C-5 MSG-3 Description

Maintenance Steering Group 3(MSG-3)

Scott Vandersall

730 ACSG Chief Engineer9 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

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.

C-5 MSG-3

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

020406080

100120140

01020304050607080

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

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

eLog21 Goal 64.1%

Percen

t Availab

leeLog21 Goal

C-5 Aircraft AvailabilityA

ircr

aft

Ava

ilab

le

Hierarchical Maintenance Program

All lower level core tasks are accomplished during the next higher level check

Intervals based on 1996/97 Inspection Interval Integrity Program (I3P) Study

Pre-Flight, Thru-flight, & BPO Tasks

16 Month Tasks

8 Yr Tasks

4 Yr Tasks

4 Month Tasks

Inspection intensity is typically

increased as the task is

elevated hierarchically

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

Maintenance task built for each interval independent of task content in other intervals

Vs.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 Vs.

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 Vs.

Performance Based Planning: Each tail is 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

BEFORE MSG-3 70-0462 87-0040 TOTAL

SORTIES 107 230 327

FLYING HRS 367.9 1381.0 1748.9

SLAT PROBLEMS 39 14 53

AFTER MSG-3 70-0462 87-0040 TOTAL

SORTIES 110 116 226

FLYING HRS 410.4 665.4 1075.8

SLAT PROBLEMS 1 0 1

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

Current process with -6 Workcards

Process with Commercial Based Workcards

Commercial Based Workcards

Implementation Overview

Task Consolidation

Roadshow Briefings

Rewrite Work Cards

MRRB/SOW

Logistics Supportability

Training

IMS and Bridge Packages

10/1 Turn-on MSG-3 program

Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 12005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification Overview

MSG-3 Supply Parts IdentificationStock Listed Parts – Sources of SupplyStock 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

Stock Listed Parts

MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification

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 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.)


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.)


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.)


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.)


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


11 Airframe 87


13 Landing Gear 4





Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)


42 Electrical Power Supply 13

44 Lighting System 5


46 Fuel System 21

47 Oxygen System 1


51 Instruments 1

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC - (Cont.)


52 Auto Pilot 3

55 Malfunction Analysis & Recording

4

59 Flight Mgmt System/GPS 1

62 VHF Communications 3

63 UHF Communications 1

64 Interphone 2

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont.)


68 AFSATCOM 2

91 Emergency Equipment 6

Totals 311

SUMMARY

Full Air Staff Commitment to MSG-33,949 Parts Identified

– 3,609 Parts Stock Listed– 340 Part Not Stock Listed

77% of the Parts – DLA Source of Supply13% of the Parts – WR-ALC (Robins)List Provided for the Not Stock Listed

Parts

Questions?

Back-up Slides

Maintain Structural Inherent Reliability

CHECK INTERVAL1 2 3 4

Structural Inherent Reliability (Design Strength)

Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration

SAFETY BOUNDARY

Upgrade

Deterioration Restore

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.

1 2 3 4

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

Deteriorated System IR

REV

Upgrade

Original System Design IR

Deterioration

Component Replacement

Maintain System Inherent Reliability

CHECK INTERVAL

Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration

SAFETY BOUNDARY

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

Realized Benefits cont..

C-5 Program StatusINSPECTION CURRENT INSPECTION

INTERVALPROPOSED POST MSG-3 INSPECTION INTERVAL A/C

Pre-Flight Prior to first flight of the day Prior to first flight of the dayAll

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 months60 months84 months

8 Years (96 months) All

ACISpecial Inspection

In conjunction w/ PDMAs specified

Specific Specific

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 ISODiscard at PDM

Evident EconomicMaintenance tasks

and intervals desirable if cost is

less than repair cost of failure

Hidden SafetyMaintenance tasks

and intervals required to assure

availability necessary to avoid

multiple failures effects

Hidden Non-SafetyMaintenance 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 NoEvident Failure Hidden Failure

No

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

Yes

Yes Yes

No

No

Yes

No No No

Yes

No

Yes

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

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

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

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%

Industry Inspection Program Trends

Time

Hou

rs

Reliability-Based MSG-3 Program

Traditional Program

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 SupportIETMS 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

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

Enterprise Coordination

Maintenance CultureCulture 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

Stock ListedNot Stock Listed

MSG-3 Supply Parts IdentificationLocal Manufacture Parts

Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by WUC


11 Airframe 14






Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by WUC



46 Fuel System 14


66 Emergency Communications 1

Totals 46

Local Manufacture Parts Not Stock Listed by WUC

WUC System TotalParts



51 Instruments 1

Totals 29

Documents

C-5 MSG-3 Description