Aerospace Software Development

Your records reflect your aircraft. In the back shops it's 80% paperwork and 20 percent work. And the enterprise MRO tools are priced for airlines, not for shops: too expensive or a pain to use, so the operation lands on Excel, or paper, and the compliance risk grows with every input.

  • Aircraft technical records with full maintenance history, component tracking, and airworthiness directive compliance

  • Maintenance programme management with task scheduling, work package planning, and engineer assignment

  • Parts management covering serviceable stock, component traceability, and shelf-life control

  • Flight operations software for crew scheduling, route planning, and operational control

The problem

Sound familiar?

  • Maintenance engineers spending the first hour of every input searching paper technical records to confirm which tasks are due and what work has been completed, rather than having that surfaced automatically?

  • Compliance tracking spread across multiple spreadsheets with no single view of airworthiness status across the fleet, creating a real risk every time an aircraft approaches a scheduled maintenance interval?

Short answer

RaftLabs builds custom aerospace software for aviation operators, MRO organisations, and manufacturers: MRO management built to EASA Part-145 or FAA Part 145, airworthiness compliance and AD tracking, aircraft parts traceability, flight operations, and engineer records. A validated v1 typically launches in 14 to 20 weeks. We scope every project before pricing. Fixed cost, agreed before work starts.

Trusted by

Perceptional logo
Musgrave Group
UrShipper logo
Brux Dental Solutions
Bella Skin Institute Logo
Energia Rewards
Draftly logo
TuneClub Logo
Sekou LMS logo
Logo of food order management app gula
SnelwegDeals
Grubly logo
PSi logo
Instantor Rewards logo
logo of Mobile app for events, membership clubs, and communities
AldiFest retail campaign logo
Vidmattic logo
EMS Connect logo
Worx Squad logo
logo of Online Web App For Making Intro
logo of Referral and Viral Marketing Platform
Concurrences logo
GE logo
Ticketstop logo

01 Diagnosis

Where aerospace operations actually leak

  1. 01
    Problem

    Enterprise tools priced for airlines, not for shops

    Solution

    The big maintenance systems are focused on airlines, not MRO needs. They're either too expensive or a pain to use, and operators report replacing expensive enterprise systems with focused alternatives at a fraction of the cost. So the shop lands on Excel, or paper, and the compliance risk grows with every input. When AD compliance dates, component life limits, and scheduled task intervals are tracked in separate files maintained by different people, a single missed update creates a compliance gap nobody sees until an audit.A single compliance record per aircraft, updated automatically from work order completions, removes that risk. The outcome is a system priced for the shop, not the airline.

  2. 02
    Problem

    Paperwork swallows the wrench time

    Solution

    Your records reflect your aircraft. In the back shops it's 80% paperwork and 20 percent work. Engineers start every job with a records search rather than a spanner, and completing documentation for paper-based operations can take weeks after the work is done. Airlines will not pay without that documentation. Labour is the largest and fastest-growing share of the $104 billion annual MRO spend as the technician shortage bites, so every hour lost to a records search is billed against the shop's most expensive line.A digital technical record with the current task schedule, component history, and AD compliance status surfaced at aircraft selection removes the search step entirely. The outcome is wrench time, not paper time.

  3. 03
    Problem

    A part without papers is worthless

    Solution

    Traceability is existential. A part with an expired release document or an exceeded shelf life reaching an aircraft creates a potential airworthiness finding, and the paperwork is the trust layer: break it and engines get grounded. When a stores technician checks serviceability by reading a paper certificate and comparing it to a manually maintained shelf-life list, the process fails when someone is busy, distracted, or working a night shift.A parts management system that validates serviceability automatically at issue, checking the release document, the shelf-life date, and the life limits against the work order, makes the check consistent and auditable. The outcome is parts that can fly, on paper and in fact.

  4. 04
    Problem

    Digitizing badly is worse than paper

    Solution

    Digital methods that mirror paper processes rather than replacing them add cost without removing the inefficiency. If the workforce has to change their processes to fit the computer's logic, the system won't work. And when preparing for a QA audit means gathering records from paper files, email chains, and legacy systems, the preparation takes weeks and the result is never quite complete.A system that produces the required audit evidence as a structured output of normal operations cuts audit preparation from weeks to hours. The audit trail is created as the work is done: clear, simple, and nonrefutable. The outcome is compliance that survives the audit, not the audit that survives compliance.

02 What we ship

Aerospace software we ship

  1. Aircraft technical records management

    Every maintenance task, inspection, and defect is captured against the aircraft: task reference, the engineer who completed it, the date, and the release to service certification. Component history shows every installation and removal for each life-limited and serialised part, with hours and cycles at each event. AD compliance records show the applicability determination, compliance method, completion date, and next due date for every applicable directive. Maintenance programme task tracking shows what's complete, what's approaching due, and what's overdue across the fleet. Your team gets an accurate picture of what work is due without searching paper records, and your CAMO auditor gets a record that holds up.

  2. MRO work order management

    Work packages assemble scheduled maintenance tasks, defect rectifications, and additional work items into a planned input before the aircraft arrives. Task cards reference the applicable approved data, whether AMM task, airworthiness directive, or engineering order, linked to each work step. Engineer assignment checks the required licence category and type rating endorsement against the engineer record before assignment. Parts and tooling are reserved against the work order so stores and tool control can prepare in advance. Completion recording links the maintenance release certification to each task, and work package close-out confirms all tasks are signed off before the aircraft returns to service. The coordinator stops tracking status by phone call.

  3. Parts management and traceability

    Every item in stores carries part number, serial number, batch number, traceability documentation, and shelf-life expiry. Serviceability checking validates that a part has a valid release document, hasn't exceeded its life limit, and is within shelf-life before it's issued to a work order. Incoming goods inspection flags parts without adequate traceability documentation for quarantine. Rotable component tracking shows current installation location, accumulated hours and cycles, and next scheduled shop visit for life-limited and on-condition components. Parts loan and exchange management covers AOG situations where a component is borrowed from another operator pending return of the serviceable unit. An unserviceable or inadequately documented part doesn't reach an aircraft.

  4. Airworthiness compliance management

    AD applicability determination matches directive references against the aircraft type, engine type, and component part numbers in your fleet to identify which ADs apply to each aircraft. Compliance method recording shows whether the directive was closed out with a one-time fix, a recurring inspection, or an alternative approved method for each applicable directive. Due date calculation for recurring ADs uses the compliance method, the aircraft hours or cycles at last compliance, and the current utilisation rate. Alert generation fires when an aircraft approaches an AD compliance due date, with lead time configured to give maintenance planning sufficient notice to schedule the work. Continued airworthiness documentation for engineering orders, service bulletins, and optional modifications is tracked per aircraft.

  5. Flight operations software

    Flight scheduling and dispatch covers route planning, slot coordination, ground handling requests, and fuel uplift. Crew scheduling checks licence currency, rest period compliance, and crew qualification against route and aircraft type. Operational flight plan generation handles performance calculations, fuel planning, and alternate aerodrome selection. Flight following shows the current position and status of each aircraft in the fleet with ETAs updated from actual departure times. Load and balance calculation runs for each departure. Operational control communications connect the operations centre and flight crew. The dispatcher's workflow stops depending on phone calls and manual updates.

  6. Engineer records and training management

    Licence and rating records show the current scope of certifying authority for each engineer, the licence expiry date, and the aircraft types they're authorised to certify. Training records cover type rating courses, continuation training, human factors, and dangerous goods: completion date, training provider, and expiry date for each qualification. Recency monitoring fires alerts when engineer authorisations approach expiry so renewals are planned before the engineer loses certification. Competency assessment recording covers elements of the maintenance organisation's training scheme. The nominated post-holder gets a current view of who is authorised to certify what without maintaining a separate spreadsheet.

03 Buy, build, or wait

The aerospace software question is really about who the system is built for.

Buy or rent

  • AMOS/Corridor, if you're an airline

    The big systems are focused on airlines. If that's what you are, they fit.

  • Excel + paper, as a bridge

    Before the operation outgrows it, the spreadsheet is honest. The risk is the growth you don't notice.

Build custom

  • When the tool is priced for airlines

    Too expensive or a pain to use, and the shop lands on Excel. A system priced for the shop, not the airline.

  • When the system forces the hangar to change

    If the workforce must change their processes to fit the computer's logic, the system won't work. Built around the hangar, not against it.

  • When traceability is the business

    A part without papers is worthless. Your records reflect your aircraft.

Bottom line

Stay on the big system if you're the airline it was built for. Build when the price, the fit, or the compliance risk stop working for the shop.

04 How we work

How we build aerospace software

  1. 01

    Discovery

    We map your regulatory framework: EASA, FAA, CASA, or other authority, and the specific certification scope of your approved organisation. Fleet types, maintenance programme structure, AD applicability logic, and documentation requirements are all captured before any development begins. The risk this retires: the compliance rule discovered at the audit.
  2. 02

    Architecture

    We design the data model around the aircraft as the primary entity: technical record structure, component history schema, AD compliance logic, and work order workflow. Integration points with ERP, parts supplier systems, and regulatory databases are confirmed at this stage. The risk this retires: the data model that can't express the record.
  3. 03

    Build

    Two-week sprints with working software at each checkpoint. Core technical records and work order management ship first. Compliance tracking, parts management, and flight operations follow in subsequent sprints, so your team can validate the data model against real aircraft records early. The risk this retires: the hangar's rejection.
  4. 04

    Launch and support

    Parallel running with your existing records for the first maintenance cycle, with migration of historical aircraft records completed before full cutover. Post-launch support covers new aircraft type additions, regulatory updates, and operational workflow changes as your approved organisation scope evolves. The risk this retires: the migration that corrupts the record.

05 Track record

What every aerospace build includes

Compliance built to your authority
EASA / FAA
Cost, agreed before work starts
Fixed
Then iterate toward the full platform
14-20 wks

08 Why us

Why choose us?

  • 01

    We've seen your problem before

    Across dozens of industries, we recognise your situation fast, then frame the fix around your margin and your operations, not a generic template.
  • 02

    We own the number, not the ticket

    We measure success the way you do: hours saved, revenue earned, margin recovered. We stay through launch and growth, so the result is ours to own.
  • 03

    Serious businesses trust us

    Vodafone, T-Mobile, Cisco, Energia, Aldi, Nike. Building since 2015. Serious businesses keep coming back because we stay accountable long after launch.

09 Questions

Common questions

The compliance logic is built to the regulatory framework applicable to your operation: EASA Part-145 and Part-M/CAMO for European-certificated organisations, FAA Part 145 for US-certificated repair stations, CASA for Australian operators, or other civil aviation authority requirements. Airworthiness directive sources, maintenance programme formats, and documentation standards differ by authority. These are identified during discovery so the system is built to the requirements of your specific certification. If you operate under multiple authorities, the system can maintain separate compliance records per authority.

Yes. Aerospace operations often have existing systems for parts procurement, finance, or fleet management that need to exchange data with the maintenance system. Common integrations cover parts availability from an ERP inventory module, financial coding for maintenance cost allocation, and flight data for updating aircraft utilisation hours. Integration scope is assessed during discovery based on the APIs or data exchange formats your existing systems support.

The system produces the documentation formats required for a continuing airworthiness or Part-145 audit as structured outputs of normal operational activity, not a manual compilation exercise. Technical records, work order archives, component traceability documents, AD compliance records, and engineer authorisation records are all accessible in the formats an auditor would review. The specific documentation requirements for your authorised organisation are identified during discovery so the system is configured to produce what your Quality Manager needs.

We scope every project before pricing. Fixed cost, agreed before work starts. MRO builds typically fall in the same range as other aerospace modules; the scope drivers are the number of aircraft types, the depth of component tracking, and the integration points with your existing maintenance systems.

Yes. Data migration of historical aircraft records: paper logs, Excel exports, legacy software data, is a standard part of aerospace software projects. We structure the migration around aircraft serial numbers, component histories, and AD compliance records so the new system starts with an accurate historical baseline. The migration scope and approach are confirmed during discovery.

That is the exact fear, and it's justified: garbage in, garbage out. Rotable serial numbers marked as fitted to the wrong aircraft mean hours and cycles that can no longer be trusted, and one wrongly entered rotable can cascade into removals, overhauls, and recertifications. We treat migration as its own phase: the records are validated against physical reality before import, errors are quarantined and corrected, and the new system starts with a baseline the regulators will accept. The audit trail is created as the work is done: clear, simple, and nonrefutable.

Get a build-vs-paper plan for your operation

Tell us your operation type, your regulatory authority, and where your current maintenance tracking creates compliance risk or operational overhead. We'll scope the right system and give you a fixed cost.

  • Scope and cost agreed before work starts. No surprises. No obligation.
  • Working prototype within 3 weeks of kickoff.
  • Pay by milestone. You see progress before each invoice.
  • 60-day post-launch warranty. Bug fixes, UI tweaks, and deployment support. No retainer.
  • All conversations are NDA-protected.

Useful next steps

More on manufacturing & energy