Skip to main content

Case Study

Weather Radar: Lowering Costs Through Preventative Maintenance

Passenger aircraft with a raised fairing. The plane seems to be smiling. Front view of a airplane.

The Challenge

A customer was experiencing repeated shop visits and reliability issues associated with the RDR-4A/B weather radar Line Replaceable Unit (LRU). Failure data showed a high volume of returns, driving unnecessary maintenance time, increased repair costs, and aircraft downtime.

A Pareto analysis of customer-provided failure data revealed that a small subset of components was responsible for the majority of returns, consistent with the 80/20 principle. Notably, six components accounted for approximately 80% of total failures. One of these categories was classified as “No Fault Found” (NFF), highlighting additional complexity caused by non-technical or intermittent issues that obscured true root causes and inflated maintenance statistics. 

///

Weather radar cut out 2
The Ontic Solution

Switching to Proactive Replacement

Ontic partnered with the customer to develop a data-driven, preventative maintenance strategy focused on improving reliability and reducing repeat failures. Using Pareto-based failure analysis, Ontic identified the highest-impact components contributing to weather radar LRU removals.

Rather than relying solely on reactive repairs, Ontic recommended a proactive replacement approach: whenever the RDR-4A/B unit was returned to the shop, the top five high-failure components (excluding the NFF category) would be replaced as a standard action.

This strategy addressed known weak points before they could trigger future failures, reduced repetitive shop visits, and helped isolate true NFF cases by minimizing underlying technical faults. As a result, the customer benefited from improved component reliability, reduced repair hours, and a more predictable maintenance outcome for critical weather radar systems. 

Testing radar unit92 A2534 1
92 A0106 1

Key Benefits

  • Improved system reliability by proactively addressing the components most likely to fail
  • Reduced repeat shop visits through elimination of known weak points during each repair event
  • Lower maintenance burden by decreasing recurring failures and overall repair hours
  • Increased aircraft availability by minimizing unplanned removals and downtime
  • Clearer fault isolation by reducing technical failures and helping distinguish true “No Fault Found” cases
  • Data-driven maintenance strategy aligned with real-world failure trends rather than reactive repairs