Skip to content
AVMX Pro

Transparency

How our performance figures are modelled

Every percentage we publish is a modelled target, not a result measured at a named customer. This page says what each figure rests on, so you can judge whether the assumption holds for your own operation — and tell us where it does not.

Effective
26 October 2026
Version
1.0
Applies to
AVMX Pro platform & website
None of these are audited customer results. AVMX Pro is available for pilot deployment. Where a figure matters to a decision you are making, ask us to model it against your own fleet data during evaluation rather than relying on the range.

1What the figures are, and are not

They are estimates of what the platform is designed to change, built from the operational levers it actually controls — events avoided, hours not spent, stock not held. They assume an operator who adopts the workflow rather than running it alongside an existing one.

They are not benchmarks, not a guarantee, and not drawn from a customer deployment. No AVMX Pro customer has yet run long enough to produce audited figures. When one has, we will publish those instead and say whose they are.

2Each figure and what it rests on

20–30%Reduction in aircraft downtime

Modelled from — Unscheduled events avoided. Repeat-defect detection flags a subsystem failing again before it becomes an AOG, and checks are planned against actual flying hours rather than the calendar.

10–20%Lower maintenance costs

Modelled from — Labour and parts. Work orders carry their own labour hours and reserved parts, so the cost of a job is known rather than estimated, and parts are reserved against real demand instead of held.

5–10%Higher aircraft availability

Modelled from — Availability follows from the first two: fewer unscheduled groundings and shorter turnarounds leave more of the fleet serviceable on any given day.

25–40%Technician productivity

Modelled from — Technician time. The job, its task list, its parts and its sign-off are on the phone at the aircraft and work offline, which removes the walk back to a terminal and the second entry of the same data.

50–70%Faster regulatory audits

Modelled from — Audit preparation. Records are already filed against the aircraft with their directive reference, expiry and signed document, so preparing for an audit is an export rather than a search.

15–25%Lower inventory carrying cost

Modelled from — Inventory carrying cost. Parts forecasting projects demand from scheduled checks and consumption history, so stock is ordered to a reorder point rather than held against uncertainty.

30–50%Faster maintenance planning

Modelled from — Planning effort. Due dates are computed from utilisation and component health across the fleet at once, instead of being assembled per aircraft by hand.

Real-timeCompliance monitoring

Modelled from — Monitoring. Expiry and threshold checks run on a schedule against live records, so a lapse surfaces as an alert rather than at the next review.

3Where a figure would not hold

Worth saying plainly, because it is the part a careful buyer will ask about. The ranges assume a fleet large enough for patterns to appear, maintenance data that is being entered as work happens rather than reconstructed afterwards, and that the people doing the work use the field app rather than paper.

An operator with three aircraft, or one whose records are written up weekly, should expect less than the top of any range here. We would rather say that now than explain it later.

4Questions

If an assumption looks wrong for your operation, that is useful to us. Tell us about your fleet and we will model the figures against it.