Aerospace and defence
The risk isn't delay. It is executing an incorrect but seemingly approved procedure.
Configuration-specific maintenance under airworthiness rules, where accuracy, provenance and auditability aren't negotiable, and where connectivity is often restricted by policy as much as by environment.
The reality
The information exists. Access to the right revision doesn't.
Engineers must comply with type certificates, airworthiness directives and service bulletins that vary by variant, serial number, cycle count and modification history. The material exists, but it is complex, frequently updated, and distributed across controlled systems.
Connectivity is constrained by policy as much as environment. Hangars, secure facilities and defence contexts restrict network access. Engineers can't rely on live systems, generic guidance or informal escalation.
Consider an aircraft grounded during a scheduled turnaround. The task is routine but configuration-dependent. The engineer must identify the correct procedure revision and confirm applicability for this specific engine. Documentation exists across multiple systems, access is limited, and escalation is slow.
What FieldPal provides
Approved guidance, context-locked
-
Indexed by variant and serial
Approved manuals, service bulletins and airworthiness data are ingested and indexed, so guidance is matched to the specific unit being worked on.
-
Provenance on every answer
Answers name their source document and revision, so applicability can be confirmed rather than assumed.
-
A provable execution trail
Step confirmation and traceability are aligned to regulatory requirements, captured as the work happens rather than reconstructed afterwards.
-
Data that stays inside your boundary
Built for organisations whose material is controlled, licensed or classified. It stays within your own deployment and is never used for anyone else.
The outcome
What this changes operationally
-
Aircraft on ground
Less time grounded while someone confirms which procedure revision applies to this airframe.
-
Escalation
Routine tasks stop being escalated out of caution, because the engineer can see the source and revision for themselves.
-
Cognitive load
The engineer isn't carrying the applicability rules for every variant in their head while working.
-
Audit preparation
The execution trail is captured during the work, so compliance doesn't depend on documentation written up afterwards.
Scoping first
We'd rather scope this properly than sell it quickly
Regulated aerospace and defence work carries requirements that no product should claim to satisfy generically. Approval pathways, controlled data handling and evidence standards vary by operator, authority and contract.
So we scope these deployments with your compliance and airworthiness teams before anything is promised. If your requirements exceed what we can evidence today, we'll say so.
Questions
What compliance and airworthiness teams ask
- Does FieldPal certify that a procedure is airworthy or approved for use?
- No. FieldPal surfaces and names the source document and revision so an engineer can confirm applicability, rather than replacing the approval authority itself. Deployments are scoped with your compliance and airworthiness teams before anything is promised.
- Does this work where connectivity is restricted by policy?
- Not fully, today. Recordings can be made without a connection and process later, but answering questions and completing records need one until full offline working ships. Deploying into your own environment is also a conversation we can have: tell us the constraint and we'll tell you what we can evidence now.
- Where does controlled or classified material stay?
- That depends on the deployment. The managed service runs in Microsoft Azure, primarily in Sweden Central. A private segregated instance makes the separation structural rather than logical, and deployment inside your own boundary is scoped case by case. In every case your data is never shared across deployments or used to train models serving anyone else.
Bring your compliance requirements first
Working through your data handling and evidence standards at the start beats discovering a blocker after a successful trial.