For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work.
This extract shows how the network analysis, resourcing and discussion questions in a Kingston University AE6005 “Apply with Aircraft Maintenance” report can be worked through. The case is a main landing gear replacement broken into fourteen activities (A to O), with a Harvard-referenced report and an 800-word written element. The figures below use the single-person hours given in the brief, which is what the first question requires. You can compare the original wording on the AE6005 landing gear question page.
Buy Non Plagiarized & Properly Structured Assignment Solution
Q1a: Activity data and network analysis
Activities are listed with their duration (hours for one person), the maximum number of people who can work on them, and their predecessors. Durations are not divided by crew size in this question.
| Activity | Description (paraphrased) | Hours (1 person) | Max people | Predecessor(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Prepare aircraft, isolate systems | 2 | 2 | – |
| B | Jack and support aircraft | 2 | 2 | A |
| C | Prepare replacement gear, check documents | 2 | 1 | A |
| D | Disconnect services, remove old gear | 4 | 2 | B |
| E | Review task cards, prepare consumables | 1 | 1 | A |
| F | Pre-installation checks on new gear | 2 | 2 | C |
| G | Prepare hardware and servicing materials | 1 | 1 | E |
| H | Inspect attachment points and services | 2 | 2 | D |
| J | Verify hardware and materials | 1 | 2 | G |
| K | Install new gear, reconnect services | 4 | 2 | F, H, J |
| L | Servicing and functional checks | 3 | 1 | K |
| M | Traceability and maintenance records | 1 | 1 | K |
| N | Independent checks, aircraft close-up | 2 | 2 | L |
| O | Records review, release to service | 1 | 1 | M, N |
A forward pass gives each earliest start (ES) and earliest finish (EF = ES + duration). A backward pass from the project end gives the latest finish (LF) and latest start (LS = LF − duration). Total float (TF) is LS − ES. Free float (FF) is the earliest start of the next activity minus this activity’s EF, taking the smallest such value where there are several successors.
| Activity | Duration | ES | EF | LS | LF | TF | FF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| B | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| C | 2 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| D | 4 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| E | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 0 |
| F | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 4 |
| G | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 0 |
| H | 2 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| J | 1 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| K | 4 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
| L | 3 | 14 | 17 | 14 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| M | 1 | 14 | 15 | 18 | 19 | 4 | 4 |
| N | 2 | 17 | 19 | 17 | 19 | 0 | 0 |
| O | 1 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
Critical path: A – B – D – H – K – L – N – O, with a project duration of 20 hours. Every activity on it has zero total float. It is the only critical path: the route A – C – F – K totals 14 hours before reaching the same end, giving C and F four hours of total float, and A – E – G – J – K gives E, G and J five hours. M is off the critical path with four hours of float, which is also its free float.
Mark the free floats on the diagram next to the activity nodes. Only F (4), J (5) and M (4) carry free float. C, E and G have total float but no free float, because their successors start the moment they finish, and this is the distinction the float column is testing.
Q1b: Bar chart and resources diagram
Draw the bar chart on an hourly scale with every activity at its earliest start. The critical activities form one continuous row from hour 0 to hour 20 (A, B, D, H, K, L, N, O). Place the other activities on rows beneath, and draw free float as a thin line at the right-hand end of F (hours 6–10), J (5–10) and M (15–19). C, E and G take no float line because their free float is zero.
The resources diagram stacks one person per active activity. Counting per hour from 0 to 20 gives 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, then 1 person per hour from hour 6 to 14, 2 people in hour 14–15 (L and M together), then 1 person per hour to the end. The total effort is 28 person-hours. The peak is three people between hours 2 and 5, when B, C and E, then B, C and G, then D, F and J run in parallel. The profile is uneven: three people early, one for most of the middle. The resourcing comment should note that the early peak could be flattened using the floats on C, E, G and J without lengthening the 20-hour project.
Please Write Fresh Non Plagiarized Assignment on this Topic
Q2: Reducing the duration with a four-person limit
Only shortening activities on the critical path reduces the overall project duration. Shortening a non-critical activity consumes float but changes nothing else. The way to shorten an activity is to add people, up to its stated maximum, so that duration becomes hours divided by crew.
Applying that to the critical activities gives A 1 h (2 people), B 1 h (2), D 2 h (2), H 1 h (2), K 2 h (2), N 1 h (2). L stays at 3 hours and O at 1 hour because each allows only one person. The critical path then totals 1 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 1 = 12 hours, a saving of 8 hours.
The question is whether four people can cover the rest. If every activity took its maximum crew, six people would be needed in the hour from 3 to 4 (D, F and J at two each), which breaks the limit. The non-critical activities have float, so they can be slotted around the critical crews:
| Hour | Critical work | Other work | People |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–1 | A (2) | – | 2 |
| 1–2 | B (2) | C (1), E (1) | 4 |
| 2–3 | D (2) | C (1), G (1) | 4 |
| 3–4 | D (2) | F (2) | 4 |
| 4–4.5 | H (2) | J (2) | 4 |
| 4.5–5 | H (2) | – | 2 |
| 5–7 | K (2) | – | 2 |
| 7–8 | L (1) | M (1) | 2 |
| 8–10 | L (1) | – | 1 |
| 10–11 | N (2) | – | 2 |
| 11–12 | O (1) | – | 1 |
The schedule never exceeds four people, so the limit costs nothing: the project finishes in 12 hours. The critical path does not change in sequence; it is still A – B – D – H – K – L – N – O. What changes is the margin. The A – C – F branch now takes 1 + 2 + 1 = 4 hours against 5 hours (A, B, D, H) on the critical route into K, so C and F keep only one hour of total float and the network has become sensitive to delay in that branch. L, at three hours with a one-person limit, is now the largest single block and cannot be shortened.
Q3: In-house versus outsourced maintenance (model paragraph, about 300 words)
In-house maintenance means an operator carries out its own scheduled and unscheduled work using its own hangars, tooling, stores and certifying staff, normally under its own Part-145 approval. Outsourcing passes that work to an approved maintenance organisation under contract, while the operator keeps responsibility for airworthiness management and the maintenance programme through its continuing airworthiness arrangements (Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, as it applies in the UK, provides for separate Part-145 and Part-CAMO approvals; UK legislation, 2014).
The first difference is cost structure. In-house work needs heavy fixed investment in facilities, tooling and trained licensed engineers, which only pays back with a large and stable fleet. Outsourcing converts much of that into variable cost, which suits smaller or growing operators; Fehrm (2024) notes that newer airlines often outsource fleet maintenance to specialists. The second is control. An in-house team gives direct authority over priorities, quality culture and turnaround, and keeps know-how within the company. A contract gives the operator less day-to-day influence, so service levels, turnaround times and the handling of findings must be written into the agreement and audited. Third, there is capability and capacity. A specialist provider may have the slots, tooling and type experience for a heavy check, whereas an in-house hangar may be stretched by peaks. Finally, the supply chain and records risk differs: with outsourcing, traceability depends on the provider’s systems matching the operator’s (Kinnison and Siddiqui, 2013).
| Criterion | In-house | Outsourced |
|---|---|---|
| Cost profile | High fixed cost, lower unit cost at scale | Variable cost, margin paid to provider |
| Control and quality | Direct control, aligned culture | Contract and audit dependent |
| Flexibility | Limited by own capacity | Capacity bought as needed |
| Specialist capability | Must be built and retained | Accessed from the provider |
| Main risk | Under-used assets, skills retention | Dependence, interface and records risk |
Q4: Base maintenance checks on the Airbus A320 family
An A320-family maintenance programme starts from the manufacturer’s Maintenance Planning Document (MPD). Airbus describes the MPD as neither a controlling nor an approved document (Fehrm, 2024), so each operator builds its own approved maintenance programme from it and groups tasks into packages. The names and intervals below are therefore indicative and differ between operators and revisions; always take the figures from the module notes or the operator’s programme rather than from a blog.
A-check (line or light maintenance)
Short, frequent inspections and servicing, usually overnight at an airport hangar. Fehrm (2024) reports that for MPD revision 45 the A-check cluster fell due at 750 flight hours, 750 flight cycles or six months, whichever came first. It is usually classed as line rather than base maintenance, so it sits at the edge of what the question asks.
C-check (base maintenance)
A dedicated hangar event with the aircraft out of service for days or weeks, covering detailed inspections of systems, zonal and structural areas, with deferred defects cleared. The same source gives 7,500 flight hours, 5,000 flight cycles or 24 months for that revision and says intervals have since lengthened.
Heavy structural checks (often called D-check)
The most extensive base maintenance visit, with deep structural inspection and corrosion checks, often combined with refurbishment. Its interval is set by the operator’s approved maintenance programme and varies by airframe and utilisation (Kinnison and Siddiqui, 2013). A320-family operators may present this as structural check packages rather than a single “D-check”, which is a point worth making in your answer.
Base maintenance is carried out by organisations approved under Part-145, which is the approval route for maintenance organisations (UK legislation, 2014).
Pay & Get Instant Solution of this Assignment of Essay by UK Writers
More briefs from this university are in the Kingston University assignment briefs hub. For a guide to the method, read our critical path analysis blog for aircraft maintenance assignments. If you need support with your own report, see our aerospace engineering assignment help, report writing help and project management assignment help, or submit your assignment details for a quote.
About the expert
This extract was reviewed by James Whitfield, who holds an MEng in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Sheffield and has 15 years’ experience, with a focus on mechanical systems.
References
- Fehrm, B. (2024) ‘Bjorn’s Corner: New aircraft technologies. Part 48. Maintenance Program for the A320/A321’, Leeham News, 1 March. Available at: https://leehamnews.com/2024/03/01/bjorn-s-corner-new-aircraft-technologies-part-48-maintenance-program-for-the-a320-a321/ (Accessed: 22 October 2026).
- Kinnison, H.A. and Siddiqui, T. (2013) Aviation maintenance management. 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. Available at: https://www.mheducation.com/highered/mhp/product/aviation-maintenance-management-second-edition.html (Accessed: 22 October 2026).
- Lock, D. (2013) Project management. 10th edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Available at: https://www.routledge.com/Project-Management/Lock-Lock/p/book/9781409452690 (Accessed: 22 October 2026).
- UK legislation (2014) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks, Article 4. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2014/1321/article/4/data.htm?view=plain (Accessed: 22 October 2026).
- European Union Aviation Safety Agency (n.d.) Aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness (FAQ). Available at: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/node/121041 (Accessed: 22 October 2026).