scores are illustrative team judgements, not operator data.
| Criterion | Weight | In-house | Outsourced | Hybrid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control of slots and quality | 30% | 5 | 3 | 4 |
| Capital exposure | 25% | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Skills and labour availability | 25% | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Flexibility over ten years | 20% | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Weighted score | 100% | 2.75 | 3.75 | 4.00 |
The hybrid option scores highest: base checks go to an approved Part-145 organisation, while the operator keeps line support and planning in-house. The organisation must hold a maintenance approval from the relevant authority, such as EASA or the UK CAA, and the operator remains responsible for continuing airworthiness management (European Union Aviation Safety Agency, 2024; UK Civil Aviation Authority, 2024).
Deliverables
Deliverables are the signed provider contract, an approved work package structure, trained and authorised staff, tooling and spares agreements, and a first-check readiness review. Each is linked to a milestone in the network below.
AE6005 sample task list and network diagram
Work breakdown and task list
The group broke the project into five work packages: governance, provider selection, facilities and equipment, people and training, and readiness. Durations are in weeks and are illustrative planning estimates, in the style of a three-point estimate averaged for each task (Kerzner, 2022).
| ID | Task | Predecessor | Duration (weeks, illustrative) | Owner role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Confirm requirements from maintenance programme | – | 4 | Planning engineer |
| B | Issue tender and appraise options | A | 8 | Project manager |
| C | Audit shortlisted providers | B | 6 | Quality lead |
| D | Negotiate and sign contract | C | 10 | Commercial lead |
| E | Define work package and task card structure | A | 6 | Planning engineer |
| F | Agree tooling, GSE and spares pooling | D, E | 8 | Logistics lead |
| G | Staff authorisations and training plan | D | 12 | Human resources lead |
| H | Set up records and IT interface | D, E | 10 | Systems lead |
| I | Readiness review and first-check induction | F, G, H | 4 | Project manager |
Network analysis
Plotted as an activity-on-node network, the forward pass gives the following earliest finish times: A 4, B 12, C 18, D 28, E 10, F 36, G 40, H 38 and I 44 weeks. The critical path is A–B–C–D–G–I at 44 weeks, with float of four weeks on F and two on H (Kelley and Walker, 1959). In the submitted report, the group’s diagram would be drawn as a figure, with each node showing ID, duration, earliest start and finish, and float.
The critical path runs through contracting and training, so any slip in the contract or in staff authorisation moves the first check date. The group therefore ring-fenced the commercial lead’s time and started authorisation paperwork as soon as the contract terms were agreed.
If the module expects a Gantt chart rather than a network, the same table converts directly: bars for each task, dependency arrows and a milestone marker for contract signature and for readiness review. Whichever format you choose, name the owner of each task, since the brief asks for allocation.
Communication plan
The team spans several sites, so the plan favours short, regular and recorded communication. Frequencies below are illustrative.
| Audience | Content | Method | Frequency | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project team | Progress, blockers, actions | Online stand-up | Weekly | Project manager |
| Sponsor and operator management | Milestones, cost, top risks | Written status report | Fortnightly | Project manager |
| Provider and suppliers | Work package scope, slots, parts | Planning meeting and shared tracker | Fortnightly | Planning engineer |
| Quality and regulator liaison | Audit findings, approvals | Formal correspondence | As required | Quality lead |
| Outstation line teams | Changes to procedures and handover | Briefing note | Monthly | Logistics lead |
Issues that threaten a critical-path task are escalated to the project manager within one working day and to the sponsor within three. Decisions are logged in a shared register so that every member can evidence their contribution to the individual logbook (Project Management Institute, 2021).
Risk register
Likelihood and impact are scored from 1 to 5 and multiplied, following the general approach of identifying, analysing and treating risk in ISO 31000 (International Organization for Standardization, 2018). Scores are illustrative team judgements.
| ID | Risk | L | I | Score | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | Provider hangar slots unavailable in peak season | 4 | 4 | 16 | Reserve slots in contract; agree a backup provider | Commercial lead |
| R2 | Shortage of certifying staff | 3 | 5 | 15 | Early recruitment; training pipeline; contract cover | Human resources lead |
| R3 | Delay in approval or audit findings | 3 | 4 | 12 | Early audit; agreed corrective action plan | Quality lead |
| R4 | Spare parts lead times extend turnaround | 4 | 3 | 12 | Pooling agreement; forecast from task cards | Logistics lead |
| R5 | Records system incompatibility | 2 | 4 | 8 | Interface testing before first check | Systems lead |
| R6 | Currency or cost escalation over ten years | 3 | 3 | 9 | Indexed price clauses; annual review | Commercial lead |
R1 and R2 exceed the group’s action threshold of 15 and are reviewed weekly. The register is a living document, so each fortnightly status report updates the scores.
Summary
The group recommends a hybrid delivery model, with base checks at an approved Part-145 provider and planning and line support kept in-house. The mobilisation plan runs for an estimated 44 weeks on the critical path through contracting and staff authorisation, and the principal risks are slot availability and certifying staff. Next steps are to confirm the programme requirements with the operator, begin the tender and validate the illustrative durations with the chosen provider.
If you are building a similar plan, our report writing help covers structure and referencing, and you can send your brief through the assignment submission page. For the earlier, different task in this module, see our AE6005 landing gear network analysis sample and the matching critical path analysis guide.
References
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (2024) Part-145 – Maintenance organisation approvals. Available at: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/acceptable-means-compliance-and-guidance-material-group/part-145-maintenance-organisation-approvals (Accessed: 6 November 2026).
International Organization for Standardization (2018) ISO 31000:2018 Risk management – Guidelines. Geneva: ISO. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html (Accessed: 6 November 2026).
Kelley, J.E. and Walker, M.R. (1959) ‘Critical-path planning and scheduling’, Papers presented at the December 1-3, 1959, Eastern Joint IRE-AIEE-ACM Computer Conference, pp. 160–173. doi:10.1145/1460299.1460318.
Kerzner, H. (2022) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. 13th edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN 9781119805373.
Kinnison, H.A. and Siddiqui, T. (2013) Aviation maintenance management. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780071805025.
Project Management Institute (2021) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) and the standard for project management. 7th edn. Newtown Square, PA: PMI. ISBN 9781628256642.
UK Civil Aviation Authority (2024) Apply for a Part 145 approval. Available at: https://www.caa.co.uk/commercial-industry/aircraft/airworthiness/organisation-and-maintenance-programme-approvals/part-145/apply-for-a-part-145-approval/ (Accessed: 6 November 2026).