自西元1988年美國Aloha航空公司航班243班機意外事件發生後，老舊飛機的維修安全問題開始受到注視，老舊飛機維護計劃也相繼發展推行；同時間飛航人為因素的研究也將飛機維修人員納入其研究對象，維修資源管理訓練也應運而生，並在各航空公司推行。經過多年的研究顯示，維修資源管理可以有效地提昇飛機維修人員的工作效率，並改善其維修品質。本研究針對國內航空公司進行維修老舊飛機與維修資源管理之問卷調查，評量飛機維修人員對維修老舊飛機與維修資源管理的觀念及態度，探討不同變項之差異性及維修老舊飛機與維修資源管理之相關程度。本研究對象為國內六家航空公司之飛機維修人員，有效回收率為72.7%，供擷取418人為研究樣本。經由各種統計分析方法檢驗分析後結論如下：
1.　經維修資源管理訓練後，飛機維修人員在維修老舊飛機觀念及態度的表現有顯著的提昇，顯示維修資源管理訓練可有效提昇老舊飛機的維修安全。
2.　飛機維修人員在維修老舊飛機的觀念及態度的表現呈現高程度的認同，但在面對壓力時，個人壓力管理的表現不甚理想，值得公司管理階層注意。
3.　飛機維修人員對於果斷敢言的表現仍然不佳，顯示國外此種對事不對人的做法不被國內維修人員所認同，航空公司應鼓勵員工多提出建言。
4.　維修老舊飛機與維修資源管理兩者呈現正相關，當維修人員學習到良好的維修資源管理之態度與見解，在維修老舊飛機觀念及態度上有較佳的表現。
5.　不同的工作部門維修老舊飛機困難之來源不同，在直接參與維修部門的維修人員主要的困難為材料獲取不易、器材不足及時間的壓力；間接參與維修的部門主要的來源是缺乏相關知識、歷史資料不足及材料獲取不易。
6.　缺乏專業知識、缺乏資源、非正規的準則、溝通不良、缺乏警覺及自滿大意等人為因素，最容易造成維修老舊飛機時之維修人為疏失與意外事件。

Since　the　aircraft　accident　of　Aloha　Airlines　Flight　243　occurred　in　1988,　the　civil　aviation　authority　has　started　to　seriously　examine　the　aging　aircraft　maintenance　and　to　develop　its　aging　aircraft　programs　for　safety　maintenance　issue.　At　the　same　time,　the　study　of　aviation　human　factor　also　has　paid　more　attention　on　aviation　maintenance　technicians　(AMTs).　The　maintenance　resource　management　(MRM)　training　has　been　developed　and　carried　out　among　the　airlines　operators.　Having　demonstrated　after　many　investigations,　the　MRM　may　have　effectively　promoted　the　AMTs’　working　efficiency　and　has　improved　the　maintenance　quality　in　past　few　years.
This　thesis　is　hence　intended　to　examine　the　merits　of　MRM　training　being　conduced　for　many　years　in　aircraft　maintenance　in　Taiwan’s　airlines　operators　by　carrying　out　the　questionnaire　survey　study.　The　objective　of　this　thesis　is　two-fold:　one　is　aimed　at　understanding　the　AMTs’　perceptions　toward　aging　aircraft　maintenance　and　MRM;　the　other　is　for　discussing　the　difference　and　correlation　of　aging　aircraft　maintenance　and　MRM.　The　participants　of　the　survey　came　from　six　domestic　airlines;　418　out　of　the　575　copies　of　questionnaires　have　been　responded　and　screened　through　the　valid　statistics　technique.　The　results　of　this　survey　are　summarized　as　following:
1.　After　taking　the　MRM　training,　the　AMTs　have　revealed　the　promotion　in　the　aging　aircraft　maintenance　performance,　indicating　that　the　MRM　training　may　have　promoted　the　aging　aircraft　maintenance　effectively.
2.　The　majority　of　AMTs　has　presented　a　high　appraisal　regarding　the　aging　aircraft　maintenance　performance.　However,　in　facing　the　pressure　of　achievement　and　expectation,　the　personal　pressure　management　performance　from　the　individual　AMT　is　not　effective　and　worthwhile　for　the　corporate　management　paying　particular　attention.
3.　The　AMTs　regarding　the　assertiveness　performance　do　not　perform　well,　illustrating　that　the　individual　usual　conduct　behaved　in　the　foreign　countries　does　not　apply　to　the　domestic　mechanic.　That　is,　the　domestic　airlines　should　encourage　the　staff　more　to　assert　their　opinions.
4.　The　aging　aircraft　maintenance　and　MRM　are　positively　correlated.　As　AMTs　have　improved　their　MRM　attitude　and　knowledge,　the　better　results　will　be　shown　in　aging　aircraft　maintenance　activity.
5.　The　source　of　the　aging　aircraft　maintenance　difficulty　comes　from　different　origins　for　direct　and　indirect　maintenance　units.　For　the　direct　unit,　the　material　difficult　gained,　lack　of　equipment　and　pressure　in　time　are　the　main　factors.　As　for　indirect　unit,　the　maintenance　personnel　considers　the　lack　of　knowledge,　poor　history　record　and　material　difficult　gained　are　the　main　factors　for　the　maintenance　difficulty　source.
6.　The　most　commonly　human　error　committed　in　maintaining　the　aging　aircraft　includes　the　lack　of　knowledge,　lack　of　resources,　work　norms,　lack　of　communication,　lack　of　awareness,　and　complacency.

中文部分：

[1]王承宗、谷安康，”飛航安全管理系列－維修資源管理MRM”，空軍軍官雙月刊，第111期，13-24頁，2003。
[2]中華民國台灣飛行安全基金會，飛行安全季刊，第24期，2000。
[3]交通部民用航空局飛航標準組，”維修資源管理”，民航通告編號：AC120-00A，2000。
[4]交通部民用航空局飛航標準組，”加壓機身修理容損評估”，民航通告編號：AC 120-020，2003。
[5]交通部民用航空局飛航標準組，” 航空維修人為因素發展原則與執行方式”，民航通告編號：AC 120-028，2004。
[6]交通部民用航空局網站 http://www.caa.gov.tw
[7]交通部統計處，”民眾對飛航安全信心及滿意度調查”，1999。
[8]交通部運輸研究所，”國內外航空事故肇因分析與失事調查組織以及作業之研究”，1997。
[9]行政院飛航安全委員會，”事故調查期中飛安通告”，編號：ASC-IFSB-03-03-002，2002。
[10]行政院飛航安全委員會，”腐蝕預防及控制計畫(Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, CPCP)之逾期執行”，2003。
[11]林仲璋，”客機改裝貨機專題研究”，工研院經資中心IT IS計劃，工業技術研究院，2000。
[12]張新立，”開放天空對我國航空運輸安全影響之研究”，行政院國科會專題研究計劃成果報告，1993。
[13]曾秀亞，”維修資源管理(MRM)訓練成效評估之研究”， 成功大學交通管理學系碩士論文，2004。
[14]潘義鉦，”國籍航空公司維修資源管理(MRM)與安全態度及其相關研究”，成功大學航空太空學系碩士論文，2003。
[15]戴佐敏，”維護老飛機適航性大不易”，財團法人國家政策研究基金會 國政評論，永續(評)091-071號，2002。

英文部分：

[16]Air Transport Association, ATA Report 51-93-01, “Structural Maintenance Program Guidelines for Continuing Airworthiness”, May 1993.
[17]Air Transport Association, “Maintenance Human Factors Program Guidelines”, ATA Report No. SP-113, 1999.
[18]Airplane Safety Boeing Commercial Airplanes, “Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents – Worldwide Operations 1959-2003”, www.boeing.com/news/techissues, May 2004.
[19]Airworthiness Assurance Working Group, Federal Aviation Administration, AAWG Report, “Structures Task Group Guidelines Rev.1”, June 1996.
[20]Airworthiness Assurance Working Group, Federal Aviation Administration, AAWG Report, “Recommendations for Regulatory Action to Prevent Widespread Fatigue Damage in the Commercial Airplane Fleet”, March 1999.
[21]Akdeniz, A., “The Impact of Mandated Aging Airplane Programs on Jet Transport Airplane Scheduled Structural Inspection Programs”, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol.73, No. 1 pp. 4-15, 2001.
[22]Boeing, “Aging Airplane Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Model 737-100/200”, Document No. D6-38528 Rev.E, August 1995.
[23]Boeing, “Supplemental Structural Inspection Document for Model 737 Airplanes”, Document No. D6-37089, Rev. D, June 1995.
[24]Boeing, “Repair Assessment Guidelines – Model 737-100 to –500”, Document No. D6-38669, Rev. C, 2003.
[25]Boeing Aero Magazine, “Aging Airplane Systems Investigation”, Aero No. 7, July 1999.
[26]Boeing Aero Magazine, “Maintenance of Airplane Electrical Systems and Associated Documentation and Training”, Aero No. 19, July 2002.
[27]Boeing Service Engineering, “Aging Airplane Programs Overview”, Proceeding of Structure Repair Conference, 16-18 September 2003, Taipei, Taiwan.
[28]Boeing Service Engineering, “Corrosion Issues”, Proceeding of Structure Repair Conference, 16-18 September 2003, Taipei, Taiwan.
[29]Boeing Service Engineering, “Design Service Objective”, Proceeding of Structure Repair Conference, 16-18 September 2003, Taipei, Taiwan.
[30]Davies, C.A., “Plane Truth – an Investigator’s Story”, Algora Publishing, 2001.
[31]Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, “Aging Airplane Safety; Final Rule and Notices”, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 235, December 2002.
[32]Dupont, G., “The Dirty Dozen Errors in Aviation Maintenance”, Proceedings Eleventh Federal Aviation Administration Meeting on Human Factors Issues in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection: Human Error in Aviation Maintenance, Washington DC, pp. 45-49, 1997.
[33]Edwards, E., ”Introductory Overview”, Human Factors in Aviation. Ed. Wiener, Earl L. and David C. Nagel. San Diego, Academic Press, pp. 3-25, 1988.
[34]Federal Aviation Administration Aging Aircraft Program Website, http://aar400.tc.faa.gov/Programs/AgingAircraft
[35]Federal Aviation Administration, “Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs”, FAA Order No. 8300.12, November 1993.
[36]Federal Aviation Administration, “Damage Tolerance Assessment Of Repairs To Pressurized Fuselages”, Advisory Circular No. 120-73, 2000.
[37]Federal Aviation Administration, “Maintenance Resource Management Training”, Advisory Circular No. 120-72, 2000.
[38]Federal Aviation Administration, “Aging Airplane Inspections And Records Reviews”, Draft Advisory Circular No. 120-AAR, 2002.
[39]Federal Aviation Administration, “Aging Airplane Safety Final Rule and Notice”, FR Doc 02-30111, December 2002.
[40]Federal Aviation Administration, “Continuing Structural Integrity Program For Airplanes”, Draft Advisory Circular No. 91-56B, 2002.
[41]Federal Aviation Administration, “The Continued Airworthiness Of Older Airplanes”, Draft Advisory Circular No. 91-60A, 2002.
[42]Federal Aviation Administration, “Conducting Records Reviews and Aircraft Inspections Mandated By the Aging Aircraft Rules”, FAA Notice No. 8300.113, November 2003.
[43]Federal Aviation Administration, “Repair Assessment Program”, FAA Order No. 8300.13, July 2003.
[44]Fotos, C.P., “Continental Applies CRM Concepts to Technical, Maintenance Corp and Training Stresses Teamwork, Self-Assessment Techniques”, Aviation Week & Space Technology, pp. 32-35, 26 August, 1991.
[45]Graeber, R.C. & Marx, D.A., “Reduced Human Error in Aircraft Maintenance Operations”, Flight Safety Foundation 46th Annul International Air Safety Seminar, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1993.
[46]Heinrich, H.W., “Industrial Accident Prevention”, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.
[47]International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), “Human Factors in Aircraft Maintenance and Inspection”, ICAO Human Factor Digest No. 12, 1995.
[48]Kaiser, H.F., “The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis”, Education Psychological Measuring, Vol. 20, pp. 141-151, 1960.
[49]Kingsley-Jones, M., “World Airliner Census：Optimism Reigns”, Flight International, Vol. 166, No. 4948, pp. 34-60, 24-30 August 2004.
[50]Marx, D.A. & Graeber, R.C., “Human Error in Aircraft Maintenance”, As reported in N. Johnston, N. McDonald, & R. Fuller(Eds), Aviation Psychology in Practice, pp. 87-104, Aldershot, UK, 1994.
[51]National Transportation Safety Board, ”Aloha Airlines, Flight 243, Boeing 737-200, N73711, near Maui, Hawaii, April 28, 1988”, NTSB Report No. NTSB/AAR-89/03, June 1989.
[52]National Transportation Safety Board, ”In-flight Breakup Over The Atlantic Ocean Trans World Airlines Flight 800 Boeing 747-131, N93119 Near East Moriches, New York, July 17, 1996”, NTSB Report No. NTSB/AAR-00/03, July 2000.
[53]Peeler, D.T., “Comprehensive Damage Management of the AF Aging Fleet: The Evolution of Anticipate and Manage Technologies”, Proceeding of 6th Joint FAA/NASA/DOD Conference on Aging Aircraft, 16-19 September 2002, San Francisco, CA.
[54]RAF Museum milestones of flight website, http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/world/1909.html
[55]Reason, J., “Human Error”, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[56]Robertson, M., “Maintenance Resource Management”, The Human Factors Guide for Aviation Maintenance (Version 3), Chapter 16, Washington DC, Federal Aviation Administration, 1998.
[57]Sabatini, N., “Remarks for Nicholas Sabatini”, Proceeding of 6th Joint FAA/NASA/DOD Conference on Aging Aircraft, 16-19 September 2002, San Francisco, CA.
[58]Schmidt, H.-J., Schmidt-Brandecker, B., Tober, G., ” Design of Modern Aircraft Structure and the Role of NDI”, The e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing & Ultrasonics, Vol. 4, No. 6, June 1999.
[59]Seher, C., Smith, C., ” Managing the Aging Aircraft Problem”, The AVT Symposium on Aging Mechanisms and Control and the Specialists Meeting, 2001.
[60]Sian, B., Robertson, M., Watson, J., “Maintenance Resource Management Handbook”, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine, 2000.
[61]Sippel, W.M., “FAA’s Aging Aircraft Program”, Proceeding of Structure Repair Conference, 16-18 September 2003, Taipei, Taiwan.
[62]Taylor, J.C., “Effects of Communication and Participation in Aviation Maintenance”, Processings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 472-477, 1995.
[63]Taylor, J.C., “Evaluating the Effects of Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) Interventions in Airline Safety”, Annual Report FAA Grant #96-G-003, Santa Clara University, 1998.
[64]Taylor, J.C., “Tools and Techniques for Evaluating the Effects of Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) in Air Safety”, 2001 Report of Research Conducted under NASA-Ames Cooperative Agreement No. NCC2-1156, Santa Clara University, 2002.
[65]Taylor, J.C. & Patankar, M.S., “Four Generations of Maintenance Resource Management Problems in the U.S.：An Analysis of the Past, Present and Future”, The Journal of Air Transportation World Wide, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 3-32, 2001.
[66]Taylor, J.C. & Thomas, R.L., “Toward Measuring Safety Culture in Aviation Maintenance: The Structure of Trust and Professionalism”, Project Report, MRM Research Program, Engineering School, Santa Clara University, 2001.
[67]Taylor, J.C., Robertson, M.M., and Choi, S., “Empirical Results of Maintenance Resource Management Training for Aviation Maintenance Technicians”, Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, pp. 1020-1025, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1997.
[68]Thackray, R., “Human Factor Evaluation of the Work Environment of Operators Engaged in the Inspection and Repair of Aging Aircraft”, DOT Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-92/3, January 1992.