AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, MRO AND AIRWORTHINESS SOFTWARE
When the records aren't ready, the aircraft doesn't fly.
OASES gives airlines, MRO providers and CAMO organisations one connected system for aircraft
maintenance tracking, continuing airworthiness, materials and compliance, so a missing signature or a lost
record never costs you a departure. Enterprise capability, at a cost the enterprise systems cannot match.
- One master set of data: planning, airworthiness, materials, commercial
- An audit-ready compliance trail, built automatically
- Browser-based access for your team, wherever they work
Tell us your fleet and we’ll show you OASES.
Request a Demo
Trusted by 130 aviation organisations worldwide. Maintaining aircraft records since 1975.
secure, browser-based, access anywhere
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE TRACKING, WITHOUT THE SPREADSHEET
Every task, check and component life is tracked against the aircraft it belongs to, so you always know what is due, what is overdue and what is about to bite. Maintenance tracking that lives in one system instead of across three spreadsheets is the difference between finding a problem in a report and finding it on the ramp.
- Records spread across spreadsheets & folders
- Audits that mean digging through files
- Fewer trained engineers to do the manual work
- Older aircraft needing closer maintenance
- No single view of fleet status
Plan with confidence
OASES tracks airworthiness directives and service bulletins and builds the work orders, so nothing slips and your schedule is protected.
Stay airworthy in real time
Continuing airworthiness, component life and fleet status are visible at a glance - times since new, fit, overhaul and repair, all in one place.
Prove compliance with ease
A complete, automatic audit trail means the records are always ready before anyone asks - no scramble across spreadsheets when an audit lands.
BUILT FOR MRO PROVIDERS AND MAINTENANCE ORGANISATIONS
If you maintain other people’s aircraft, you are running several fleets, several customers and several sets of records at once. OASES handles line maintenance, base maintenance, materials and commercial management in one aviation maintenance system, so you can take on more work without taking on more admin. Our implementation team are former aviation engineers, so onboarding is a conversation with people who have done the job.
For CAMO organisations managing continuing airworthiness on behalf of operators, the same view covers every fleet you are responsible for, with the audit trail attached.
Run a tighter, calmer
maintenance operation
Protect the flight schedule
Always audit-ready
Right part, right time
Free up scarce expertise
Tighter commercial control
Your data, safeguarded
"Do we really need this?"
We're small - is a spreadsheet not enough?
A spreadsheet has no audit trail and no alerts. The first missed directive or lost record that grounds an aircraft costs far more than the software ever will.
What does it cost?
OASES is priced by the number of aircraft you operate, so a smaller fleet pays a smaller price. Enterprise rigour, without the enterprise bill.
How hard is it to get started?
Our implementation team are former aviation engineers. Whether you're coming off paper or migrating from another system, they handle the heavy lifting with you.
What should a complete set of aircraft maintenance records actually contain?
Our implementation team are former aviation engineers. Whether you're coming off paper or migrating from aAircraft and engine logbooks, maintenance releases, task cards, deferred defects, AD and service bulletin compliance, life-limited parts status, component back-to-birth traces, modifications and repairs, mass and balance, and configuration. For leased aircraft, a live return file from day one. Summary status alone is never enough.
We keep records across spreadsheets, shared drives and paper. What actually goes wrong?
If engineering, planning, stores and records each hold a different status, you don't have a real status. Engineering updates one file, planning copies the task into another, line maintenance closes the work in a third, and records tries to stitch the evidence together afterwards. It surfaces at audits, lease returns and AOG recovery, when one missing reference can trigger a manual review of every related record.
How quickly could we produce records if an auditor asked today?
That's the real test. With records spread across drives and files, the honest answer is usually days. With one governed record per aircraft and component, it's minutes, and the evidence comes out with the audit trail attached.
What's the practical difference between a paper tech log and an electronic one?
At 02:10 on a quick turn, a scribbled defect entry can delay an aircraft as easily as a failed part. Paper is fast to write and never runs out of battery, which is a real advantage at a remote station. The cost shows up after the aircraft leaves. Handwriting varies, engineers rewrite the same defect into another system later, and every rewrite is a chance to introduce an error. With an electronic log, maintenance control, planning and CAMO see the same event at the same time.
Does an electronic tech log work at a remote station with no connection?
Yes. Engineers record defects and sign off tasks offline, and those records sync to the central system once a connection is re-established. Nothing waits on Wi-Fi.
Will an electronic tech log satisfy our regulator?
Compliance is about control of the record, meaning signer identity, approved workflows, retention and traceability, rather than the format. An electronic log doesn't lower the standard, it makes weak process control easier to spot. It needs to fit your approved procedures and state of registry, and it's treated as an operational and compliance project rather than an IT one.
Why does AD tracking break down in a spreadsheet?
A spreadsheet holds a list. It can't hold the logic. Applicability by tail, serial number, mod status and installed component. Repetitive inspections, superseding actions, terminating action, evidence of closure. A spreadsheet can list AD numbers and due dates, but it can't control the chain of reasoning behind each one.
How do we prove an AD has been closed out properly?
Every closure links back to the source directive, the work pack, the accomplishment reference, the signatory, and the next due if it's repetitive. When quality or an authority asks for status by tail number, serial range or component position, the answer comes out of the system with the records attached.
Directives keep getting revised and superseded. How do we keep up?
New FAA and EASA directives enter the regulatory library with source data, effective date and revision history. Engineering reviews applicability by tail, serial range, part number and configuration. Planning assigns due dates, repetitive intervals and material demand. The system routes tasks, flags due-soon items and surfaces missing evidence. It does not make the compliance decision. Your CAMO engineers and post holders still own that.
