Download presentation
1
Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3)
Scott Vandersall 730 ACSG Chief Engineer 9 Nov 2006
2
Overview MSG-3 – What is it? Industry Trends /Success Benefits
Objectives / Methodology Decision Logic Maintenance Philosophy Differences Structural & Systems Inherent Reliability Hierarchical Maintenance Industry Trends /Success Benefits Realized Benefits Work Cards Implementation MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification
3
C-5 MSG-3 Why: Recommendations from a C-5 General Officer Steering Group to Improve Aircraft Availability Transition from fly-to-fail philosophy What: Develop and Catalog Scheduled C-5 Inspection and Maintenance Requirements Along With Scheduled Intervals and Rationale for Each Task. How: Using Scheduled Maintenance Program Development Approach Described in Air Transportation Association’s MSG-3 Decision Logic Document.
4
MSG-3 Program “LEAN” Overall Maintenance Program MSG-3 or RCM?
RCM is the philosophy MSG-3 is the methodology used to execute the philosophy Improve Reliability and Aircraft Availability Maximize MC Rates Minimize NMCS and NMCM Rates Reduce Maintenance Costs Eliminate unnecessary maintenance tasks Extend the interval(s) of maintenance tasks Improve efficiency of maintenance tasks (standardizes work) Ensures Operational Safety, Suitability, & Effectiveness Enabler for Air Force Smart Operations 21 (AFSO21) and Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) Program Goals – quick review of why we’re doing what we’re doing… “LEAN” Overall Maintenance Program
5
eLog21 Goal C-5 Aircraft Availability
Percent Available eLog21 Goal 64.1% Aircraft Available The eLog21 goal for the C-5 is 64.1 % (72) aircraft available in FY11 as shown by the blue star. TAI and Available Aircraft read to the left axis (# of aircraft) % Avail, AAIP Goal (%) and Standard Ops (%) read to the right axis (% of aircraft) The FY05 aircraft availability rate was 45.5, 2nd Qtr FY06 was 38.2% (42.8 aircraft). Note: 7 jets coded “EI” status for AMP / OT&E; this is 6% of the fleet; EI coded jets are not included in AA rates. The baseline year (2003) was at the peak of the GWOT surge The trend has been down since that point and normal operations would take us down the standard ops trend line as projected in purple Our analysis of the ROI for ongoing and projected initiatives gives us the estimated improvement trend or AAIP Goal shown in red The red goal line is possible if all of the proposed initiatives are completed and implemented Because of ongoing AMP and RERP mods as well as the transition of aircraft from the active units to the AFRC and ANG units we will not meet the eLog21 goal until FY19. The weapon system AAIP goal is for 67 percent availability by 2020
6
Hierarchical Maintenance Program
8 Yr Tasks 4 Yr Tasks This slide encompasses many of the attributes of the “The Time to Find and Time to Fix” and “Hierarchical” concepts. These concepts are the bases of how the program takes maximum advantage of a total encompassing Maintenance Program. The “Hierarchical” process can take a task that starts out at the lowest level and by increasing access and vantage points, the task requirements will be increased. The task requirements become easily evident as the task moves up the hierarchical chain into the Major Maintenance visits. This process provides the maintainers the understanding and confidence that the more important issues that are not covered at the lower level inspections will be covered when required at the higher level inspections. The lower and higher levels determinations are accomplished as part of the MSG-3 analysis process and are constantly reviewed as part of the ongoing reliability analysis process. The 48 and 96 months intervals are considered the Major Maintenance visits. The 16-month interval is primarily a systems reliability visit. Inspection intensity is typically increased as the task is elevated hierarchically 16 Month Tasks 4 Month Tasks Pre-Flight, Thru-flight, & BPO Tasks All lower level core tasks are accomplished during the next higher level check Intervals based on 1996/97 Inspection Interval Integrity Program (I3P) Study
7
Change in Maintenance Program Methodology
Current (Lagging) MSG-3 (Leading) Parts Driven: React upon parts failure Vs. Systems Driven: Monitor each aircraft for degree of degradation Decision logic changes per engineer and per situation Proven structured decision logic used by all engineers Maintenance task built for each interval independent of task content in other intervals Hierarchical maintenance tasks: higher level intervals satisfy the requirements of lower level intervals Stovepipe review and approval of the maintenance program based on field or PDM maintenance Enterprise review and approval with a single team responsible for the entire maintenance program (both field and PDM) Fleet Wide Planning: Inspections and fixes are most often applied through the entire fleet Performance Based Planning: Each tail is monitored and maintenance requirements tailored for each
8
Benefits Maximizes aircraft availability
Major Tenet of Aircraft Availability Improvement Plan (AAIP) Extended inspection intervals frees up assets Safeguards inherent safety and reliability Ensures Operational Safety, Suitability, & Effectiveness Reduces Costs / Cost Avoidance Creates program credibility and instills confidence by involving all stakeholders Integrates all levels of maintenance activity Outcome has logic that is defensible at all levels of scrutiny Assures that all areas of the aircraft are thoroughly covered and have the proper level of inspection
9
Realized Benefits Slat Inspections
Issues During Depot Functional Check Flights MSG-3 Checklist Developed, Approved and Implemented by Engineering – 39 Slat Discrepancies Prior to Mar 05 PDM Input / Nov 05 Output – 14 Slat Discrepancies Prior to Aug 05 PDM Input / Jan 06 Output Parts Requirements to Support MSG-3 Checklist Identified Requirements Provided to CSW for Entering into the File Maintenance Computations BEFORE MSG-3 TOTAL SORTIES 107 230 327 FLYING HRS 367.9 1381.0 1748.9 SLAT PROBLEMS 39 14 53 AFTER MSG-3 TOTAL SORTIES 110 116 226 FLYING HRS 410.4 665.4 1075.8 SLAT PROBLEMS 1 Provide Quick Hits for problem areas for current program until MSG–3 implementation
10
Commercial Based Workcards
Current process with -6 Workcards Process with Commercial Based Workcards Clearly defines the level and intensity of required inspections Provides all practical information required to perform the task Graphics Part numbers Equipment list Measurement criteria (clearances, quantities, etc) Reduce time spent on research Reduce possibility of errors Shorten maintenance down time Eliminate confusion on intent of task between Mechanic and QA and engineering and planners and …. Consistent set of work cards used by field and PDM Current workcard format and size is restrictive causing lose of task efficiencies Inhibits amount of information which can be presented to the maintainer Incorporating graphics imbedded at the appropriate place with the text is critical to efficient maintenance. MSG-3 is a major overhaul to the C-5 maintenance program, it would be logical to make a workcard change with implementation of MSG-3 MSG-3 maintenance is hierarchal, it is critical that all maintainers work from a consistent set of work cards commonality between field and PDM work cards is essential
11
Implementation Overview
12
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification Overview
Stock Listed Parts – Sources of Supply Stock Listed Parts – By Work Unit Code (WUC) Not Stock Listed (NSL) Parts – By WUC
13
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification
3,949 Parts Identified 3,609 Parts Stock Listed 3,563 Parts with Sources of Supply 46 Parts Coded Local Manufacture 340 Parts Not Stock Listed (NSL) 311 Supply Source to be Determined 29 NSL Parts Coded Local Manufacture
14
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification
Stock Listed Parts
15
STOCK LISTED ITEMS - SOURCES OF SUPPLY
SUPPLY SOURCES Total Parts Percent DLA/GSA 2743 77% Robins 485 13% Tinker 158 4% Ogden 112 3% Other 111
16
Stock Listed Parts by Work Unit Code (WUC)
System Total Parts 11 Airframe 750 12 Cockpit & Fuselage 201 13 Landing Gear 277 14 Flight Controls 504 23 Turbofan Power Plant 256 24 Auxiliary Power Plant 112 41 Air Conditioning 195
17
Stock Listed Parts by WUC- (Cont.)
System Total Parts 42 Electrical Power Supply 109 44 Lighting System 165 45 Hydraulic & Pneumatic 154 46 Fuel System 343 47 Oxygen System 49 Misc. Utilities 82 51 Instruments 81
18
Stock Listed Parts by WUC - (Cont.)
System Total Parts 52 Auto Pilot 40 55 Malfunction Analysis & Recording 74 59 Flight Mgmt System/GPS 19 61 HF Communications 16 62 VHF Communications 11 63 UHF Communications 64 Interphone 29
19
Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)
System Total Parts 65 IFF 4 66 Emergency Communications 13 68 AFSATCOM 5 69 Misc. Communication Equip 3 71 Radio Navigation 27 72 Radar Navigation 39 76 Electronic Countermeasures 14
20
Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)
System Total Parts 91 Emergency Equipment 20 97 Explosive Devices & Comp 2 Totals 3609
21
Not-Stock Listed Parts
(In Work Listing Posted on Requirements Symposium Web Site)
22
Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC
System Total Parts 11 Airframe 87 12 Cockpit & Fuselage 49 13 Landing Gear 4 14 Flight Controls 67 23 Turbofan Power Plant 6 24 Auxiliary Power Plant 41 Air Conditioning 3
23
Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)
System Total Parts 42 Electrical Power Supply 13 44 Lighting System 5 45 Hydraulic & Pneumatic 46 Fuel System 21 47 Oxygen System 1 49 Misc. Utilities 51 Instruments
24
Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC - (Cont.)
System Total Parts 52 Auto Pilot 3 55 Malfunction Analysis & Recording 4 59 Flight Mgmt System/GPS 1 62 VHF Communications 63 UHF Communications 64 Interphone 2
25
Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)
System Total Parts 68 AFSATCOM 2 91 Emergency Equipment 6 Totals 311
26
SUMMARY Full Air Staff Commitment to MSG-3 3,949 Parts Identified
3,609 Parts Stock Listed 340 Part Not Stock Listed 77% of the Parts – DLA Source of Supply 13% of the Parts – WR-ALC (Robins) List Provided for the Not Stock Listed Parts
27
Questions?
28
Back-up Slides
29
Maintain Structural Inherent Reliability
CHECK INTERVAL Structural Inherent Reliability (Design Strength) 1 2 3 4 Upgrade Deterioration Restore Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration SAFETY BOUNDARY This is the first of several graphs based on a common concept. The main attributes are: The black line at the top which is the inherent (design) reliability of the component, assembly. The only way to raise this line is with an upgrade. The blue line is the Limit of Acceptable Deterioration. This limit is determined by either structural analysis provided by the manufacture or if not available, an estimated level provided by the MSG-3 Working Group utilizing empirical data. The red line is the Safety Boundary. This limit is again provided by the manufacture supplied structural analysis or SPO engineering as part of the Structures Working Group. This limit must never be compromised. The blue arrows are opportunities to find the deterioration at scheduled checked intervals. As the Hierarchical process goes up, you increase the chance of finding the deterioration. If the deterioration is found at the lower levels, a business case decision will be made to repair at that time or to defer and monitor to the Time to Fix point. Not necessary to find every defect in a zone at every check. Program provides multiple opportunities to detect degradation prior to reaching the limit of acceptable deterioration. Repairs restore structure to original Inherent Reliability. Upgrades are necessary when deterioration rate is excessive.
30
Maintain System Inherent Reliability
Original System Design IR CHECK INTERVAL Deteriorated System IR 1 2 3 4 Upgrade Component Replacement REV Deterioration Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration SAFETY BOUNDARY This version of the chart is the System version. The black line is Inherent Design Level and can be increased with an upgrade. The blue line is the Limit of Acceptable Deterioration and is determined by the Systems Working Groups, the MEL and previous history. The Safety Boundary is also determined by the Systems Working Group, the MEL and previous history. The Green line is unique to Systems deterioration. It indicates the degradation of the system over time. This is especially evident with Aged Aircraft. The graph indicates that component replacements do no necessarily bring the system back to its Inherent Reliability. When the system has deteriorated, only a special effort dedicated to returning the system to it’s inherent reliability will correct the degradation. We refer to this visit as a Reliability Enhancement visit (REV). Reliability Analysis and Performance Based Planning will address this requirement. Normally system component replacements will not restore system Inherent Reliability back to original design level Reliability Enhancement Visit (REV) restores deteriorated system to its original design level System upgrade increases inherent reliability above original design level
31
88 Total Forced Structural Maintenance Plan Items Not Inspected
Realized Benefits cont.. 88 Total Forced Structural Maintenance Plan Items Not Inspected FSMP TASK ITEM DESCRIPTION FF7 & FF7B Fuselage Side Panel Frames, FS 544 to FS 1024 FF16 Contour Box Beam Backup Fittings FS 310 through FS 465 FF28 & FF28B (B model = FS 484 only) Forward Ramp Lock Hooks at FS 454 and FS 484 FF33 & FF33B Forward Fuselage Upper Lobe Skin From FS 416 To FS 581 CF8 & CF8B Upper Lobe Frame Flange at FS 1744 AF1B Longeron and Doubler Above Aft Personnel Door at FS 1844 AF4 & AF4B AFT Personnel Door Frames and Internal Support Beams Sample
32
C-5 Program Status Every 120 days Every 16 months (480 days)
INSPECTION CURRENT INSPECTION INTERVAL PROPOSED POST MSG-3 INSPECTION INTERVAL A/C Pre-Flight Prior to first flight of the day All Thru-Flight Prior to take-off at intermediate stop Home Station Every 105 days Every 120 days Minor Isochronal Every 14 months (420 days) Every 16 months (480 days) Major Isochronal Every 28 months (840 days) Every 48 months (1460 days) PDM (C-5A) PDM (C-5C) PDM (C-5B) 60 months 84 months 8 Years (96 months) ACI Special Inspection In conjunction w/ PDM As specified Specific Findings to date!!!
33
Is the MLG Wheel a Maintenance Significant Item (MSI)
Evident Safety Maintenance tasks and intervals required to assure safe operation Evident Operational Servicing Task at Pre/Post Flight Restoration task at Major ISO GVI task at ISO Discard at PDM Evident Economic Maintenance tasks and intervals desirable if cost is less than repair cost of failure Hidden Safety Maintenance tasks and intervals required to assure availability necessary to avoid multiple failures effects Hidden Non-Safety Maintenance tasks and intervals desirable to assure the availability to avoid the economic effects of multiple failures Is the functional failure EVIDENT to the operating crew during the performance of normal duties? Does the functional failure or secondary damage resulting from the functional failure have a DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating SAFETY? Does the combination of a hidden functional failure and one additional failure of a system related or backup function have an adverse EFFECT on operating SAFETY? Does the functional failure have DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating CAPABILITY? Yes No Evident Failure Hidden Failure Could failure affect SAFETY (on the ground or in flight), including safety/emergency systems or equipment? Could failure be UNDETECTABLE or not likely to be detected by the operating crew during normal duties? Could failure have significant OPERATIONAL impact? Could failure have significant ECONOMIC impact? Is the MLG Wheel a Maintenance Significant Item (MSI) Level 2 Analysis Level 1 Analysis All “No” would lead to no further analysis One or more “Yes” answers will lead to further analysis
34
Current Status of C-5 Program
Enhanced Zonal Analyses & Research Completed Approximately 400 Wiring Tasks Structural Analyses and Task Consolidation In Review (ECD: Nov 06) Intervals Predicated on Structural Tasks Systems Analyses - Completed Systems Task Consolidation - Completed Parts Supportability Analysis by System In Progress (ECD: Aug 07) Commercial Best Practice Work Cards (ECD: Jun 08) Providing Quick Hits for problem areas for current program until MSG–3 implementation
35
Example of Industry Success
Pre MSG-3 Post MSG-3 Check Interval (Months) Flow Days Man Hours Light 18 16 12,000 7 5,250 Heavy 36 40 30,000 30 25,000 Major 108 50 37,500 Reliability 96.8% 98.5% Man-hours based on average available 750 man-hours per day Goal – reduce maintenance costs and maintain Pre MSG-3 reliability Outcome – reduced maintenance costs and increased reliability Great reduction in Light Checks due to incorporating enhanced zonal program—proper time to find, proper time to fix
36
Industry Inspection Program Trends
Time Hours Reliability-Based MSG-3 Program Traditional Program Pay-off – cheaper to maintain a more reliable aircraft Data Provided by Delta Tiger Team Consultant This slide represents the typical outcomes of the traditional parts based program and the reliability based MSG-3 program. The successful outcome of a MSG-3 program largely depends on a robust and disciplined Reliability effort. This includes initial and recurrent training of all of the players in the process.
37
Implementation FY10 Implementation General Officer Approval Required
AF/A4, AFMC, AMC, ANG, AFRES, AETC Phased Approach Obstacles Culture Regulations/Policy Commercial Based Work Cards / Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (IETMs) MRRB/Funding Part Supportability Technical Manuals IETMS Manpower / Rates /Skill Mix
38
MSG-3 Implementation Risks
High-Red Med-Yellow Low-Green Element Mitigations Maintenance Planning MSG-3 tasks are well analyzed, changes to existing work packages could be significant Supply Support MSG-3 parts identification completed. Individual parts supportability analyses being conducted. High priority requirements provided to CSW for immediate inclusion in file maintenance computations. OPR established to ensure parts are supportable without funding constraints. Support and Test Equipment Identifying new requirements. No current impact on program execution. Manpower and Personnel No new skills required. 730th ACSSS will review MSG-3 maintenance program manpower requirements with MAJCOMs to ensure field manpower cuts support new skill mix for the new program. No change in PDM skill mix; must insure right number of personnel are available to support new program. Training and Training Devices Technical Data Significant changes to Technical Orders are in development Computer Resource Support IETMS implementation is critical for the development of commercial based work cards. Currently reviewing IETMS options from different contractors to identify the best solution. Facilities Policy Funding Until parts, manpower, support equipment and work package content is identified extent of funding is unknown Enterprise Coordination Maintenance Culture Culture change consists of two elements. Initial and sustainment. Each has to succeed for change to take place and maintain. Failure of either issue can drive the risks up. A well coordinate program with progress tracking will assure success. Implementation Schedule MRRB approval is key to FY10 start date
39
Conclusion Implementation will:
Decrease frequency, not number of Inspections Create a more detailed inspection Increase Planned Work Package Decrease Unplanned Work Standardize work Increase Aircraft Availability Require parts commitment Need support from Logistics community
40
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification Local Manufacture Parts
Stock Listed Not Stock Listed
41
Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by WUC
System Total Parts 11 Airframe 14 12 Cockpit & Fuselage 6 Flight Controls 1 23 Turbofan Power Plant 2 24 Auxiliary Power Plant 41 Air Conditioning
42
Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by WUC
System Total Parts 45 Hydraulic & Pneumatic 5 46 Fuel System 14 49 Misc. Utilities 1 66 Emergency Communications Totals
43
Local Manufacture Parts Not Stock Listed by WUC
System Total Parts 14 Flight Controls 12 23 Turbofan Power Plant 16 51 Instruments 1 Totals 29
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.