Active System Control: And Its Impact on Mission Reliability

  • Igor Schagaev
  • Brian Robinson Kirk


Active system control (ASC) as an approach can be useful when applied to improve the safety, maintenance and efficiency of aircraft or other means of transportation. The concepts of conditional maintenance and preventive maintenance have been well established for many years as a concept of analysis and method for improving system behaviour. This analysis is normally performed (at best) after each mission, journey or flight and is used as a supportive tool for insurance of transport, economic maintenance frequency and quality. The new approach of active system control is about knowing conditions and monitoring them before the mission, during the mission and after the mission. ASC in terms of its modelling and benefits is compared with known preventive and conditional maintenance, using exactly the same assumptions. It is shown that implementing ASC has substantial advantages over classic preventive and conditional methods of maintenance; the discussion introduces the analysis of current conditions and provides advice on the deterioration of functioning in real time during operation, rather than afterwards when it might be too late or irrelevant. This approach involving real-time prediction of conditions in the context of the current state of the aircraft during as well as after each mission introduces the first step towards the paradigm shift toward real-time monitoring and improvement of reliability.


Conditional maintenance Preventive maintenance Active system control Availability Reliability Real-Time reliability Mission control 


  1. 1.
    Birolini A (2016) Reliability engineering, 8th edn. Springer Verlag, Heildelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London. ISBN 978-3-662-03792-8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Schagaev I, Carbone JN (2013) Principle of active condition control: impact analysis. In: Suh S, Tanik U, Carbone J, Eroglu A (eds) Applied cyber-physical systems. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CAD 418 condition monitored maintenance: an explanatory handbook, 2012.
  5. 5.
    Galie T, Roemer M, Gregory M, Kacprzynski J, Byington C (2004) Prognostic enhancements to diagnostic systems for improved condition-based maintenance.
  6. 6.
    Huang Gary K, Lin Kuen Y A method for reliability assessment of aircraft structures subject to accidental damage.
  7. 7.
    Kingsley-Jones M (2005) Reliability lessons learned. In-service report: A340–500/600 flight international, 3–9 May 2005, pp 34–39Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Middleton DH (1993) Aircraft maintenance management part 3. Aircr Eng Aerosp Technol 65(2):6–9. doi:10.1108/eb037340, Publisher: MCB UP LtdGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirk B, Schagaev I (2007) Applying the principle of active safety to aviation EUCASS 2nd European conference for aerospace sciences, Brussels. Accessed 29 Jan 2008.
  10. 10.
    Bukov V, Kirk B, Schagaev I (2007) Analytical synthesis of aircraft control law EUCASS 2nd European conference for aerospace sciences, Brussels. Accessed 29 Jan 2008.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    General operating and flight rules Canadian aviation regulations 2009–2 standard 625 appendix B maintenance schedules.
  13. 13.
    Summerfield JR A model for evaluating fleets of transport aircraft, Logistics Department, RAND Corp 12 Jan 1960.
  14. 14.
    Bole B et al (2013) SIL/HIL replication of electric aircraft powertrain dynamics and inner-loop control for V&V of system health management routines. In: Annual conference of the prognostics and health management society, New Orleans, LA, October 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schagaev I (1998) Concept of dynamic safety for aviation ISSC 1998, Seattle.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Schagaev I, Overtoon L (1999) Active safety system for general aviation. In: Proceedings of 17th international system safety conference, Orlando, FL. Accessed 29 Jan 2008
  20. 20.
    Method and apparatus for active system safety of active system safety. UK patent GB 0707057.6Google Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Schagaev IV, Sogomonyan ES (1998) Hardware and software for fault-tolerant computing systems. Autom Remote Control 49(2):129–151; translation from Avtom.Telemekh (1988), 2:3–39Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Farrar C, Lieven N Damage prognosis: the future of structural health monitoring.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Willcox K et al (2014) Multifidelity DDDAS methods with application to a self-aware aerospace vehicle. Proc Comput Sci 29:1182–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Igor Schagaev
    • 1
  • Brian Robinson Kirk
    • 2
  1. 1.IT-ACS LtdStevenageUK
  2. 2.Robinson Systems Engineering LtdPainswickUK

Personalised recommendations