Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) Approach

In 1968 the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) was created with a mandate to formulate
decision logic process used for development of the initial scheduled maintenance requirements
for new aircraft.

3.1 Participants from Various Aviation Bodies

1. The Air Transport Association (ATA)
2. Airlines
3. Aircraft manufacturers
4. Suppliers
5. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) representatives

3.2 Elements of a Reliability Program

•Data collection

•Problem area alerting

•Data display

•Data analysis

•Corrective actions

•Follow-up analysis

•Monthly report

3.3 MSG-1
That same year representatives of the steering group developed “MSG-1 - Maintenance
Evaluation and Program Development”, which for the first time used a decision-logic diagram to
develop the scheduled maintenance program for the new Boeing 747 aircraft.

3.3.1 Approach
Both Hard-Time (HT) and On-Condition (OC) processes were used for development of the
aircraft’s routine maintenance tasks.
3.3.1.1 Hard time (HT)
 Items that can have an adverse effect on safety but no maintenance check for that condition
 Rubber seals, bushing etc.
 Structural inspection, landing gear overhaul, and life limited engine parts, mechanical
actuators, hydraulic pumps and motors, electric motors and generators
 Can be OC as long as not safety related

3.3.1.2 On-Condition (OC)

 On-condition limited to continued airworthiness by measurements or tests without doing
a tear-down inspection
 Tire tread and brake linings
 Scheduled borescope inspections of engines
 Engine oil analysis (SOAP)
 Brake wear indicator pins
 Control cables (measure for diameter, tension, and broken strands)
 Linkages, control rods, pulleys etc. (measure for wear, end or side play, or backlash

MSG-1 was used by special teams of industry and FAA to issue initial program for Boeing 747.
As described by FAA, these teams:

“…sorted out the potential maintenance tasks and then evaluated them to
determine which must be done for operating safety or essential hidden function
protection. The remaining potential tasks were evaluated to determine whether
they were economically useful. These procedures provide a systematic review
of the aircraft design so that, in the absence of real experience, the best
maintenance process can be utilized for each component and system.” [1]
 Figure 3.1 MSG-1 Decision Logic

3.3.2 6 Industrial Working Groups (IWGs)

1. Structures
2. Mechanical systems
3. Engine and auxiliary power plant (APU)
4. Electrical and avionics systems
5. Flight controls and hydraulics
6. Zonal [8]

3.4 MSG-2
In 1970, MSG-1 is updated to MSG-2 to make it applicable for later generation aircraft (L 1011
and DC-10). MSG-2 has slight changes in the following systems when compared with MSG-1

 Systems and components

 Structures
 Engines

3.4.1 Approach
The methodology introduces a third primary maintenance process defined as Condition-
Monitoring (CM).
3.4.1.1 Condition Monitoring
 Under Condition-Monitoring no services or inspections are scheduled to determine
integrity or serviceability, however the mechanical performance is monitored and
analyzed.
 For example, a given operating characteristic of the equipment is trended and compared
with known “normal” operating levels. An acceptable range is established with either
upper and/or lower limits, or some maximum or minimum level. As long as the trend data
remain inside the acceptable level, any variation is considered to be normal. When the
trend line intersects the “unacceptable” limit, removal of the unit is required to prevent a
failure in the future.
 It is not considered a preventive maintenance process; the process allows failures to
occur, and the failure modes of conditioned-monitored items are considered not to have a
direct adverse effect on operating safety.

MSG-2 decision logic was subsequently used to develop scheduled maintenance programs for
the aircraft of the 1970s. Maintenance tasks were derived from one of three processes:

1. Hard-Time
2. On-Condition
3. Condition-Monitoring
4. Some combination of the three processes
 Figure 3.2 MSG-2 Decision Logic

3.4.1.2 Steps
Step 1: Identify the maintenance or structure items requiring analysis.

Step 2: Identify the functions and failure modes associated with the item and the effect of a

failure. Step 3: Identify those tasks which may have potential effectiveness.

Step 4: Assess the applicability of those tasks and select those deemed necessary.

Step 5: For structures only, evaluate initial sampling thresholds.

 Figure 3.3 Algorithm of MSG-2

3.4.2 Shortcomings in MSG-2 Decision Logic

In 1979 the Air Transport Association (ATA) task force sought to improve on MSG-2 to address
a new generation of advanced technology aircraft (B757 & B767). Additionally, the task force
identified a number of shortcomings in MSG-2 decision logic, key among them

1. MSG-2 did not differentiate between maintenance being done for safety reasons versus
economic reasons.
2. It required so many components to be individually tracked.
3. MSG-2 did not effectively deal with the increased complexity of aircraft systems.
4. MSG-2 did not address regulations related to damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of
structures; these are currently accounted for in Corrosion Prevention and Control
Programs (CPCP) and requirements mandated through an Aging Aircraft maintenance
program.
5. Simply maintains aircraft safety at any cost
6. Does not treat hidden failures to pilots: electric and electronic failures, fatigue inside the
structure, etc.
 7. A bottom-up approach requiring more staff
8. The definitions in MSG-2 contradicts themselves

Figure 3.4 Difference between MSG-3 and MSG-2

3.5 MSG-3
The work of the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) task force led to the development
of a new, task-oriented, maintenance process defined as MSG-3.

3.5.1 Approach
The process adopted a decision tree methodology with the primary purpose of:

1. Separating safety-related items from economic.

2. Defining adequate treatment of hidden functional failures.
Under MSG-3 logic, activities are assessed at the system level rather than the component level.
In other words, if it can be demonstrated that the functional failure of a particular system had no
effect on operational safety, or that the economic repercussions were not significant, there was
no need for a routine maintenance activity.

3.5.2 Significance of MSG-3

Although there is no actual in-service operational data available when the MSG-3 process begins
for a new aircraft, there is much historical data on the performance of similar components and
systems used in earlier designs, as well as test data from the manufacturer and component
vendors. It’s the actual in-service reliability data of similar components and systems that drives
the task and interval decisions. Another principal benefit from the MSG-3 process is that it
generally produces higher safety standards. This is primarily due to the greater degree of
intelligent approach to maintenance in terms of selecting tasks that are effective. The approach
results in far less maintenance tasks, which minimizes the infant mortality effect associated with
excessive maintenance. Studies in Human Factors clearly identified correlation between
excessive maintenance and induced incidents, or accidents, resulting from preventive
maintenance through replacement and overhaul of components.

Today, MSG-3 is the only game in town for commercial airplane manufacturers. According to
Advisory Circular AC-121-22A, FAA policy states that the latest MSG analysis procedures must
be used for the development of routine scheduled maintenance tasks for all new or derivative
aircraft. It is the only methodology accepted by the airworthiness authorities. MSG-3 has also
been adopted by most major business jet manufacturers, with the encouragement of the National
Business Aviation Association (NBAA). [4]
 Figure 3.5 Algorithm of MSG-3

Figure 3.6 Algorithm of MSG-3 (continued)

 4. References

[1] S. N. F, "Optimal Maintenance Decision (OMDEC) Inc.," 11 March 2004. [Online].

Available: http://www.omdec.com/wikifiles/nowlanHeap.pdf. [Accessed 1 March 2017].

[2] D. Dawson, "CompositesWorld," 7 January 2006. [Online]. Available:

http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/function-and-operation-of-aircraft-spoilers.
[Accessed 1 March 2017].

[3] R. M. Conachey, "Development of Machinery Survey Requirements Based on Reliability-

Centered Maintenance".

[4] H. Timothee, Fundamentals of Aircraft Maintenace Management, Notion Press , 2016.

[5] Boeing, Boeing History Chronology.

[6] Boeing, "Boeing 747," Boeing, [Online]. Available: http://www.boeing-

747.com/boeing_747_family/. [Accessed March 2017].

[7] S. P. Ackert, "Basics of Aircraft Maintenance Programs for Financiers".

[8] G. K. Shamili. [Online]. Available:

http://iare.ac.in/sites/default/files/lecture_notes/AME%20LN%20.pdf. [Accessed 1 March
2017].