Mario Pierobon explores why additive manufacturing (AM) is becoming a mainstream production method for maintenance providers.
Additive manufacturing (AM) is providing efficiencies in aviation MRO operations. Once viewed as a niche technology for prototyping, it has now become a practical tool for producing certified aircraft components ranging from simple cabin fittings to more complex structural parts. MRO organisations are increasingly exploring its potential to improve supply chain resilience and enable faster, localised production, while navigating the evolving regulatory landscape that governs airworthiness and safety.
AM-produced parts
Lufthansa Technik’s AM centre in Hamburg has gained experience with the first load-bearing metal parts for use outside the cabin, and is currently focusing on a broad range of components, usually made of polymer plastic, for widespread use in aircraft interiors, according to company spokesperson Michael Lagemann.
“These range from parts hidden in the background, which passengers rarely, if at all, come into contact with, to much more ‘visible’ components such as seat covers or ‘occupied’ signs for restrooms.” Lagemann adds: “We have also already 3D-printed special holders for pilots’ headsets, and we regularly design and produce a wide range of ‘little helpers’, namely intelligent tools for
maintenance tasks or workshops. These devices or equipment can enable, or at least significantly simplify, the repair and replacement of certain aircraft or cabin parts. “One example is a solution that allows our mechanics to replace onboard water filters without having to remove the entire assembly, which is very time‑consuming.”
Aircraft MRO organisations typically begin their AM journey with polymer cabin interior components, as these are frequently replaced due to wear and tear, are often expensive and can have long lead times, yet are relatively easy to certify due to their low criticality, according to Stephan Keil, business owner aviation and certification at EOS. “Obsolescence and supply chain challenges cause long lead times, while the cost of conventional injection moulding tools translates into high prices for small runs and high minimum order quantities, which means capital tied up in inventory,” he says.
Keil adds: “Experienced MROs also use AM to manufacture components for aircraft cabin systems, such as air distribution, restroom systems, passenger service units (suspended elements such as signage, air vents and speakers), seat actuators, and cabin structures.”
There are three main motivations driving Lufthansa Technik to use additive manufacturing, explains Lagemann. “First, the technology offers a much more direct path to producing complex geometries, for which conventional manufacturing methods would often require special tooling or moulds, which would have to
be designed and manufactured before actual production begins,” he explains.
“This is no longer necessary with an AM component, which can usually be printed immediately and is often much
more lightweight, with less waste and greater cost efficiency.”
Lagemann continues: “Second, by considering AM’s superior customisation capabilities and design flexibility from the outset, and perhaps a little creative inspiration drawn from nature or other intelligent sources, we could also significantly optimise the geometries of our components to make them lighter, stronger, and sometimes even a little cheaper, without compromising stability, durability or safety.”
The third key factor for AM components is the enormous potential to increase the resilience of the aviation industry’ supply and logistics chains, affirms Lagemann. “Instead of sending a cabin component from Hamburg to a facility abroad, we could transfer the data much more easily and have local colleagues print the required component themselves,” he explains.
Lagemann continues: “Even if local printing takes a few hours, it is still a faster logistics process than the conventional intercontinental component shipping. In extreme cases, the turnaround time of an aircraft layover depends on the availability of a specific component. In this instance, a locally printed part could be a real lifesaver. While the supply chain advantages have likely been known for decades, they have become even more relevant and interesting in the recent tariff debate.”
Regulatory pathways
Each aircraft component design must originate from an approved aircraft design organisation (DO), while component production must be carried out by an approved aircraft production organisation (PO).
The DO assumes responsibility for component design, as demonstrated by prototype testing, while the PO assumes responsibility for component quality assurance, as demonstrated by qualifying the processes and materials of its AM machines, explains Keil. “The DO must be authorised to design AM components, while the PO must be authorised to manufacture using AM technology, both approved by the respective competent authority,” he says.
Keil adds: “Both organisations must apply for AM to be included in their scope of work, and they must be
approved by the respective competent authority. Part designs can be certified by the DO of the OEM which is holding the aircraft type certificate (TC holder) or by independent design organisations – approved under the same regulatory framework.”
Generally, all EASA regulations must also be considered for AM components, Lagemann observes: “Continuous traceability is mandatory and must cover the entire production chain, from raw material acquisition to final installation and operation on board the aircraft.
“Obtaining regulatory approval forM components, however, requires even more effort and testing than for components manufactured using conventional methods.”
Independent design organisations in Europe are required to mark their components with the words the ‘EPA – European Part Approval’, while non‑OEM design organisations based in the US will mark them with the words ‘PMA – Part Manufacturer Approval’ to identify that the components originate from a different design body than the OEM, as Keil explains. “Other countries have equivalent marking requirements. In this context, it is important to note that EPA and PMA components are certified under the same regulations and regulatory oversight as OEM components.”
To conclude
As AM gains maturity, its role within aircraft MRO continues to evolve from experimentation to more common practice. The technology’s flexibility, efficiency and customisation potential make it an attractive option for both established and emerging maintenance providers and a useful contribution to manage supply chain disruptions.
This feature was first published in MRO Management – November/December 2025. To read the magazine in full, click here.
