看英文凑合

看你水平

不是物品的表格

If we take the time-based model as an example (see figure 1), the degradation will
increase over time. The initial period can be described as ‘good performance’ where
the degradation rate is low, or even very low. During this period, classic visual inspection techniques may even fail to identify that degradation has started. It is during this
period where many structural inspections feature an interval threshold to account for
the good initial performance of an aircraft. However, as time progresses, degradation
is inevitable and the acceptable condition of the structural item is questioned.
In case the inspection finds degradation which has passed the predefined limit that
ensures safe operation until the subsequent inspection, the items must be restored.
The respective benchmark is named ‘restoration limit’ in the example model.
Consequently the progressing degradation after Check #2 in our example should stay
above the operational safety limits before Check #3, when the restoration limit was not
reached at the time of Check #2. With this, the safety margin between the safety limit
and failure are maintained. The restoration limit and the repeat interval are interdependent and set by trading of economics.
这是第一个图附带的说明

这个物品蓄满能量在新的品质

A second aspect is that restoration does not often bring the item back to its initial state
(a restored Item is normally close, but not exactly the same quality of a new item).
This conservatism however is necessary to build robust inspection programmes on the
current fleet level condition monitoring approach. Inspections resulting in ‘no finding’ could
possibly have been deferred on that aircraft, but there is however still potential for findings
on other aircraft triggered by the variation of an individual aircraft’s operational conditions
and occurrences. In other words, effectiveness of the inspection programme is validated by
the ‘no finding’ rate at fleet level - the current fleet level condition monitoring concept.
Switching the global concept to CBM brings maintenance from monitoring fleet
level conditions by inspecting every aircraft of a fleet, to managing the individual
aircraft airworthiness against predetermined safety and economic limits with built-in
monitoring capabilities.
Let’s look into the semantics of such an approach (see figure 2). The on-board system
monitors the relevant parameter over time and as from the initial detection, a prognostic
function provides a status input on the overall condition monitoring system for the structural
item. When the ‘maintenance notification limit’ is reached, the airline’s Maintenance Control
Centre (MCC) is notified by the aircraft system. Maintenance can now start planning the
restoration slot within the ‘maintenance window’ (e.g. packaged together with other
deferred items in a dedicated shop visit) to optimize the aircraft availability. A cockpit
message informs the flight crew and the MCC if the degradation is about to approach an
‘operational limit’, providing a clear status of the individual aircraft’s remaining operational
capabilities (e.g. number of flight cycles/hours before the item needs to be restored),
limitation of the aircraft’s specific capabilities (reduce flight level and/or reduced load), etc.
这是第二个图的说明

我自己翻译都奇怪

如果我们以基于时间的模型为例(见图1),退化
随着时间的推移增加。
最初阶段可以被描述为在良好的性能降解率低,甚至是非常低的。
在此期间,经典的视觉检测技术甚至可能无法识别退化已经开始。
它是在这期间,许多结构性检查功能占的区间阈值
飞机的初始性能好。
然而,随着时间的推移,退化
是不可避免的和结构的可接受条件项质疑。
如果检查发现降解通过预定义的限制
确保安全运行,直到后续检查,物品必须恢复。
各自的基准被命名为“恢复限制”的示例模型。
因此进展恶化后检查2号在我们的示例中应该保持
以上操作安全限制之前检查# 3,当恢复限制不是
到达的时候检查# 2。之间的安全裕度,安全限制
维护和失败。
恢复限制和交易设定的重复间隔是相互依赖和经济学。

这解决了你的疑问么

机翻后有问题的词语都给我改成正确的了

有