Docstoc

Maintenance Steering Group 3 _MSG-3_

Document Sample
Maintenance Steering Group 3 _MSG-3_ Powered By Docstoc
					        Maintenance Steering Group 3
                 (MSG-3)




Scott Vandersall               9 Nov 2006
730 ACSG Chief Engineer
                        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
                                             eLog21 Goal
                                        C-5 Aircraft Availability




                                                                                                                                                Percent Available
                       140                                                                                                                 80
  Aircraft Available




                       120                                                         eLog21 Goal 64.1%                                       70
                       100                                                                                                                 60
                        80                                                                                                                 50
                        60                                                                                                                 40
                                                                                                                                           30
                        40                                                                                                                 20
                        20                                                                                                                 10
                         0                                                                                                                 0
                             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              53.1 53.9 56.8 59.9 62.9 65.8        67
Standard Ops                                   42.9 41.7 40.8 40.4 37.5 37.8
         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)
                                                           Systems Driven: Monitor each aircraft for
      Parts Driven: React upon parts failure        Vs.
                                                                   degree of degradation
   Decision logic changes per engineer and per            Proven structured decision logic used by all
                                                    Vs.
                     situation                                            engineers
                                                          Hierarchical maintenance tasks: higher level
      Maintenance task built for each interval
                                                    Vs.    intervals satisfy the requirements of lower
   independent of task content in other intervals
                                                                          level intervals
Stovepipe review and approval of the maintenance          Enterprise review and approval with a single
program based on field or PDM maintenance           Vs.   team responsible for the entire maintenance
                                                          program (both field and PDM)
Fleet Wide Planning: Inspections and fixes are            Performance Based Planning: Each tail is
most often applied through the entire fleet         Vs.   monitored and maintenance requirements
                                                          tailored for each
                        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         Total Parts   Percent
SOURCES
DLA/GSA           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
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
     Stock Listed Parts by WUC-
                (Cont.)
WUC                 System      Total
                                Parts
42    Electrical Power Supply    109
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               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        19
64    Interphone                29
     Stock Listed Parts by WUC –
                (Cont.)
WUC               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
     Stock Listed Parts by WUC –
                (Cont.)
WUC              System          Total
                                 Parts
91    Emergency Equipment         20
97    Explosive Devices & Comp    2


      Totals                     3609
       Not-Stock Listed Parts
(In Work Listing Posted on Requirements Symposium
                       Web Site)
      Not Stock Listed Parts by
               WUC
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        14
41    Air Conditioning             3
      Not Stock Listed Parts by
           WUC – (Cont.)
WUC                     System   Total
                                 Parts
42    Electrical Power Supply     13
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
52    Auto Pilot                 3
55    Malfunction Analysis &      4
      Recording
59    Flight Mgmt System/GPS      1
62    VHF Communications          3
63    UHF Communications          1
64    Interphone                  2
      Not Stock Listed Parts by
           WUC – (Cont.)
WUC             System       Total
                             Parts
68    AFSATCOM                 2
91    Emergency Equipment         6


      Totals                  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                                        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.
         Maintain System Inherent Reliability
                                         Original System Design IR
CHECK INTERVAL                                                   Deteriorated System IR
  1              2           3            4
                                                                                  Upgrade
                                                         Component
                                                         Replacement
 Deterioration                                                                    REV


                      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    Forward Ramp Lock Hooks at FS 454 and FS 484
only)

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              PROPOSED POST MSG-3                  A/C
                                INTERVAL                    INSPECTION INTERVAL


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   Prior to take-off at intermediate     All
                        stop                                stop

                                                                                                  All
Home Station            Every 105 days                      Every 120 days

Minor Isochronal        Every 14 months (420 days)          Every 16 months                       All
                                                            (480 days)

Major Isochronal        Every 28 months (840 days)          Every 48 months                       All
                                                            (1460 days)

PDM (C-5A)              60 months                                                                 All
PDM (C-5C)              60 months                           8 Years (96 months)
PDM (C-5B)              84 months


                                                            Specific                            Specific
ACI                     In conjunction w/ PDM
Special Inspection      As specified
Is the MLG Wheel a Maintenance Significant Item (MSI)
  Could failure affect                                                                         Could failure be
SAFETY (on the ground           Could failure have           Could failure have           UNDETECTABLE or not
 or in flight), including     significant ECONOMIC              significant               likely to be detected by
   safety/emergency                   impact?              OPERATIONAL impact?               the operating crew

         No                            No                            Yes                            No
systems or equipment?                                                                      during normal duties?

                                         One or more “Yes” answers                                        All “No” would lead to
                                         will lead to further analysis                                    no further analysis

Level 1 Analysis
                                    Is the functional failure EVIDENT to the operating crew

                                                             Yes
                                            during the performance of normal duties?

  Evident Failure                                 Yes                    No                              Hidden Failure

  Does the functional failure or secondary damage                        Does the combination of a hidden functional
     resulting from the functional failure have a                        failure and one additional failure of a system
                                                                          related or backup function have an adverse
                        No
  DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating SAFETY?
                                                                                EFFECT on operating SAFETY?
                                  No

              Yes            Does the functional failure have DIRECT adverse
                                                                                         Yes            No
                                                   Yes
                                   EFFECT on operating CAPABILITY?

                                        Yes             No
Level 2 Analysis
                            Evident Operational                                                          Hidden Non-Safety
                                                                                  Hidden Safety
                            Servicing Task at        Evident Economic                                   Maintenance tasks
     Evident Safety                                                            Maintenance tasks
                                   Pre/Post          Maintenance tasks                                      and intervals
   Maintenance tasks                                                              and intervals
                                    Flight              and intervals                                   desirable to assure
      and intervals                                                            required to assure
                            Restoration task         desirable if cost is                                the availability to
   required to assure                                                         availability necessary
                                at Major ISO        less than repair cost                               avoid the economic
     safe operation                                                             to avoid multiple
                             GVI task at ISO              of failure                                     effects of multiple
                                                                                 failures effects
                             Discard at PDM                                                                   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   Flow Days        Man     Flow Days        Man
             (Months)                    Hours                    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


           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
                      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             Element                                               Mitigations
Low-Green

 Maintenance Planning                      MSG-3 tasks are well analyzed, changes to existing work packages could be significant

                                           MSG-3 parts identification completed. Individual parts supportability analyses being
                                           conducted. High priority requirements provided to CSW for immediate inclusion in file
 Supply Support
                                           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.

                                           No new skills required. 730th ACSSS will review MSG-3 maintenance program
                                           manpower requirements with MAJCOMs to ensure field manpower cuts support new
 Manpower and Personnel
                                           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

                                           IETMS implementation is critical for the development of commercial based work cards.
 Computer Resource Support                 Currently reviewing IETMS options from different contractors to identify the best
                                           solution.

 Facilities

 Policy


                                           Until parts, manpower, support equipment and work package content is identified
 Funding
                                           extent of funding is unknown

 Enterprise Coordination

                                           Culture change consists of two elements. Initial and sustainment. Each has to succeed
 Maintenance Culture                       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             System           Total
                                 Parts
45    Hydraulic & Pneumatic        5
46    Fuel System                 14
49    Misc. Utilities              1
66    Emergency Communications     1

      Totals                      46
      Local Manufacture Parts
      Not Stock Listed by WUC
WUC              System      Total
                             Parts
14    Flight Controls         12
23    Turbofan Power Plant    16
51    Instruments              1

      Totals                    29

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:87
posted:10/1/2011
language:English
pages:43