AERO No.

B O E I N G
20
 AERO
Boeing 40-A Editorial Board www.boeing.com/aeromagazine
ONLINE
Richard Breuhaus, John Cashman, Michael DiDonato, Dick Elliott, Chris Finnegan,
Jeff Hawk, Al John, Bob Kelley-Wickemeyer, Elizabeth Lund, Jay Maloney, Tom Melody, John Mowery, Jerome Schmelzer, William Siegele, Roger Stropes, Bill Williams
Publisher
Brian Ames Technical Review Committee
Editor-in-chief Frank Billand, Richard Breuhaus, Roy Bruno, John Creighton, Edward Dobkoski, Dick Elliott, Giday Girmay, Bruce Groenewegen, Al John, Warren Lamb, Bob Manelski,
Jill Langer Tom Melody, Doug Mohl, Norm Pauk, Gary Prescott, Jerome Schmelzer, William Siegele, William Tsai, Joan Walsh, Todd Zarfos
Art director/designer
Faye Lomax
Aero magazine is published quarterly by Boeing Commercial Airplanes and is distributed at no cost to operators of Boeing commercial airplanes. Aero provides
Copy/quality editor
operators with supplemental technical information to promote continuous safety and efficiency in their daily fleet operations. ■ The Boeing Company supports
Julie O’Donnell
operators during the life of each Boeing commercial airplane. Support includes stationing Field Service representatives in more than 60 countries, furnishing
Production editor spare parts and engineering support, training flight crews and maintenance personnel, and providing operations and maintenance publications. ■ Boeing con-
Daniel Sheldon
tinuously communicates with operators through such vehicles as technical meetings, service letters, and service bulletins. This assists operators in addressing
Distribution manager regulatory requirements and Air Transport Association specifications.
Janet Foster
Illustrator
Faye Lomax Information published in Aero magazine is intended to be accurate and authoritative. However, no material should be considered FAA approved unless speci-
Photographers fically stated. Airline personnel are advised that their company’s policy may differ from or conflict with information in this publication. Customer airlines
Randy Obrezar may republish articles from Aero without permission if for distribution only within their own organizations. They thereby assume responsibility for the current
Greg Thon accuracy of the republished material. All others must obtain written permission from Boeing before reprinting any Aero article. ■ Aero is not available
Printer by suscription. ■ Please address communications to Aero Magazine, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2M-89, Seattle, Washington, 98124-2207,
Graphic Arts Center USA ■ E-mail: aeromagazine@boeing.com

Aero is printed on recycled, recyclable paper. Copyright © 2002 The Boeing Company
Contents Issue No. 20
OCTOBER 2002

PERSPECTIVE 02 MIKE STEWART To better manage the

freighter conversion business, Boeing
has entered into contracts with global
suppliers whose competencies include
modification installation, heavy main-
tenance, and component overhaul.

TECHNOLOGY/
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 03 VERTICAL SITUATION DISPLAY A new
flight deck display presents a simple
graphical picture of the vertical
dimension to enhance flight crews’
vertical situation awareness.

MAINTENANCE 12 CONFIGURATION DATA Boeing restructures

its airplane configuration data around
parts rather than engineering drawings,
allowing users to identify and locate
specific data more quickly.

MAINTENANCE 21 747 SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE Updates

to the required scheduled maintenance
programs for the 747-100/-200/-300
and the 747-400 offer significant cost
savings to operators.

Vertical situation display

COVER
on 737 flight deck
 PERSPECTIVE Boeing has offered airplane
MIKE STEWART
freighter conversions to air-
VICE PRESIDENT lines for decades, beginning
FREIGHTER CONVERSIONS
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES in the 1970s and 1980s
with the 747s and DC-8s,
respectively. We know this business and continue to explore the
best, most efficient ways to make it successful for you and for us.

The merger of Boeing and McDonnell As we continue to mature our freighter

Douglas four years ago brought together conversion business, we will rely more
airplane freighter conversion programs for on our suppliers. Although we still will
the 757-200, 747-200, 747-300, DC-10, be responsible for engineering design
MD-10, and MD-11. At that time, we per- and certification and for providing tech-
formed an average of 10 conversions a year. nical data, our suppliers will take on
We’ve come far since then. We now perform more responsibility for sales, marketing,
35 to 40 conversions annually. In addition, contracting, and parts. We’re imple-
we are developing conversion programs for menting this streamlined business model
the 737-300, 737-400, 767-200, 767-300, during the next two years.
MD-80, and 747-400. You won’t see any change in our
As we expanded our product offerings, commitment to quality and engineering
we also learned how to better manage the excellence, but we believe these new
freighter conversion business and to focus arrangements will enable you, the owners
on what we do best at Boeing: program and operators of Boeing airplanes, to
management, engineering and certification, work in a more streamlined fashion with
and aftermarket support. At the same time, modification sites that offer a broad
we have entered into contracts with global array of products and services.
suppliers whose competencies include modi-
fication installation, heavy maintenance,
and component overhaul.
Our network of suppliers includes the
following companies:
■ Aeronavali, Venice, Italy.

■ Goodrich Aviation Technical Services,

Everett, Washington, USA.

■ InterContinental Aircraft Services, Taiwan.

■ Israel Aircraft Industries, Tel Aviv.

■ Singapore Technologies Aerospace,

Singapore and Mobile, Alabama, USA.

■ Taikoo Aircraft Engineering,

Xiamen, China.

2 AERO No. 20, October 2002

VERTICAL
SITUATION
DISPLAY
for IMPROVED
FLIGHT SAFETY
and REDUCED Boeing has developed a vertical situation
display to help prevent controlled flight into
OPERATING terrain and approach and landing accidents.

COSTS In addition, the vertical situation display is

designed to reduce airline operating costs by
decreasing the number of missed approaches,
tail strikes, and hard landings and by reducing
vertical navigation training time.
TECHNOLOGY/PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
DAVID CARBAUGH SHERWIN CHEN ALAN JACOBSEN
CHIEF PILOT ENGINEER TECHNICAL FELLOW
FLIGHT OPERATIONS SAFETY FLIGHT DECK ENGINEERING FLIGHT DECK ENGINEERING
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

ROBERT MYERS JOHN WIEDEMANN

MANAGER ASSOCIATE TECHNICAL FELLOW
FLIGHT DECK ENGINEERING FLIGHT DECK ENGINEERING
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 3

O f the more than 200 heavy
air transport accidents involving
elements common across all
Boeing models and can be imple-
situations or during initial training
using vertical navigation (VNAV)
systems. This makes misinterpretation
hull loss or fatalities in the past mented within the constraints of the vertical situation more likely.
10 years, more than 50 percent of available space on existing During the past several years,
were associated with either con- airplane displays. various options have been investigated
to provide vertical situation informa-
trolled flight into terrain (CFIT) The VSD will be offered by tion on the flight deck. Although many
or the approach and landing early 2003 as a customer option on new technologies promise to deliver
phases of flight (fig. 1). Many of in-production 737s and by retrofit improved overall situation awareness,
on 737-600/-700/-800/-900 airplanes significantly enhancing the safety of
these accidents involved inade-
the worldwide commercial airplane
quate or loss of vertical situation already in service. Implementation fleet will require cost-effective solu-
awareness by flight crews. of the system on other Boeing tions that are relatively easy to retrofit.
To help prevent CFIT and models is under consideration. Presenting flight crews with a side
view of the vertical dimension is one
approach and landing accidents, The value of the VSD can
such solution — it targets a significant
Boeing has created a clear graphi- best be understood through a part of the problem yet involves only
cal picture of the airplane ver- discussion of the following: minor changes to the airplane and
tical flight path that enhances the airline infrastructure.
1. Current method for assessing
flight crews’ overall situation
awareness. This vertical situation
vertical situation. 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE VSD
2. Development of the VSD. Boeing evaluated various methods of
display (VSD) works in conjunc-
3. Display features. improving vertical situation awareness
tion with the terrain-mapping
with the goal of reducing the overall
feature of the terrain awareness 4. Benefits of the VSD. accident rate of the commercial air
and warning system (TAWS) transport industry. Because the measure-
5. Implementation on Boeing ment of vertical awareness is subjective
(e.g., the Honeywell enhanced
airplanes. and there is no one-to-one correlation
ground proximity warning system)
between vertical awareness and
to provide flight crews with an CURRENT METHOD accident prevention, Boeing decided
intuitive presentation of the 1 FOR ASSESSING VERTICAL that measurements of vertical situation
vertical situation relative to the SITUATION awareness alone are insufficient for
evaluating the safety of various tech-
surrounding terrain and the final Currently, flight crews must assimilate
nologies. Instead, databases — such as
vertical situation information from
approach descent path. In addi- those of airline incident reports and
various sources to create a mental
tion to terrain alerting, the TAWS picture of the vertical profile. These accident reports for the past 10 years —
provides a lateral, or top-down, sources include barometric and radio were used as one source of evaluation
altitude readouts, the vertical speed criteria. The incident reports were
view of terrain. The VSD depicts used to guide the direction of concept
indicator, ground proximity warning
a profile, or side view, of terrain systems, terrain depiction systems, and development, whereas the accident
and flight path data. navigation information from the flight reports were used to determine the
management computer (FMC) and expected effect of specific concepts
The VSD is designed to
navigation charts. Flight crews usually on the accident rate.
maximize safety while mini- are very effective at integrating this In addition, flight crews flew three
mizing required changes to air- information. However, they can be types of scenarios in an engineering
plane hardware and airline flight hard-pressed to formulate and maintain flight deck simulator that reflected the
a completely accurate mental model target accident types (i.e., CFIT and
operations and training. It also of the vertical profile, especially approach and landing). The scenarios
capitalizes on airplane design during time-critical or high-workload involved an approach during which the

4 AERO No. 20, October 2002

 1 HEAVY AIR TRANSPORT ACCIDENTS INVOLVING FATALITIES AND/OR HULL LOSS
FIGURE

airplane must descend later than normal steep approaches, and maintenance of and regulators to ensure efficient devel-
to intercept the glideslope, an approach a stabilized path. opment and implementation as well as
with a steep glideslope, and level flight Based on these results, Boeing chose the establishment and support of an in-
toward mountainous terrain. Flight crew to pursue further development of the dustry standards team. Human interface
performance, subjective ratings, and VSD as the most effective and practical requirements were refined in the 737
observations were gathered. option that could be implemented in the engineering flight deck simulator be-
Results showed that the VSD was near term. This decision was not meant cause the 737 uses various display types
the most effective display format in to preclude further developments in and sizes. Boeing wanted to ensure that
all three scenarios. The least effective 3D perspective displays. any VSD design could be implemented
display was a simple three-dimensional Developing a side-view vertical on the many sizes of electronic displays
(3D) perspective display. The VSD profile display necessitated refinement used today, including the larger ARINC
scored high in the areas of early threat of the human interface requirements. D-size (8- by 8-in) and the smaller
recognition, effectiveness when flying Boeing worked with airlines, suppliers, ARINC B-size (6- by 7-in) displays.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 5

 2 VSD LOCATION ON FLIGHT DECK
FIGURE

and design guidelines. In addition, One guiding philosophy was that

3 DISPLAY FEATURES because clutter always is a concern, the VSD must be intuitive. The swath
each feature was added only after it width actually is dynamic and varies
A VSD graphically represents a view was shown to provide a significant as a function of navigation accuracy
of the vertical profile of the airplane. benefit in terms of enhancing flight requirements and whether or not the
The Boeing VSD depicts a swath that crew awareness. Some of these airplane is turning. Consequently,
follows the current track of the airplane human-centered design requirements the swath is depicted on the lateral
and therefore is referred to as a track- included the following: display simply with two dashed lines.
type VSD. When selected by the flight The information contained between
crew, it appears at the bottom of the ■ Information had to be consistent
these two lines on the lateral view is
navigation display (fig. 2). with that which already appears on
the information depicted on the VSD.
Figure 3 shows an example of the other flight displays.
This results in a display that is more
Boeing side-looking VSD. The basic ■ Information had to be intuitive and intuitive to flight crews.
features of this VSD include altitude follow standard flight information Wherever appropriate, symbols
reference and horizontal distance system and navigation display from other displays were incorporated
scales, an airplane symbol, a vertical conventions. into the VSD. For example, the
flight path vector, terrain depiction, symbol for MCP-selected altitude is
navigation aids, glideslope depiction, ■ The display had to use existing
the same shape as the corresponding
and various information selected by the symbols to as great a degree as symbol on the primary flight display
flight crews and FMC such as the practical. altimeter tape.
mode control panel (MCP)–selected One issue identified with the Although the VSD can be used
altitude, minimum decision altitude, track-type VSD was that flight crews to assess path stability, path stability
and selected vertical speed predictor. wanted additional terrain look-ahead is only part of the equation for a
The development of the VSD format in the direction of a turn. An algorithm stable approach. The other factor is
involved a thorough human-centered was invented that expands the swath in speed stability. To facilitate speed
design approach. All the features had the direction of the turn to give flight stability, a new symbol was introduced
to meet basic flight deck philosophies crews the desired result. on the VSD. The range-to-target

6 AERO No. 20, October 2002

speed symbol is a green dot that 3 EXAMPLE OF A SIDE-LOOKING VSD
shows where excess speed will be FIGURE
dissipated along the vertical flight
path vector. If excess speed is not an
issue, then the symbol will not
appear on the display.
The display remains stable during
dynamic conditions. Flight crews
should keep in mind that the VSD is
a supplementary display and as such
is not intended for use as the primary
reference during dynamic maneuvers
and procedures.
Incorporating the VSD does not
require any changes to flight opera-
tions procedures, except for the
addition of procedures that apply to
the VSD in non-normal conditions.
Additions to the airplane flight man-
ual describe the features of the VSD.
Flight crew training regarding the
VSD only involves written materials.

4 BENEFITS OF THE VSD

The main benefit of the VSD is

improved safety. The VSD will give
flight crews an intuitive view of the
vertical situation just as the current crews as they establish the glide path. ability to monitor the vertical path.
map display provides an intuitive Terrain alerting from the TAWS is Earlier recognition of unstabilized
depiction of the lateral situation. disabled gradually during this phase approaches helps reduce the number
In conjunction with the other safety of flight to eliminate nuisance alerts, of go-arounds and missed approaches.
features of the flight deck, this in- but the VSD is available full time. Because many unstabilized approach
creased vertical situation awareness The VSD also complements the problems are manifested during the
helps prevent CFIT and approach increased use of constant-angle, area landing phase of flight, earlier recog-
and landing accidents and incidents, navigation, and required navigation nition also should reduce the number
thereby further decreasing the already performance (RNP) approaches by of hard landings, runway overruns,
low accident rate of the worldwide providing immediate validation of the brake fires, and tire failures. This
commercial airplane fleet. selected approach path and allowing will help reduce airline operating
The VSD depicts terrain informa- full-time monitoring of the airplane costs by extending the life of the air-
tion from the TAWS or other onboard position relative to the selected glide frame structure, landing gear system,
sources from another perspective. path. As low-altitude, in-cloud tires, and brakes and by reducing
The TAWS generates a lateral view maneuvering becomes commonplace the airplane maintenance downtime
of the surrounding terrain and pro- and RNP criteria allow better utiliza- associated with landing problems.
vides terrain proximity alerting. The tion of restricted airspace, the VSD Finally, the intuitive nature of
VSD depicts the vertical dimension will serve as an invaluable confirma- the VSD will allow flight crews to
of the terrain (fig. 4), which will tion of airplane performance. assess the vertical situation quickly,
allow crews to recognize possible The VSD will provide additional thus reducing overall workload.
terrain conflicts more readily, before operational benefits. Earlier recogni- Crews will have more time during
a TAWS alert is generated. tion of terrain clearance problems the most critical phases of flight —
The VSD also depicts the final facilitates more timely go-arounds and climb, descent, and final approach —
approach segment of the intended earlier CFIT avoidance. In addition, to focus on other routine tasks and
path of the airplane to the runway with improvements in vertical aware- handle any unusual circumstances
(fig. 5), thereby assisting flight ness, flight crews have an improved they may encounter.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 7

 4 AIRPLANE HEADING INTO TERRAIN BEFORE A CAUTION TERRAIN ALERT IS GENERATED
FIGURE

IMPLEMENTATION available only recently for commercial Finally, as a result of improve-

5 ON BOEING AIRPLANES applications. ments in display technology and com-
The VSD has only recently become Second, flight crews must have con- putational throughput, the quantity
a viable option for increasing vertical fidence in the accuracy of the position of display symbols is not as limited
situation awareness. Three factors of the airplane relative to physical as it once was.
precluded an earlier introduction of features. Although most navigation The VSD was designed for incorpor-
the technology. The information pre- systems are very reliable and robust, ation within the constraints of current
sented on the VSD must be accurate. the advent of the global positioning production models. Implementation on
Accuracy requires a good terrain data- system has improved lateral and ver- in-production airplanes requires system
base, and that technology has become tical accuracy of the airplane position. changes to the avionics displays,

8 AERO No. 20, October 2002

FMC, and TAWS. For 5 FINAL APPROACH AND RUNWAY decks. The VSD can be
the avionics displays, the FIGURE
implemented on these flight
display system software decks as a stand-alone dis-
must be updated. The play system. These retrofit
FMC requires a software solutions are in development.
up-grade, and new hard- Boeing has developed
ware and software are the VSD so that additional
required for the TAWS. features can be added. One
In-service airplanes may example is the depiction
require additional hard- of the vertical profile along
ware upgrades to allow the entire planned flight
full implementation. path. Showing the vertical
The introduction of swath along the planned
new, large liquid crystal flight path of the airplane,
display screens on Boeing instead of just along the
airplanes facilitates imple- current track, provides
mentation of the VSD. The several benefits. Not only
VSD also was designed to may this enhance awareness
be compatible with cathode of the vertical mode, but
ray tube–based flight VNAV and lateral naviga-
decks. Although Boeing tion concepts also may be
has focused on integrating simplified for training. Other
the VSD into the flight deck, a large next 5 to 10 years still will use envisioned enhancements include pro-
portion of the worldwide fleet in the electromechanical instrument flight viding weather and traffic information.

SUMMARY
The VSD is another step on the evolutionary path of flight deck displays.
The display is a natural complement to and outgrowth of the lateral
moving map introduced into commercial fleets in the 1970s and 1980s.
The VSD can have a significant and beneficial effect on commercial
air transport safety. By presenting the flight crew with a simple graphical
picture of the vertical dimension, vertical situation awareness is
enhanced, which potentially can significantly reduce the number of air
transport accidents in the worldwide fleet in a realistic time frame. The
VSD can be implemented without major airplane hardware changes.
The system will be offered by early 2003 as a customer option on in-
production 737s and by retrofit on 737-600/-700/-800/-900 airplanes
already in service. Implementation of the system on other Boeing models
is under consideration.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 9

10 AERO No. 20, October 2002
 Next-Generation 737 Flight Deck with VSD.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 11

 RESTRUCTURING
AIRPLANE
CONFIGURATION
M A I N T E N A N C E

DATA BARRIE WALL

SENIOR BUSINESS ANALYST
MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING AND SUPPORT
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

12 AERO No. 20, October 2002

 Boeing is restruc-
turing the airplane
configuration data
used by airplane
operators and
maintenance, repair,
and overhaul shops.
The data are being
structured around
parts rather than
engineering draw-
ings, thereby allow-
ing users to identify
and locate the
specific data they
need more quickly.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 13

A comprehensive business
process improvement, known
Airplane operators; maintenance,
repair, and overhaul (MRO)
how to navigate and best apply
the data.
as Define and Control Airplane shops; and others who work Configuration data are not
Configuration/Manufacturing with Boeing airplane data are being restructured for the 717
Resource Management familiar with the data structure and airplanes already in service,
(DCAC/MRM), has been under in which parts lists are correlated including out-of-production
way at Boeing. (See “New- with drawings and drawings are models. The restructuring of con-
Airplane Configuration Definition correlated with airplanes. The figuration data does not change
Software,” Aero no. 4, October new structure, which correlates the physical configuration of the
1998.) DCAC/MRM, which is in part information directly with airplanes.
the final stages of implementation, airplanes, was effective in third- This article discusses the
affects part-tracking and airplane- quarter 2002 for in-production following:
configuration processes. Airplane 757s and will be effective for
1. Data structured around
parts replace Boeing engineering in-production 737, 747, 767, and engineering drawings.
drawings as the engineering design 777 airplanes later in 2002
and 2003. Boeing offers users of 2. Data structured around parts.
reference (i.e., the configuration
design authority) for each airplane. the restructured data training on 3. Implementation and training.

14 AERO No. 20, October 2002

 1 DRAWINGS DEFINE AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION
FIGURE

Effectivity PT201-203
Effectivity PT201-203
Effectivity PT201-203 Part
Effectivity PT201-203Part
Part Part
Part Part
Part Part
Part Part
Part Part Part
Part Part
Part Part Drawing
Drawing
Part Drawing
Part Drawing
Drawing

DATA STRUCTURED AROUND consuming for airline customers to find given a customer variable number,
1 ENGINEERING DRAWINGS the applicable drawings for particular which is a unique number that is
airplanes during maintenance planning assigned to each airplane of similar
Since the 1940s, Boeing Commercial and repair work. configuration in the customer’s fleet.
Airplanes has used a drawing-based
Using the airplane identification
configuration system to identify and DATA STRUCTURED
track parts for each airplane it built 2 AROUND PARTS
or customer variable number, a
customer can find part information
(fig. 1). Parts for each airplane were
Under DCAC/MRM, maintenance and for any or all of its airplanes on
tracked by manually adding customer-
engineering data for an airplane model MyBoeingFleet.com, the Boeing
specific identification numbers to each
are structured around airplane parts business-to-business web site
engineering drawing. Each drawing
(fig. 2). For each airplane model, parts offered to airplane owners and
also was marked, or tagged, with a
basic number, a variable number, and are grouped into modules based on operators as well as MROs. (See
a propulsion number based on the their location within the airplane. Each “MyBoeingFleet.com: For Increased
drawing subject. The basic number module includes all of the information Efficiency and Productivity,” Aero
identified the standard design for an necessary to install a group of parts no. 18, April 2002.)
airplane model. The variable number (i.e., part numbers, location on the On MyBoeingFleet, modules for
identified the customer changes to the airplane, installation requirements, a particular airplane are identified by
standard design. The propulsion num- and geometry references). maintenance zones so that users can
ber identified the drawings related to The options chosen by the customer retrieve data for specific maintenance
the engines on the airplane. determine which modules are installed activities or identify installations
Under this drawing-based system, on a particular airplane. Each airplane, by knowing part locations on the
it was time consuming for Boeing with its unique set of modules, is identi- airplane. Maintenance zones, which
employees to track the parts through fied with a single airplane identification are specified in Boeing maintenance
the build process and equally time number. In addition, each customer is planning data documents, divide the

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 15

 2 PARTS DEFINE AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION
FIGURE

Option

Module
Module

Module

Part Part
Part Part Part
Part
Part Part Part

modate the modules. The processes specific implementation date for an

for ordering spare parts by telephone in-production airplane model through
or fax or through the PARTS Page on the usual communication channels
MyBoeingFleet are not affected. (e.g., letter, BOECOM message, fax,
or e-mail). Training will be offered to
IMPLEMENTATION
3 AND TRAINING
the airlines and MROs that are directly
affected. The training will be designed
Implementation of the new configu- according to the preferences and needs
ration data structure was effective of the airplane operators.
airplane into areas for maintenance
purposes (fig. 3). for in-production 757 airplanes
The most efficient way to search in third-quarter 2002. For all other
in-production models, except the Editor’s note: To gain access to
the restructured data is through
MyBoeingFleet. Maintenance 717, the new structure will be imple- MyBoeingFleet.com, contact Boeing Digital
documentation is unaffected by the mented later in fourth-quarter 2002 Data Customer Support by e-mail at
restructuring, with the exception of and in 2003. DDCS@boeing.com or call 206-544-9990
minor changes to the Airplane Boeing Digital Data Customer Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m.
Illustrated Parts Catalog to accom- Support will notify customers of the to 6:30 p.m. (U.S. Pacific time).

16 AERO No. 20, October 2002

 3 757 MAJOR MAINTENANCE ZONES
FIGURE

400 600
200
700 300

700 300
Major Zone 100 — 400 500
Lower half of fuselage

Major Zone 200 —

Upper half of fuselage

Major Zone 300 —

Body section 48 and empennage

Major Zone 400 — 300

Power plant 200 500
800
Major Zone 500 —
Wing, left

Major Zone 600 — 800

Wing, right 100
700 400 700
Major Zone 700 —
Landing gear and doors

Major Zone 800 —

Doors
300 200
600 500

400 400

700 700 700

100

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 17

 SUMMARY
Boeing is changing its system for managing engineering design configuration data
for in-production airplanes, except the 717. The configuration design authority is the
parts, with engineering pictures available for reference only.
Each airplane is defined by a group of part modules. All modules are associated
with one or more maintenance zones, giving users a simple way to find part data
on MyBoeingFleet. The search functions on MyBoeingFleet are the primary navigation
tool for determining the applicable parts for each airplane.
These changes are scheduled for completion in 2003 for all Boeing in-production
airplanes, except the 717. Configuration data for the 717 and in-service airplanes,
including out-of-production models, remain unchanged.

18 AERO No. 20, October 2002

 The first DCAC-configured airplane was a 757 delivered in April 2002.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 19

 747
SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
COST REDUCTIONS
Boeing, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, and
747 operators have completed a three-year effort to
update the required scheduled maintenance programs
for the 747-100/-200/-300 and the 747-400. The
revisions offer significant cost savings for both new
and current operators of 747 airplanes.
PAUL BEUTER JOSÉ GÓMEZ-ELEGIDO
ENGINEER MANAGER
MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES

MAINTENANCE

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 21

I n response to customer requests
to improve maintenance programs
Administration (FAA) representa-
tives, and suppliers. These MSG
one for the 747 Classic and the
other for the 747-400. Each ISC
for out-of-production airplanes, Level 3, Revision 2 (MSG-3 Rev. 2) was made up of representatives
Boeing initiated an effort in 1999 standards are the same as those used from 747 operators, Boeing, and
to update the maturing maintenance to develop scheduled maintenance the FAA. More than 50 percent
program for the 747-100/-200/-300 requirements for the 777, 737-600/ of the 747 Classic fleet and
(i.e., 747 Classic). Because the -700-/800/-900, and 717. MSG-3 70 percent of the 747-400 fleet
747 Classic and 747-400 are Rev. 2 methodology also was used were involved in the three-year
structurally similar, Boeing and to update maintenance programs effort. The resulting 747 Classic
the industry decided to update the for the MD-80, DC-9, DC-10, and 747-400 Maintenance
maintenance program for the and DC-8 during the late 1990s. Review Board Reports (MRBR),
747-400 at the same time. Updated maintenance programs for which have been approved by
The revised maintenance require- the 727 and 737-200/-300/-400/-500 the FAA, can help 747 operators
ments comply with industrywide are scheduled for completion by significantly reduce maintenance
maintenance practices developed by year-end 2002 and third-quarter costs. Based on data reported by
the Air Transport Association (ATA) 2003, respectively. operators using MSG-3 Rev. 2
Maintenance Steering Group (MSG), Two industry steering committees maintenance programs for the
a group of airframe manufacturers, (ISC) were formed in 1999 to revise MD-80, DC-9, DC-10, and DC-8,
airlines, U.S. Federal Aviation the 747 maintenance programs — annual savings for 747 operators

22 AERO No. 20, October 2002

could be as much as 30 percent. INCREASED INTERVALS BETWEEN both the 747 Classic and 747-400 was
Savings are achieved through
1 MAINTENANCE CHECKS extended to a 12-year cycle. Because
escape slide inflation is costly and time
Under the revised MRBRs, 747 opera- consuming, this change offers operators
1. Increased intervals between tors can perform extensive maintenance
significant cost savings.
maintenance checks. inspections (i.e., letter checks such as
D-checks) less frequently (table 1). This
747 Classic condition monitoring
2. Elimination of redundant and allows operators greater airplane utili-
and on-condition maintenance control
inefficient maintenance tasks. zation between scheduled downtimes.
processes. Condition monitoring and on-
Increasing the intervals between
condition maintenance control processes
3. Efficient packaging of scheduled maintenance checks was
were eliminated from the 747 Classic
supported by significant operator
maintenance requirements. systems maintenance program. These
in-service data gathered during the
processes are unnecessary because all
4. Enhanced commonality MSG-3 Rev. 2 analysis. In addition,
the flight-hour parameter for tasks previously defined as condition
between models. D-checks was eliminated because monitoring are inspected as part of the
data indicated that the parameter had new zonal maintenance program.
5. Refined requirements a minimal effect on the maintenance
for the 747-400 systems tasks performed during those checks. 747-400 Non–MSG-3 tasks. During
the development of the original 747-400
and power plant.
ELIMINATION OF scheduled maintenance program in 1988,
6. Alternative methods of
2 REDUNDANT AND INEFFICIENT the FAA required the inclusion of sev-
MAINTENANCE TASKS eral tasks in the systems section of the
compliance to corrosion MRBR that did not result from the
During the MSG-3 Rev. 2 analysis
requirements. of the 747 Classic and 747-400 MRBRs, original MSG-3 analysis. The MSG-3
the ISCs identified and eliminated Rev. 2 analysis conducted during
redundant maintenance tasks in the Revision C showed that many of these
areas of systems and power plant tasks (e.g., visual inspections of aux-
maintenance and structures main- iliary power units) were not necessary
tenance. The 747 Classic ISC also and could be deleted from the MRBR.
added a zonal maintenance program
for the 747 Classic that complies 747-400 GVI tasks. The GVI tasks
with MSG-3 Rev. 2 standards. listed in the systems section of the
original 747-400 MRBR also were in-
Systems and power plant maintenance. cluded in the zonal inspection program.
The following systems and power To prevent inadvertent duplication of
plant maintenance tasks were iden- effort, these tasks were deleted from the
tified as redundant or inefficient: the systems maintenance section during
escape slide testing cycle for both the analysis conducted for the new
the 747 Classic and 747-400, condition revision (i.e., Revision C). A list of the
monitoring and on-condition main- transferred tasks was added to the
tenance control processes for the MRBR as an appendix.
747 Classic, certain FAA-mandated
tasks for the 747-400 that had not been Structures maintenance.
analyzed using the MSG-3 process, Several structures maintenance tasks
and several general visual inspection were identified as redundant, including
(GVI) tasks for the 747-400. certain tasks related to 747 Classic and
747-400 Corrosion Prevention and
747 Classic and 747-400 escape slide Control Program (CPCP) inspections
testing cycle. The three-year cycle for and certain 747 Classic and 747-400
testing the emergency escape slides on GVI tasks.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 23

 1 INTERVAL HISTORY FOR 747 SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE CHECKS
TABLE

747-400 MRBR 747 Classic MRBR

Letter MSG-3 (original) Revisions Revisions MSG-1 Revision MSG-3 Release

check Release (1988) A (1992) and C (2001) and (1978) (2002)
B (1993) D (2002)

A-check 400 flight-hours 500 flight-hours 600 flight-hours 300 flight-hours 600 flight-hours

4,000 flight-hours 5,000 flight-hours 6,000 flight-hours 3,600 flight-hours 6,000 flight-hours
or 15 months, or 15 months, or 18 months, or 15 months, or 18 months,
C-check whichever
whichever whichever whichever whichever
occurs first occurs first occurs first occurs first occurs first

25,000 flight-hours 25,000 flight-hours 6 years 25,000 flight-hours 6 years

or 5 years, or 5 years, (no flight-hour or 5 years, (no flight-hour
D-check restriction)
whichever whichever restriction) whichever
occurs first occurs first occurs first

747 Classic and 747-400 CPCP structural areas of the airplane may 747 Classic and 747-400 GVI tasks.
inspections. The structures main- be inspected twice, once for the The ISCs adopted a definition of GVIs
tenance program for the 747-400 is MRBR requirements and once for that was part of MSG-3 Revision 2002,
based on that of the 747 Classic, the CPCP requirements. a successor to MSG-3 Rev. 2. The new
which was developed using MSG One of the most significant bene- definition states that a GVI can be
Level 1 guidelines. In 1990, the fits of conducting the MSG-3 Rev. 2 conducted from within touching distance
FAA issued Airworthiness Directive analysis was the integration of the unless otherwise specified and that a
mirror can be used to ensure visual access
(AD) 90-25-05, which mandated the CPCP requirements into the structures
to all surfaces in the inspection area. As
development of additional structures maintenance section of the MRBRs,
a result, structures maintenance tasks for
maintenance requirements involving which eliminated the possibility of
detailed visual inspections can be con-
CPCP inspections for both the redundant inspections. The integration sidered part of the GVIs. Some of these
747 Classic and 747-400. Because was validated on-airplane at an GVI tasks were transferred to the zonal
many 747 operators have not integrated ISC member location with the FAA maintenance sections of the 747 Classic
the structures maintenance and CPCP Maintenance Review Board chair- and 747-400 MRBRs, thereby allowing a
requirements into a single program, person in attendance. broader skill base to perform these tasks.

CPCP inspections are integrated

into the structures and zonal programs
under the revised MRBRs.

24 AERO No. 20, October 2002

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 25
 2 MAINTENANCE TASK COUNT COMPARISON
TABLE

MRBR Structures tasks CPCP tasks Zonal tasks Total tasks

747-400

Revision B (1993) 628 45 344 1,017

Revision C (2001) 97 0 226 323

747 Classic

1978 MSG-1 Revision 652 54 21 727

2002 MSG-3 Release 119 0 226 345

Zonal maintenance. is expected to reduce administrative tasks associated with Rolls-Royce

The ISCs made the zonal inspection costs for airlines. RB211-524 engine derivatives.
requirements common to both airplane The 747-400 ISC also included
ENHANCED COMMONALITY
models wherever possible to increase 4 BETWEEN MODELS
additional ATA Chapter 28 Fuel Systems
the commonality of the 747 Classic tasks resulting from early Special
and 747-400 MRBRs. The MSG-3 Rev. 2 analysis established Federal Air Regulation 88 (SFAR 88)
The specific structures GVI tasks a common foundation for the 747 Classic activity. The committee chose to include
(as defined by MSG-3 Revision 2002) and 747-400 scheduled maintenance these tasks in the 747-400 MRBR in
transferred to the zonal maintenance programs. The commonality of the two anticipation that they may be relevant to
program were those tasks related to programs aligns program execution as final regulatory requirements related
the CPCP requirements mandated by much as possible. Because the format to SFAR 88.
AD 90-25-05. All qualifying systems and organization of the maintenance
maintenance tasks that are considered programs are identical, administrative ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
to be GVI tasks were transferred to control of the programs is more
6 COMPLIANCE TO CORROSION
REQUIREMENTS
the zonal maintenance program. straightforward for operators.
All zonal maintenance inspection As mentioned previously, AD-mandated
tasks were validated on-airplane REFINED REQUIREMENTS CPCP requirements were integrated
with FAA and industry participation
5 FOR THE 747-400 SYSTEMS into the structures and zonal sections of
to ensure completeness and correct
AND POWER PLANT the 747 Classic and 747-400 MRBRs
access requirements. The systems and power plant section during the MSG-3 Rev. 2 analysis.
of the original 747-400 MRBR already The FAA Aircraft Certification Office
EFFICIENT PACKAGING OF
3 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
complied with MSG-3 Rev. 2 standards. approved the MRBRs as alternative
During the development of Revision C, methods of compliance (AMOC) to
As a result of the MSG-3 Rev. 2 additional improvements were made to AD 90-25-05. These AMOCs preclude
analysis, the number of total mainte- the section, including the incorporation the possibility of duplicate inspections
nance tasks was reduced significantly of five MRBR temporary revisions. of 747 structures. The supporting FAA
by optimizing the inspection criteria Another improvement was the inclu- AMOC letter (i.e., no. 120S-01-1319
for structures and zonal maintenance sion of all recurring maintenance tasks as- for the 747-400 or no. 120S-02-194 for
requirements (table 2). This efficient sociated with thrust reverser ADs issued the 747 Classic) is supplied with each
packaging of maintenance requirements since Revision B and the inclusion of copy of the MRBR.

26 AERO No. 20, October 2002

 SafetyEnhancement
In addition to economic advantages, two sig-
nificant safety enhancements are derived from
the 747 MSG-3–based maintenance programs:
" The MSG-3 analysis comprehensively and
thoroughly identifies systems and power plant
maintenance tasks and clearly separates
safety-related tasks from those that are
strictly economic. The systems and power
plant section in each MRBR identifies and
addresses all safety items.
" In the structures and zonal sections of the
MRBRs, CPCP reporting requirements are
mandated for any inspection that finds
corrosion, whether the maintenance require-
ment is systems, structures, or zonal. This
change is expected to improve the industry’s
ability to monitor how effectively maintenance
programs control corrosion.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 27

28 AERO No. 20, October 2002
 SUMMARY
Operators of the 747 Classic and 747-400
can realize significant cost savings by adopting
the required scheduled maintenance programs that
have been revised in accordance with MSG-3 Rev. 2
standards. Under the revised MRBRs, CPCP inspections are
completely integrated into the structures and zonal programs,
resulting in fewer tasks to be performed, tracked, and recorded
and providing AMOCs to CPCP airworthiness directives. The time
between letter checks is increased, reducing airplane downtime
and increasing revenue-generating opportunities for airlines.
To complete the updating of
scheduled maintenance programs for out-of-production
airplanes, Boeing is leading efforts to revise those for the
727 and 737-200/-300/-400/-500. The revised programs
are scheduled for completion by year-end 2002 and
third-quarter 2003, respectively. Revised main-
tenance programs are available for the
MD-80, DC-8, DC-9, and DC-10.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 29

30 AERO No. 20, October 2002
 Boeing offers customized 747 Classic MSG-3 maintenance programs for
747 convertible, freighter, and passenger airplanes. On-site support during
bridging and transition activities and regulatory review is available. Boeing also
offers assistance to 747-400 operators during their bridging and transition
to Revision C of the 747-400 MRBR and the June 2002 revision of the
Maintenance Planning Data Document and supporting task cards. (It should
be noted that Boeing issued Revision D of the 747-400 MRBR in early 2002.
This revision is identical to Revision C except that it includes maintenance
information for the new 747-400 Longer Range airplane.)
For assistance, e-mail Paul Beuter at paul.f.beuter@boeing.com or
José Gómez-Elegido at jose.m.gomez-elegido@boeing.com.

No. 20, October 2002 AERO 31

Boeing Commercial Airplanes
FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES
LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE

If your Boeing Field Service Region 1 Director D. Wall 305-864-8330 Region 4

representative cannot be reached, Eastern Atlanta (CQT) W. Ellis 404-530-8674 Northern
support is available at the United States/ Atlanta (DAL) F. Piasecki 404-714-3129 Europe/
following numbers 24 hours a day: Latin and South Bogota M. Dickinson 57-1-413-8218/8128 Tel Aviv
America Buenos Aires (ARG) M. Snover 54-11-4778-3250
Rapid Response Center Charlotte T. Price 704-359-2049
Boeing-designed airplanes: Mexico City (AMX) M. Vanover 525-133-5288/5289
Phone 206-544-7555 Mexico City (CMA) H. Levanen 525-762-0167
Fax 206-544-9084 Miami R. Larson 786-265-8288
New York M. Murbach 718-995-9707
Orlando D. Pemble 407-251-5906
Technical Support Desk Panama City S. Frimer 507-238-4296 x4366
Douglas-designed airplanes: Pittsburgh R. Lehnherr 412-472-7277/7279
Phone 562-497-5801 Port of Spain L. Richardson 868-669-0491
Fax 206-544-0641 Raleigh-Durham L. Anglin 919-840-5703
Rio de Janeiro J. Bartashy 55-21-393-8343
Santiago R. Farnsworth 56-2-601-0171
Spares orders/quotes: Region 5
Sao Paulo TBD 55-11-532-4852/4028
206-662-7141 (Information) Central and
206-662-7200 (Spares AOG) Region 2 Director G. Norden 415-864-7970 Southern
562-593-4226 (Douglas AOG) Western Calgary J. Fitzhum 403-221-4858 Europe
United States/ Honolulu (ALO) A. McEntire 808-836-7472
Canada Honolulu (HWI) R. Owens 808-838-0132
Indianapolis (AAT) T. Bryan 317-282-5700
Indianapolis (UAL) R. Webb 317-757-2299
Las Vegas S. Gorski 702-944-2908
Contact your region’s Boeing Long Beach D. Miles 562-528-7248
Customer Support vice president Minneapolis C. Barrea 612-726-2691
to facilitate support in the areas Montreal T. Morris 514-422-6100/6839/6840
of flight services, maintenance Oakland K. Standerfer 510-562-8407
services, spares, training, and Phoenix S. Stillwell 480-693-7074/7075/7179
technical services and modifications. San Francisco J. Russell 650-877-0181
Santa Barbara (BBJ) S. Lenicka 805-886-9833
The Americas Seattle/Tacoma D. Inderbitzen 206-431-3763/3764/7273
Tom Basacchi Vancouver D. Bays 604-270-5351/276-3739
Phone 206-766-1121 Region 6
Fax 206-766-2205 Middle East/
Region 3 Director D. Krug 817-358-0081
E-mail thomas.l.basacchi@boeing.com Chicago (AAL) L. Kuhn 773-686-7433
Africa/Asia
Central
United States Columbus (BBJ) D. Kopf 614-239-2461
Asia-Pacific Dallas (AAL) C. Fox 972-425-6206
Bruce Dennis Dallas (DAL) D. Root 972-615-4539
Phone 206-766-2309 Dallas (Love Field) R. Peterson 214-792-5862/5887/5911
Fax 206-766-1520 Fort Worth C. Paramore 817-224-0560/0561/0564
E-mail bruce.c.dennis@boeing.com Houston C. Anderson 713-324-3611
Houston (Hobby) D. Hendrickson 713-324-4192
Europe Kansas City J. Connell 816-891-4441
Daniel da Silva Louisville A. Andrus 502-359-7671
Phone 206-766-2248 Memphis D. Schremp 901-224-5087
Fax 425-237-1706 Milwaukee T. Plant TBD
E-mail daniel.c.dasilva@boeing.com Orlando (BBJ) F. Gardiner 206-660-8726
Tulsa J. Roscoe 918-292-2404/2707
Middle East, Africa, Russia, and Wilmington G. Johnson 937-382-5591 x2736
South Asia-Pacific
Marty Bentrott
Phone 206-766-1061
Fax 206-766-1339
E-mail martin.a.bentrott@boeing.com
2 4 - H O U R A I R L I N E S U P P O R T

LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE LOCATION REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE

Director E. Berthiaume 44-20-8235-5600 Region 7 Director R. Nova 65-6732-9435/9436/9437

Copenhagen A. Novasio 45-3-232-4373 Southeast Bangkok D. Chau 66-2-531-2274
Dublin C. Lohse 353-1-886-3086/3087 Asia Jakarta R. Tessin 62-21-550-1614/1020
Gatwick B. Minnehan 44-1293-510-465 Kuala Lumpur M. Standbridge 60-3-746-2569
Geneva D. Stubbs 41-22-700-2159/2654 Manila D. Lucas 63-2-852-3273
Helsinki D. Laws 358-9-818-6450 Singapore T. Thompson 65-541-6075
London A. Hagen 44-20-8562-3151 Taipei (CHI) M. Heit 886-3-383-3023
Luton (EZY) B. Dubowsky 44-1582-428-077 Taipei (EVA) D. Bizar 886-3-393-1040
Luton (MON) S. Oakes 44-1582-525-869
Region 8 Director T. Premselaar 81-3-3747-0073/0078
Manchester J. Raispis 44-1-612-326-693
Asia/ Auckland R. Lowry 64-9-256-3981
Oslo A. Holin 47-6481-6598/6613
Australia/ Auckland (SPBOG) H. Kirkland TBD
Stansted D. Johnson 44-1279-825638
New Zealand Brisbane D. Bankson 61-7-3295-3139
Stavanger E. Fales 47-51-659-345
Hanoi J. Baker 84-4-934-2342
Stockholm G. Ostlund 46-8-797-4911
Melbourne E. Root 61-3-9280-7296/7297
Tel Aviv J. Sveinsson 972-3-9711147 Narita H. Connolly 81-476-33-0606
Okinawa E. Sadvar 81-988-57-9216
Director G. Gebara 216-1-788-472 Pusan K. Cummings 82-51-325-4144
Algiers T. Alusi 213-21-509-378 Seoul (AAR) J. DeHaven 82-2-665-4095
Amsterdam (KLM) G. Van de Ven 31-20-649-8100 Seoul (KAL) G. Small 82-2-663-6540
Amsterdam (TAV) H. Schuettke 31-20-648-4639 Sydney (IMU) B. Payne 61-2-9317-5076 x419
Athens B. Oani 30-1-353-6317 Sydney (QAN) W. Mahan 61-2-9691-7418
Brussels I. Gilliam 32-2-7234822 Tokyo (ANA) T. Gaffney 81-3-5756-5077/5078
Casablanca M. Casebeer 212-2-53-94-97 Tokyo (JAL) L. Denman 81-3-3747-0085/3977
Lanarca S. Mura 35-7-4815700 Tokyo (JAS) R. Saga 81-3-5756-8737
Luxembourg J. Erickson 352-4211-3399
Madrid H. Morris 34-91-329-1755 Region 9 Director T. Lane 86-10-6539-2299 x1038
Palma (de Mallorca) C. Greene 34-971-789-782 China Beijing R. Shafii 86-10-6456-1567
Paris (CDG) M. Hamilton 33-1-4862-7573/4192 Chengdu G. King 86-28-570-4278
Paris (ORY) L. Wennergren 33-1-4686-1047 Guangzhou S. Sherman 86-20-8659-7994
Rome J. Hill 39-06-6501-0135 Haikou R. Wiggenhorn 86-898-575-6734
Tunis D. Marble 216-1-781-996 Hong Kong R. Brown 852-2-747-8945/8946
Jinan P. Lavoie 86-531-899-4643
Zurich K. Goellner 41-1-812-6816/7414
Kunming T. Bray 86-871-717-5270
Shanghai (CEA) M. Perrett 86-21-6268-6268 x35156
Director C. Armstrong 971-4-299-5412
Shanghai (SHA) D. Babcock 86-21-6268-6804
Abu Dhabi J. Sheikh 971-2-5057485/7486
Shenyang L. Poston 86-24-8939-2736
Addis Ababa J. Wallace 251-1-610-566 Shenzhen S. Cole 86-755-777-7602
Almaty R. Anderson 7-300-722-3312 Urumqi D. Cannon 86-991-380-1222
Ashgabat J. McBroom 993-12-510-589 Wuhan M. Nolan 86-27-8581-8528
Cairo M. McPherson 20-2-418-3680 Xiamen Y. Liu 86-592-573-9225
Dammam R. Cole 966-3-877-4652
Dubai G. Youngblood 971-4-208-5656 Region 10 Director T. Waibel 49-89-236-8060
Istanbul B. Nelson 90-212-573-8709/663-1203 Eastern Berlin (BER) F. Wiest 49-30-4101-3868
Jeddah (SRF) L. Giordano 966-2-684-1184 Europe/ Berlin (GER) R. Lopes 49-30-4101-3895
Jeddah (SVA) A. Noon 966-2-685-5011/5013 Russia Budapest R. Horton 36-1-296-6828
Johannesburg A. Ornik 27-11-390-1130/1131 Frankfurt (CDF) J. Harle 49-69-69581-280
Kuwait R. Webb 965-434-5555 x2512 Frankfurt (DLH) L. Rahimane 49-69-696-89407
Mumbai R. Piotrowski 91-22-615-7179/7777 x3289 Hamburg P. Creighton 49-40-5070-3040/3630
Muscat A. Ostadazim 968-519467 Hanover R. Anderson 49-511-972-7387
Nairobi R. Aman 254-2-824659 Kiev R. South 380-44-296-7231
Riyadh (BBJ) J. Richards 966-1-461-0607 Moscow (ARO) V. Solomonov 7-095-961-3819
Tashkent K. Rastegar 998-71-1206572 Moscow (TRX) E. Vlassov 7-095-937-3540
Prague D. Keller 42-02-2056-2648
Vienna R. Adams 43-1-7000-75010
Warsaw F. Niewiadomski 48-3912-1370