Slides from an Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University webinar presented Aug. 24, 2017 by the Office of Professional Educations. Presenter Matt Thomas, an expert on Aerospace Coatings Application walks through issues coatings applicators face.

1. Welcome!

2. Today’s Agenda
• Welcome and Introductions—Bill Gibbs
• Presentation—Matt Thomas
• Questions and Answers
• Details on Aerospace Coatings Applicator
Training Course—Al Astbury
Bill Gibbs
Director, Campus Outreach
Webinar Coordinator

3. A few session pointers
• We will answer questions during the presentation as
appropriate, and also have set aside time at the conclusion of
the presentation for Q and A . At any time you can post a
question and we will answer it during or after the presentation.
• Slides are available for download at any time
• The recording link will be emailed to you

4. Matt Thomas
• Senior Paint Process Engineer, CFAN. San Marcos, TX
• Aerospace Coating Engineer for Cessna Aircraft,
Gulfstream, and Honda Aircraft
• Founded first technical certification program for
Aerospace Coatings Applicators
• Graduate of Newman University and Friends
University
• Six Sigma Green Belt

5. Proed.erau.edu
THE COST OF TECHNICAL DEFICITS IN
AEROSPACE COATINGS OPERATIONS
Matt Thomas
Aerospace Paint Process Engineer

6. Aircraft Paint Defect Root Cause Analysis
• Although there are literally hundreds of variables within an aerospace
coatings operation, which create paint defects, rework, and warranty
claims, the root cause can generally be traced back to one of three main
categories:
1. Environmental Constraints (housekeeping, lack of preventative maintenance for
facilities, air/water source, etc. or poor engineering controls)
2. Product Failures (Inappropriate materials choices e.g. AMS3819/cheesecloth or
Quality escapes at the paint vendor level)
3. Technical Deficits (A polite way of saying that the painter made a mistake)
Root Cause Analysis: It is critically important to understand what paint
defects are, in technical terms, as well as how & where they originate.

7. Drilling Down to Lost Revenue Causation
• In a case study conducted over the past five years at OEM, MRO, and Tier 1
Supplier (Aircraft components) paint operations, root cause analysis was
performed to assign “Defects Per Unit” percentages to each of the three main
categories that attribute to lost operational revenue. Note: the case study only
assessed aerospace paint operations that employed climate controlled facilities.
The results were as follows:
1. Environmental Constraints: 14%
2. Product Failures: 8%
3. Technical Deficits: 78%
NOTE: (6) Aerospace Paint Operations
were assessed for this study.

8. Practical Experience Makes the Difference…Right?
• Not Necessarily!
• The case study evaluated (110) Aerospace Coatings Applicator
Specialists with a broad range of applicable, varying
experience.
• A breakdown of experience levels for ACAS personnel:
Number ACAS
Years of Experience

9. Practical Experience Is Only Valuable If It Is Right
• There were multiple types of technical deficit-derived paint
defects that were evaluated for this study:
– Gravitational Defects (runs, sags, etc.)
– Excessive Orange Peel (less than a “5” on the ACT scale)
– Intercoat Adhesion Failure
– Disbonding of primer coat from the substrate
• ACAS personnel with an excess of (5) years of practical
experience yielded the highest frequency of recurrent defects
leading to significant, adverse financial outcomes (rework,
repaint, & warranty concessions) by a factor of 4:1

10. It Is Not Their Fault
• Upon identifying what the technical-deficit root cause consisted of, the
ACAS was asked specific questions about why the mistake had been made,
and more importantly, how their actions led to the coatings failure. The
typical responses from highest frequency to lowest:
– That is the way I was told to do it 48%
– I have always done it that way 32%
– It has never created a problem before 16%
– That is the way I have always understood the planning requirements 4%
• The bottom line is that you cannot hold ACAS personnel accountable for
what they don’t know or for doing the job the way they were directed to
do it, if it was performed in a compliant manner.

11. Key Contributing Factors
• Substandard On the Job Training (OJT) programs.
• Lack of a formal training department within the organization.
• Poorly written or outdated work instructions.
• Apathy & a lack of accountability.

12. How Much Do Technical Deficits Cost?
• Challenge: Go out into the mainstream aerospace paint facilities and ask the question “How much
are you paying every year for coatings-related rework?”
– It is a fairly straightforward calculation if you know the basic performance & financial
information reflecting your paint operation.
• The total number of projected or scheduled Paint Jobs to be completed/year.
• The average cost of each repaint.
• The number of repaints/year.
• Example: In an aircraft components operation there are 20K parts produced per year. The cost of
every repaint is $500/part. At 80% first time yield (FTY) there are 4,000 repaints/year at a cost of
$2,000,000/year.
• For every FTY percentage point gained, the liability cost associated with technical deficits in Paint
Operations decreases by $100,000/year.
Take the total number of parts produced (20,000) and multiply by the cost is for one repaint ($500) = 10M; This is what 0% FTY would cost the organization.
Now multiply 10M by 1% (.01) to determine what the value of each FTY percentage point is = $100,000 .

13. How Much Do Technical Deficits Cost?
Example #2
• In an OEM business jet manufacturing facility, the cost of a repaint is 250K
(140K for the repaint and 110K for the associated liabilities). There are (50)
paint jobs projected for the year. At a 70% (FTY) there are 15 repaints/year at
a cost of 3.75M.
• For every FTY percentage point gained, the liability cost associated with
technical deficits in Paint Operations decreases by $125,000/year.
• Once you understand the true value of what one FTY percentage point
consists of vs. the cost of defects/unit (DPU) created from technical deficits,
the question becomes:
HOW DO YOU CAPTURE & SUSTAIN FTY PERCENTAGE POINTS IN
PAINT OPERATIONS?

14. Wrapping It Up
Continuous Improvement is the by-product of valid data used to make
sound financial decisions.
• Develop/implement a robust system to track & query paint defects
that is capable of:
– Determining recurrent paint defect sources
– Assessing technical paint defects by the accountable individual
• Validate the actual dollar value of First-Time-Yield (FTY) percentage
points in your Paint Operation:
– Leverage accounting data as much as possible and adjust as needed for
accuracy; include labor, materials, overtime, etc.
Please note that FTY is based upon actual shop rates, which is NOT the same
things as the burden rate.

15. Next Time
• Explore proven ways to capture and sustain FTY percentage points
in Aerospace Paint Operations.
• Determine ways that aerospace coatings support staff (managers,
process engineers, etc.) can learn how to properly identify paint
defects and effectively perform root cause analysis within their
respective organization.
• Review SAE specification AS7489 and how it is designed to help
dramatically improve FTY percentage points in aircraft paint shops.

16. CONTACT INFORMATION
• Matt Thomas
• (406)671-4098
• mtskyllc@outlook.com or thomam16@erau.edu

17. Checkout All of Our Aerospace Coatings Courses
and Register Online Now
•Aerospace Coatings Applicator Training & Certification
•Aerospace Coatings and Inspector Training
•Health, Wellness, Regulations and the Environment
Proed.erau.edu
Proed.erau.edu
NEXT COURSES BEGIN OCTOBER 2, 2017!

18. Proed.erau.edu
Contact Us
(386) 226-7694 or 7232
training@erau.edu