Pilots are also well trained to conduct in-flight service inspections on their aircraft as required. However, they are not sufficiently trained technically, as this is not their normal job. In addition, the exercise of such an activity would impose an additional burden on the pilot and would also limit his possible flight and rest periods during peacetime air operations. In addition to these routine activities, which are necessary for air operations, the pilot, especially in the case of combat aircraft, needs additional assistance to supplement ammunition and weapons. The new ABCP was developed from the previous program. In order to be able to perform all the necessary work on the aircraft, the program includes more than technical work on the aircraft. It also covers operational tasks such as debriefing, reassignment and mission planning. Implementing cross-maintenance of 5th generation aircraft is another challenge. Several NATO countries are replacing their 4th generation aircraft with F-35s (USA, ITA, GBR, NOR, NLD, DNK, BEL). The maintenance of 5th generation aircraft faces additional challenges, mainly related to the safety aspects of the platform and its systems. Some owner countries are tackling these challenges with the appropriate units and assume that these challenges could be solved in the (near) future. In 1952, just a few years after NATO was founded, the maintenance of NATO aircraft outside its own territory was discussed.
The result was a document describing missions based on The Missions referred to in Article 5 and not Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.2 To meet international support needs, NATO`s national and multinational structures were necessary to enable operational commanders to launch tactical aircraft from their main bases of operations with personnel and equipment from other countries. To this end, the Allied Air Force Headquarters in Central Europe (AAFCE) has set up a working group to study the standardization of cross-maintenance of tactical aircraft in continental Europe. The working group was technically led by the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE).3 This was the result of previous exercises in which it had been determined that standardization needed to be carried out in order to maintain a good work program.4 However, in 1954, the implementation of the PCSA seemed rewarding and nations preferred bilateral agreements.5 Despite the fact that many nations preferred bilateral agreements, the first standardization agreement (STANAG) was ratified in the 1960s. In recent years, NATO and the JAPCC have worked to reactivate the CPHA, revising, simplifying and adapting full standardization. The European Air Group (EAG) has also recognised the need for TISA and, together with both parties, has continuously developed the programme.7 The new STANAG 3430 has now been reactivated by NATO and represents the agreement on the implementation of several CPHA documents. The responsibilities of the new ACSP are outlined in COA Guideline 80-53. Strategic management is provided by SHAPE and CPHA is managed by AIRCOM. In addition, each NATO country has executive responsibility. Each nation can assume the role of issuing or receiving nation.
An issuing nation needs support for its aircraft, while the host nation supports a visiting aircraft. The Cross-Acquisition and Services Agreement (ACSA) is negotiated on a bilateral basis between the United States and its NATO allies or coalition partners, allowing U.S. forces to exchange the most common types of support, including food, fuel, transportation, ammunition, and equipment. The agreement in no way obliges a country to take military action. ACSA also exists between third countries. Japan and South Korea have formed ACSAs with countries other than the United States. [1] The aircraft cross-maintenance program is a necessary and, above all, appropriate procedure to increase flexibility and extend aircraft range limits in the future. The implementation of this nato-wide programme involves many and varied challenges. This is already shown by the development fluctuating over 70 years, which has not yet reached its final goal. The need for a common defence policy further legitimises the ongoing work on the ACS and will certainly lead to a greater frequency of ACS between nations with the new BCP and will allow NATO air forces to work closely together again.
In addition, there are technical aspects that need to be taken into account that require a CPHA. According to current regulations, an inspection of flight services must be carried out before, between and after a flight. The goal is to detect failures at an early stage, replenish resources, and apply aircraft configuration changes. .
