The records behind a performance conversation
Every incident has a turbine, an alarm, a severity and an occurrence time. Every work order has a type, a priority and a source. Every session has a start, an end, phase durations and the parts consumed. Those fields are captured during execution, not reconstructed afterwards for a quarterly report.
That is the difference between a KPI discussion based on evidence and one based on recollection.
- Incident and failure history per turbine, system and component
- Work order history with type, priority and source traceability
- Session phases with recorded time and consumed spare parts
- Turbine downtime reason and status history
Reviewing reliability rather than guessing at it
The reliability centre groups failures so repeated defects become visible: the same alarm returning on the same model, the same component failing across a wind farm, the same work order type consuming the maintenance window.
Fleet and executive dashboards present that picture at the level each role needs, and reports can be exported and saved for review cycles.
What Aerokasix does not do
Aerokasix does not publish a certified availability figure. Availability, in the contractual sense, depends on definitions agreed with the asset owner or OEM, on production data and on the calculation method — often IEC 61400-26 in whole or in part.
What the platform does is keep the maintenance and downtime records such a calculation is built from, and show them in a form the people responsible can review, question and export. Where an organisation already runs an availability calculation elsewhere, Aerokasix is the evidence layer behind it, not a replacement for it.