Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 4 no. 6 (2026)

Smart Wearables for Safer and Traceable Aircraft Maintenance: An Implementation, Safety, and Traceability Framework

Arthur C. Dela Peña | Jefferson Clariza | Mary Ann Aballiar-vista

Discipline: engineering (non-specific)

 

Abstract:

Aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) is undergoing rapid digital transformation. However, the implementation of smart wearables in regulated maintenance environments remains insufficiently specified, particularly regarding safety, documentation control, and auditgrade traceability. This study aims to develop and apply an integrated implementation-safety-traceability framework to evaluate the deployment of smart wearables in Philippine MRO facilities. Using a retrospective document-based case study design, the study analyzed controlled organizational records, operational logs, quality and safety documents, and traceability evidence without direct human participation. Findings show that the implementation of wearables is primarily a socio-technical governance challenge rather than a simple technology adoption issue. Determinant salience was strongest in workflow fit, interoperability, inner-setting readiness, and implementation-process discipline. Implementation outcomes were conditional: feasibility depended on infrastructure reliability and integration stability; fidelity depended on controlled workflow execution and documentation continuity; penetration remained limited to selected task families; and sustainability was strongest where wearables were embedded in procedures and support routines. Safety analysis showed that documentation and sign-off deviations coexisted with safe recovery behaviors when escalation pathways and continuity controls were present. Regulatory-traceability fit was strongest where version linkage, sign-off integrity, and cross-system evidence continuity were preserved. The proposed Wearable MRO Readiness Index indicated moderate overall readiness, supporting phased, compliance-compatible scale-up rather than immediate enterprise-wide rollout. The study offers a practical framework for MRO managers, regulators, and quality assurance personnel to assess readiness, identify risks, and guide the responsible implementation of wearable technologies.



References:

  1. Abbas, J., & Khare, A. (2024). Potential errors during final inspection and certification process of an aircraft component. Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 96(4), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-11-2023-0294
  2. Abdullah, F., & Al-Ahmari, A. (2025). Analyzing the smart industry readiness index in adopting Industry 4.0 technologies. Processes, 13(10), 3172. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13103172
  3. Akiba, C., Powell, B., Pence, B., Nguyen, M., Golin, C., & Go, V. (2022). The case for prioritizing implementation strategy fidelity measurement: Benefits and challenges. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 12(2), 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibab138
  4. Alomar, I., & Yatskiv, I. (2023). Digitalization in aircraft maintenance processes. Aviation, 27(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.3846/aviation.2023.18923
  5. Ceruti, A., Marzocca, P., Liverani, A., & Bil, C. (2019). Maintenance in aeronautics in an Industry 4.0 context: The role of augmented reality and additive manufacturing. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 6(4), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcde.2019.02.001
  6. Clare, J., & Kourousis, K. (2021). Learning from incidents in aircraft maintenance and continuing airworthiness management: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2021, 8852932. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8852932
  7. Damschroder, L., Reardon, C., Opra Widerquist, M., & Lowery, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
  8. Eswaran, M., Gulivindala, A.K., Inkulu, A.K., & Bahubalendruni, M.V.A.R. (2023). Augmented reality-based guidance in product assembly and maintenance/repair perspective: A state-of- the-art review on challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 214, 118983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118983
  9. Fang, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, M., Chen, C.-H., Teng, Y., & Wang, C. (2023). Head-mounted display augmented reality in manufacturing: A systematic review. Robotics and Computer- Integrated Manufacturing, 83, 102567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2023.102567
  10. Flamini, M., & Naldi, M. (2022). Maturity of Industry 4.0: A systematic literature review of assessment campaigns. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8010051
  11. Fridberg, H., Wallin, L., & Tistad, M. (2021). The innovation characteristics of person-centred care as perceived by healthcare professionals: An interview study employing a deductive- inductive content analysis guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 904. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06942-y
  12. Gupta, S., Abbas, A.F., & Srivastava, R. (2022). Technology acceptance model (TAM): A bibliometric analysis from inception. Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital Economy, 10(3), 77–106. https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v10n3.598
  13. Illankoon, P., Tretten, P., & Kumar, U. (2019). A prospective study of maintenance deviations using HFACS-ME. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 74, 102852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102852
  14. Insley, J., & Turkoglu, C. (2020). A contemporary analysis of aircraft maintenance-related accidents and serious incidents. Aerospace, 7(6), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7060081
  15. Johnson, J., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
  16. Kabashkin, I. (2024). Digital twin framework for aircraft lifecycle management based on data-driven models. Mathematics, 12(19), 2979. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12192979
  17. Karakilic, E., Gunaltili, E., Ekici, S., Dalkiran, A., Balli, O., & Karakoc, T.H. (2023). A comparative study between paper and paperless aircraft maintenance: A case study. Sustainability, 15(20), 15150. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152015150
  18. Kelemen, A., Szabó, Z.K., Bozóki, S., Szádoczki, Z., & Hartvig, Á.D. (2024). A sensitivity analysis of composite indicators: Min/max thresholds. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 23, 100453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100453
  19. Li, J., Maddock, E., Hosking, M., Ebrill, K., Sullivan, J., Loi, K., Tavares-Rixon, D., Jayasena, R., Grieve, G., & Delaforce, A. (2025). Identifying and optimizing factors influencing the implementation of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources accelerator: Qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research–Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change approach. JMIR Medical Informatics, 13, e66421. https://doi.org/10.2196/66421
  20. Lima Brugnara, R., de Andrade, D., de Souza Fontes, R., & Soares Leão, M. (2023). Safety-II: Building safety capacity and aeronautical decision-making skills to commit better mistakes. The Aeronautical Journal, 127(1310), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2022.74
  21. Lončar-Turukalo, T., Zdravevski, E., Machado da Silva, J., Chouvarda, I., & Trajkovik, V. (2019). Literature on wearable technology for connected health: Scoping review of research trends, advances, and barriers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(9), e14017. https://doi.org/10.2196/14017
  22. Malta, A., Farinha, T., & Mendes, M. (2023). Augmented reality in maintenance: History and perspectives. Journal of Imaging, 9(7), 142. https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging9070142
  23. Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., & Stewart, G. (2023). Technology acceptance research: Meta-analysis. Journal of Information Science. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191177
  24. Meissner, R., Pohya, A.A., Weiss, O., Piotrowski, D., & Wende, G. (2025). Regulatory pathways to certifiable condition-based maintenance solutions in aviation: A comprehensive review. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 158, 101143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2025.101143
  25. Moenck, K., Rath, J.-E., Koch, J., Wendt, A., Kalscheuer, F., Schüppstuhl, T., & Schoepflin, D. (2024). Digital twins in aircraft production and MRO: Challenges and opportunities. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 15, 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-024-00740-y
  26. Moilanen, T., Sivonen, M., Hipp, K., Kallio, H., Papinaho, O., Stolt, M., Turjamaa, R., Häggman-Laitila, A., & Kangasniemi, M. (2022). Developing a feasible and credible method for analyzing healthcare documents as written data. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936221108706
  27. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
  28. Nowell, L., Norris, J., White, D., & Moules, N. (2017). Thematic analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
  29. O’Brien, B., Harris, I., Beckman, T., Reed, D., & Cook, D. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
  30. Proctor, E., Bunger, A., Lengnick-Hall, R., Gerke, D., Martin, J., Phillips, R., & Swanson, J. (2023). Ten years of implementation outcomes research: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 18(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01286-z
  31. Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M.A., Sabir, S.S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424
  32. Reardon, C., Damschroder, L., Ashcraft, L.E., Kerins, C., Bachrach, R., Nevedal, A., Domlyn, A., Dodge, J., Chinman, M., & Rogal, S. (2025). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) user guide: A five-step guide for conducting implementation research using the framework. Implementation Science, 20, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-025-01450-7
  33. Shi, C., & Land, K. (2021). The data envelopment analysis and equal weights/minimax methods of composite social indicator construction: A methodological study of data sensitivity and robustness. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16, 1689–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-020-09841-2
  34. Smith, J., & Hasan, M. (2020). Quantitative approaches for the evaluation of implementation research studies. Psychiatry Research, 283, 112521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112521
  35. Stan, I.E., D’Auria, D., & Napoletano, P. (2025). A systematic literature review of innovations, challenges, and future directions in telemonitoring and wearable health technologies. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2025.3598056
  36. Susanin, V., & Kabashkin, I. (2025). W-model framework for reliability-centered lifecycle modification of aircraft components. Inventions, 10(4), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/inventions10040068
  37. Verreynne, M.-L., de Oliveira, R., Cao, Z., Nguyen, T., & Feast, G. (2025). University–business collaboration: A collaboration readiness index and scale. Research Policy, 54(8), 105273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105273
  38. Vilarinho, H., Pereira, M.A., D’Inverno, G., & Camanho, A. (2026). A composite indicator framework integrating regulator perspectives for assessing water service quality.  Omega, 138,103435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2025.103435
  39. Wohlin, C., & Rainer, A. (2022). Is it a case study? A critical analysis and guidance. Journal of Systems and Software, 192, 111395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.111395

Tools


Copyright © 2026  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic