Transcript Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3) - F

Maintenance Steering Group 3
(MSG-3)
Scott Vandersall
730 ACSG Chief Engineer
9 Nov 2006
Overview
 MSG-3 – What is it?
– 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
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.
MSG-3 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+)
“LEAN” Overall Maintenance Program
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
eLog21 Goal 64.1%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TAI
126.5 121.7 113.5 112.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0 111.0
Avail
67.2 60.1 51.6
% Avail
53.1 49.4 45.5
AAIP Goal
44.6 44.9 45.4 46 46.3 48.8 49.6 52
Standard Ops
42.9 41.7 40.8 40.4 37.5 37.8
53.1 53.9 56.8 59.9 62.9 65.8
67
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent Available
Aircraft Available
eLog21 Goal
C-5 Aircraft Availability
Hierarchical Maintenance Program
8 Yr Tasks
4 Yr Tasks
Inspection intensity is typically
16 Month Tasks
increased as the task is
elevated hierarchically
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
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
Vs.
Proven structured decision logic used by all
engineers
Vs.
Hierarchical maintenance tasks: higher level
intervals satisfy the requirements of lower
level intervals
Vs.
Enterprise review and approval with a single
team responsible for the entire maintenance
program (both field and PDM)
Vs.
Performance Based Planning: Each tail is
monitored and maintenance requirements
tailored for each
Maintenance task built for each interval
independent of task content in other intervals
Stovepipe review and approval of the maintenance
program based on field or PDM maintenance
Fleet Wide Planning: Inspections and fixes are
most often applied through the entire fleet
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
Realized Benefits
Slat Inspections
•Issues During Depot Functional Check Flights
•MSG-3 Checklist Developed, Approved and Implemented by Engineering
-70-0462 – 39 Slat Discrepancies Prior to Mar 05 PDM Input / Nov 05 Output
-87-0040 – 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
70-0462
87-0040
TOTAL
AFTER MSG-3
70-0462
87-0040
TOTAL
SORTIES
107
230
327
SORTIES
110
116
226
FLYING HRS
367.9
1381.0
1748.9
FLYING HRS
410.4
665.4
1075.8
SLAT PROBLEMS
39
14
53
SLAT PROBLEMS
1
0
1
Provide Quick Hits for problem areas for current program until MSG–3
implementation
Commercial Based Workcards
Current process with -6 Workcards
Process with Commercial Based Workcards
Implementation Overview
MSG-3 Supply Parts
Identification Overview
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification
Stock Listed Parts – Sources of Supply
Stock Listed Parts – By Work Unit Code
(WUC)
Not Stock Listed (NSL) Parts – By WUC
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
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification
Stock Listed Parts
STOCK LISTED ITEMS SOURCES OF SUPPLY
SUPPLY
SOURCES
DLA/GSA
Total Parts
Percent
2743
77%
Robins
485
13%
Tinker
158
4%
Ogden
112
3%
Other
111
3%
Stock Listed Parts by
Work Unit Code (WUC)
WUC
System
Total
Parts
750
11
Airframe
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
Stock Listed Parts by WUC(Cont.)
WUC
System
Total
Parts
109
42
Electrical Power Supply
44
Lighting System
165
45
Hydraulic & Pneumatic
154
46
Fuel System
343
47
Oxygen System
45
49
Misc. Utilities
82
51
Instruments
81
Stock Listed Parts by WUC (Cont.)
WUC
52
55
59
61
62
63
64
System
Auto Pilot
Malfunction Analysis &
Recording
Flight Mgmt System/GPS
HF Communications
VHF Communications
UHF Communications
Interphone
Total
Parts
40
74
19
16
11
19
29
Stock Listed Parts by WUC –
(Cont.)
WUC
System
Total
Parts
4
65
IFF
66
Emergency Communications
13
68
AFSATCOM
5
69
Misc. Communication Equip
3
71
Radio Navigation
27
72
Radar Navigation
39
76
Electronic Countermeasures
14
Stock Listed Parts by WUC –
(Cont.)
WUC
System
91
Emergency Equipment
97
Explosive Devices & Comp
Totals
Total
Parts
20
2
3609
Not-Stock Listed Parts
(In Work Listing Posted on Requirements Symposium
Web Site)
Not Stock Listed Parts by
WUC
WUC
System
Total
Parts
87
11
Airframe
12
Cockpit & Fuselage
49
13
Landing Gear
4
14
Flight Controls
67
23
Turbofan Power Plant
6
24
Auxiliary Power Plant
14
41
Air Conditioning
3
Not Stock Listed Parts by
WUC – (Cont.)
WUC
System
Total
Parts
13
42
Electrical Power Supply
44
Lighting System
5
45
Hydraulic & Pneumatic
5
46
Fuel System
21
47
Oxygen System
1
49
Misc. Utilities
13
51
Instruments
1
Not Stock Listed Parts by
WUC - (Cont.)
WUC
System
Total
Parts
3
52
Auto Pilot
55
4
59
Malfunction Analysis &
Recording
Flight Mgmt System/GPS
62
VHF Communications
3
63
UHF Communications
1
64
Interphone
2
1
Not Stock Listed Parts by
WUC – (Cont.)
WUC
System
68
AFSATCOM
91
Emergency Equipment
Totals
Total
Parts
2
6
311
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
Questions?
Back-up Slides
Maintain Structural Inherent Reliability
CHECK INTERVAL
1
2
3
4
Structural Inherent Reliability
(Design Strength)
Upgrade
Deterioration
Restore
Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration
SAFETY BOUNDARY
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.
Maintain System Inherent Reliability
Original System Design IR
CHECK INTERVAL
1
2
Deteriorated System IR
3
4
Component
Replacement
Upgrade
REV
Deterioration
Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration
SAFETY BOUNDARY
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
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
C-5 Program Status
INSPECTION
CURRENT INSPECTION
INTERVAL
PROPOSED POST MSG-3
INSPECTION INTERVAL
A/C
Pre-Flight
Prior to first flight of the day
Prior to first flight of the day
All
Thru-Flight
Prior to take-off at intermediate
stop
Prior to take-off at intermediate
stop
All
Home Station
Every 105 days
Every 120 days
Minor Isochronal
Every 14 months (420 days)
Every 16 months
(480 days)
All
Major Isochronal
Every 28 months (840 days)
Every 48 months
(1460 days)
All
PDM (C-5A)
PDM (C-5C)
PDM (C-5B)
60 months
60 months
84 months
ACI
Special Inspection
In conjunction w/ PDM
As specified
8 Years (96 months)
Specific
All
All
Specific
Is the MLG Wheel a Maintenance Significant Item (MSI)
Could failure affect
SAFETY (on the ground
or in flight), including
safety/emergency
systems or equipment?
Could failure have
significant ECONOMIC
impact?
Could failure have
significant
OPERATIONAL impact?
No
Yes
No
Could failure be
UNDETECTABLE or not
likely to be detected by
the operating crew
during normal duties?
No
One or more “Yes” answers
will lead to further analysis
All “No” would lead to
no further analysis
Level 1 Analysis
Is the functional failure EVIDENT to the operating crew
during the performance of normal duties?
Yes
Yes
Evident Failure
Yes
Level 2 Analysis
Evident Safety
Maintenance tasks
and intervals
required to assure
safe operation
Hidden Failure
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 or secondary damage
resulting from the functional failure have a
DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating SAFETY?
No
No
No
Does the functional failure have DIRECT adverse
EFFECT on operating CAPABILITY?
Yes
Evident Operational
Servicing Task at
Pre/Post
Flight
Restoration task
at Major ISO
GVI task at ISO
Discard at PDM
Yes
Yes
No
No
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
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
Example of Industry Success
Pre MSG-3
Post MSG-3
Check
Interval
(Months)
Flow Days
Man
Hours
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
40
30,000
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
Industry Inspection Program Trends
Hours
Reliability-Based MSG-3 Program
Traditional Program
Time
 Pay-off – cheaper to maintain a more reliable aircraft
 Data Provided by Delta Tiger Team Consultant
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
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
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
MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification
Local Manufacture Parts
Stock Listed
Not Stock Listed
Local Manufacture Parts
Stock Listed by WUC
WUC
System
Total
Parts
11
Airframe
14
12
Cockpit & Fuselage
6
14
Flight Controls
1
23
Turbofan Power Plant
2
24
Auxiliary Power Plant
1
41
Air Conditioning
1
Local Manufacture Parts
Stock Listed by WUC
WUC
45
46
49
66
System
Hydraulic & Pneumatic
Fuel System
Misc. Utilities
Emergency Communications
Totals
Total
Parts
5
14
1
1
46
Local Manufacture Parts
Not Stock Listed by WUC
WUC
14
23
51
System
Flight Controls
Turbofan Power Plant
Instruments
Totals
Total
Parts
12
16
1
29