A 90-second logging error, four wrong invoices, and RMB 364,000 nobody had counted.

Six months of settlements for a single training aircraft, reconciled line by line on Anisos OS. What the operator thought it was paying, what it was actually paying, and what owning the aircraft was worth against chartering it.

One aircraft, one operator, six months of paperwork.

The client is a Hong Kong flight training organisation operating a CAAC-registered light aircraft from a mainland airfield under a third-party management agreement. The operator issues a monthly settlement: custody, operations, instructor time, maintenance labour, engineering supervision and parts, each on its own line. The client pays it.

Before Anisos OS, that settlement was checked the way most small operators check one — by looking at the total, deciding it seemed about right, and paying it. Nobody was recomputing six derived fee lines against the flight log every month, because doing it by hand takes longer than the error is usually worth.

The hours reconciled exactly. That was the surprise.

Summing the logged flight time across six months gave 269.8 hours. The aircraft's hour meter moved from 58.0 to 327.8 — also 269.8. An exact tie-out across six months of independently recorded data is unusual, and it established that the flight log itself was sound. Which meant any discrepancy had to be downstream, in how the fees were derived from it.

It was. The operations service fee is struck at RMB 300 per flight hour, every month without exception — a rate nobody had written down anywhere. Once that was established, every other line could be tested against it.

Unit cost swings from RMB 710 to RMB 1,696 per hour. The fee schedule never changed — utilisation did.

Ninety seconds, propagated four ways.

January's settlement was issued at RMB 47,702 and restated eight days later to RMB 47,936. The cause was a single instructor's logged time moving from 0.478 to 0.503 hours — ninety seconds.

Because four separate fee lines are derived from logged flight time, that ninety seconds moved the operations service fee, the maintenance service fee, the flight operations fee and the instructor fee simultaneously. No single line looked wrong. Only the total did, and only if you already knew what it should have been.

RMB 1,150 an hour, against RMB 2,500 to charter.

The same client charters additional aircraft through a flying-agent arrangement at RMB 2,500 per flight hour, all-in. That gives a directly comparable benchmark on the same operation, in the same period, for the same mission profile.

Owning and managing the aircraft cost RMB 1,150 per flight hour across the six months — 54% below the charter equivalent, or approximately RMB 364,000 of avoided cost over 269.8 hours. Adding capital and insurance amortisation still leaves ownership roughly 43% below charter.

The lever is utilisation, not price. Custody is a fixed RMB 18,000 a month whether the aircraft flies or not, so February — 28.65 hours — cost RMB 1,569 an hour, while March at 55.30 hours cost RMB 1,182. Nothing in the fee schedule changed between those two months.

The reconciliation now runs itself.

The settlement reconciliation, the utilisation analysis and the compliance register all run continuously on Anisos OS. The client's compliance board also surfaced something the paperwork had never made explicit: of four tracked airworthiness and insurance items, only one carries an expiry date in its source document. The platform reports the other three as unknown rather than assuming they are current — an invented expiry date in a compliance system is more dangerous than an admitted gap, because it reads as assurance.

Figures are reconciled from the operator's monthly settlement statements and flight logs for the period 30 December 2025 to 29 June 2026, and are published with the client's consent. Crew, instructor and student records are excluded; no personal data appears in this case study. Costs are stated in Renminbi as settled. Past performance of any asset is not indicative of future results, and this case study does not constitute investment advice or an offer to sell securities.