Download

Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3)






Advertisement
/ 43 []
Download Presentation
Comments
katelyn
From:
|  
(116) |   (0) |   (0)
Views: 580 | Added: 30-03-2012
Rate Presentation: 1 0
Description:
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
Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only and may not be sold or licensed nor shared on other sites. SlideServe reserves the right to change this policy at anytime. While downloading, If for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.











- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Slide 1

Maintenance Steering Group 3(MSG-3)

Scott Vandersall

730 ACSG Chief Engineer

9 Nov 2006

Slide 2

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

Slide 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.

Slide 4

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

Slide 5

eLog21 GoalC-5 Aircraft Availability

Percent Available

eLog21 Goal 64.1%

Aircraft Available

Slide 6

Hierarchical Maintenance Program

8 Yr Tasks

4 Yr Tasks

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

Slide 7

Change in Maintenance Program Methodology

Slide 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

Slide 9

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

  • Provide Quick Hits for problem areas for current program until MSG–3

    implementation

Slide 10

Commercial Based Workcards

Current process with -6 Workcards

Process with Commercial Based Workcards

Slide 11

Implementation Overview

Slide 12

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

Slide 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

Slide 14

MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification

Stock Listed Parts

Slide 15

STOCK LISTED ITEMS - SOURCES OF SUPPLY

Slide 16

Stock Listed Parts by Work Unit Code (WUC)

Slide 17

Stock Listed Parts by WUC- (Cont.)

Slide 18

Stock Listed Parts by WUC - (Cont.)

Slide 19

Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)

Slide 20

Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)

Slide 21

Not-Stock Listed Parts

(In Work Listing Posted on Requirements Symposium Web Site)

Slide 22

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC

Slide 23

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)

Slide 24

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC - (Cont.)

Slide 25

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)

Slide 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

Slide 27

Questions?

Slide 28

Back-up Slides

Slide 29

Maintain Structural Inherent Reliability

Structural Inherent Reliability (Design Strength)

1

2

3

4

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.

Slide 30

Maintain System Inherent Reliability

OriginalSystemDesign IR

Deteriorated System IR

1

2

3

4

Upgrade

ComponentReplacement

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

Slide 31

88 Total Forced Structural Maintenance Plan Items Not Inspected

Realized Benefits cont..

Sample

Slide 32

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

All

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

8 Years (96 months)

All

ACI

Special Inspection

In conjunction w/ PDM

As specified

Specific

Specific

C-5 Program Status

Slide 33

Is theMLG 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?

Could failure be UNDETECTABLE or not likely to be detected by the operating crew during normal duties?

One or more “Yes” answers will lead to further analysis

All “No” would lead to no further analysis

Level 1 Analysis

Yes

Yes

Yes

Is the functional failure EVIDENT to the operating crew during the performance of normal duties?

Yes

No

Evident Failure

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

No

No

Does the functional failure have DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating CAPABILITY?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Level 2 Analysis

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 failureseffects

Hidden Non-Safety

Maintenance tasks and intervals desirable to assure the availability to avoid the economic effects of multiple failures

Slide 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

  • Slide 35

    Example of Industry Success

    • 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

    Slide 36

    Reliability-Based MSG-3 Program

    Hours

    Traditional Program

    Time

    • Pay-off – cheaper to maintain a more reliable aircraft

    • Data Provided by Delta Tiger Team Consultant

    Industry Inspection Program Trends

    Slide 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

    Slide 38

    MSG-3 Implementation Risks

    Slide 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

    Slide 40

    MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification

    Local Manufacture Parts

    • Stock Listed

    • Not Stock Listed

    Slide 41

    Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by WUC

    Slide 42

    Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by WUC

    Slide 43

    Local Manufacture Parts Not Stock Listed by WUC


    Copyright © 2014 SlideServe. All rights reserved | Powered By DigitalOfficePro