{"id":{"repo_id":"nps","oai_identifier":"oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/69635"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/nps/oai:calhoun.nps.edu:10945/69635","repository":{"repo_id":"nps","name":"Naval Postgraduate School","base_url":"https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"ENGINE MAINTENANCE MANHOURS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE STANDARD RATIOS USED IN DETERMINING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS","abstract":"Previous research found the Navy’s preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance (PM:CM) ratio standard underestimated the amount of CM performed on guided missile destroyers (DDG). This study expands on these findings by comparing the actual PM:CM ratio on the 501-K34 engine onboard Flight I DDGs to the current standard to understand the Navy’s accuracy in predicting Surface manpower requirements. The T-56 onboard the P3 aircraft is the aeronautical equivalent to the 501-K34 engine. This research evaluates the maintenance manhours performed on each engine type to understand the maintenance requirement to maintain operational availability on similar engines in different environments. This study concluded Flight I DDGs are not manned appropriately regarding 501-K34 engine maintenance. Actual PM:CM ratios were largely inaccurate compared to the Navy ratio standards and suggest more CM was performed than predicted. This paper recommends a study be conducted of all Flight I DDG equipment to establish new ratio standards. Maintenance manhours were substantially different between Surface and Aviation engines. The different operational concepts, maintenance documentation, and cultures between the Surface and Aviation communities would explain the difference in maintenance manhours. This paper recommends studying each engine’s operational availability to determine if one maintenance system better supports the availability of the engine within that system.","abstract_html":"Previous research found the Navy’s preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance (PM:CM) ratio standard underestimated the amount of CM performed on guided missile destroyers (DDG). This study expands on these findings by comparing the actual PM:CM ratio on the 501-K34 engine onboard Flight I DDGs to the current standard to understand the Navy’s accuracy in predicting Surface manpower requirements. The T-56 onboard the P3 aircraft is the aeronautical equivalent to the 501-K34 engine. This research evaluates the maintenance manhours performed on each engine type to understand the maintenance requirement to maintain operational availability on similar engines in different environments. This study concluded Flight I DDGs are not manned appropriately regarding 501-K34 engine maintenance. Actual PM:CM ratios were largely inaccurate compared to the Navy ratio standards and suggest more CM was performed than predicted. This paper recommends a study be conducted of all Flight I DDG equipment to establish new ratio standards. Maintenance manhours were substantially different between Surface and Aviation engines. The different operational concepts, maintenance documentation, and cultures between the Surface and Aviation communities would explain the difference in maintenance manhours. This paper recommends studying each engine’s operational availability to determine if one maintenance system better supports the availability of the engine within that system.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Dori, Margaret A."],"institution":"Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Systems Engineering (SE)","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Hatch, William D., II","Hernandez, Alejandro S."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022-03","date_published":"2022-03","updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:25:42Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10945/69635","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Hatch, William D., II","Hernandez, Alejandro S."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Systems Engineering (SE)"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Dori, Margaret A."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2022-06-10T17:09:08Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2022-06-10T17:09:08Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2022-03"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/69635"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Previous research found the Navy’s preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance (PM:CM) ratio standard underestimated the amount of CM performed on guided missile destroyers (DDG). This study expands on these findings by comparing the actual PM:CM ratio on the 501-K34 engine onboard Flight I DDGs to the current standard to understand the Navy’s accuracy in predicting Surface manpower requirements. The T-56 onboard the P3 aircraft is the aeronautical equivalent to the 501-K34 engine. This research evaluates the maintenance manhours performed on each engine type to understand the maintenance requirement to maintain operational availability on similar engines in different environments. This study concluded Flight I DDGs are not manned appropriately regarding 501-K34 engine maintenance. Actual PM:CM ratios were largely inaccurate compared to the Navy ratio standards and suggest more CM was performed than predicted. This paper recommends a study be conducted of all Flight I DDG equipment to establish new ratio standards. Maintenance manhours were substantially different between Surface and Aviation engines. The different operational concepts, maintenance documentation, and cultures between the Surface and Aviation communities would explain the difference in maintenance manhours. This paper recommends studying each engine’s operational availability to determine if one maintenance system better supports the availability of the engine within that system."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["ENGINE MAINTENANCE MANHOURS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE STANDARD RATIOS USED IN DETERMINING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Hatch, William D., II","Hernandez, Alejandro S."],"dc:contributor.department":["Systems Engineering (SE)"],"dc:creator":["Dori, Margaret A."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2022-06-10T17:09:08Z"],"dc:date.available":["2022-06-10T17:09:08Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2022-03"],"dc:description.abstract":["Previous research found the Navy’s preventative maintenance to corrective maintenance (PM:CM) ratio standard underestimated the amount of CM performed on guided missile destroyers (DDG). This study expands on these findings by comparing the actual PM:CM ratio on the 501-K34 engine onboard Flight I DDGs to the current standard to understand the Navy’s accuracy in predicting Surface manpower requirements. The T-56 onboard the P3 aircraft is the aeronautical equivalent to the 501-K34 engine. This research evaluates the maintenance manhours performed on each engine type to understand the maintenance requirement to maintain operational availability on similar engines in different environments. This study concluded Flight I DDGs are not manned appropriately regarding 501-K34 engine maintenance. Actual PM:CM ratios were largely inaccurate compared to the Navy ratio standards and suggest more CM was performed than predicted. This paper recommends a study be conducted of all Flight I DDG equipment to establish new ratio standards. Maintenance manhours were substantially different between Surface and Aviation engines. The different operational concepts, maintenance documentation, and cultures between the Surface and Aviation communities would explain the difference in maintenance manhours. This paper recommends studying each engine’s operational availability to determine if one maintenance system better supports the availability of the engine within that system."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10945/69635"],"dc:publisher":["Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School"],"dc:rights":["This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the United States."],"dc:title":["ENGINE MAINTENANCE MANHOURS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE STANDARD RATIOS USED IN DETERMINING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T20:25:42Z"}