@Gilant - good digging... however, not all Airworthness...

@Gilant - good digging... however, not all Airworthness Directives will result in instances where CVM monitoring is appropriate.

The Airbus 310 AD (for 9 aircraft registered in US) requires initial inspection (eddy current is recommended by FAA) AND then repair / modification to the aircraft to prevent risk of cracking. There is no requirement for ongoing monitoring.

The Boeing 737- 300/500 AD (for 91 aircraft registered in US) requires external visual inspection for cracking of aircraft skin on 300/500 series retrofitted with winglets. This is comparatively cheap and easy to do (especially given the number of flying hours between mandated inspections and the costings given in the AD), so again is unlikely to involve installation of CVM sensors.

There will - undoubtedly - be more ADs over the next few years that will provide opportunities for application of CVM for ingoing monitoring of stress points, etc., but really the main game here should be integration of CVM in new aircraft by OEMs at points they believe require ongoing monitoring. The challenge with this approach is getting OEMs to conceed the nees for ongoing monitoring of any components or stress points in their aircraft; such integration has to be understood as an 'additional' safety feature of the aircraft,rather than an admission by the OEM of a design weakness with the aircraft.

CVM remains a centrepiece of the push to improve Structural Health Monitoring in fixed wing and rotor aircraft by a growing number of stakeholders in the US, Europe, Brasil, etc., which should encourage us all to hold tight. Revenues will follow. AIMO. GLTAH R-7