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