Aaron Rimer- Module 2-White Paper 1

docx

School

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

416

Subject

Civil Engineering

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ballnchain86

Running head: Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 1 White Paper 1: Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) Aaron Rimer Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University AMNT 416 Aviation Maintenance Management: A Global Perspective Professor: Justin Stone October 24, 2023

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 2 As aircraft have evolved from the early days of the Wright brother’s flier to the modern- day commercial airliners, effective aircraft maintenance has had to evolve as well. In the days of the Wright brothers, the closes aviation maintenance technician was a man that worked in their bicycle shop, who built their first engine. He had no instructions or training to work off, he just figured out solutions to issues as they happened (The Evolution, 2023). Prior to the 1920’s maintenance technicians were trained by the aircraft owner or employers, not maintenance documentation was required. The mid 1920’s through 1950’s saw official manuals to be created, as well as maintenance documentation requirements as well as technician licensing. It was in 1968 that the Boeing company introduced the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) (Kinnison, 2012). 1968 saw the launch of the new Boeing 747 aircraft, the largest commercial aircraft, and a new era of jumbo jet airliners. Boeing created the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG), a new approach to maintenance program to ensure safety and reliability for the aircraft by all airline operations (Kinnison, 2012). To create the program Boeing worked with six Industry Working Groups (IWG), who addressed each of their specific areas with regards to operations, maintenance requirements, and failure causes and effects. Along with the FAA to ensure regulatory requirements were addressed, the Maintenance Steering Group created what became known as MSG-1 to be used as a guide for maintenance on 747 aircraft. The purpose of working groups is to facilitate the development and improvement of industry-wide standards and best practices for aircraft maintenance and safety. The six groups that Boeing worked with were 1) structures, 2) mechanical systems, 3) engine and Auxiliary power plant (APU), 4) electrical and avionics systems, 5) flight controls and hydraulics, and 6) zonal (Klein, 2021). Each group provided development of maintenance programs, safety

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 3 protocols, regulations, and sharing of best practices for their specific area of expertise. The IWG’s also provide industry stakeholders with the ability to exchange information, experiences, and expertise to continuously increase aviation safety and operational efficiency. MSG-1 program worked in a bottom-up approach, where it looked at different components being the likely causes of equipment malfunction. It uses three different processes Hard Time (HT), On-Condition (OC), and Condition Monitoring (CM) to determine which maintenance process is needed to repair/ replace a component and to return it to service. This provided technicians with a flow chart direction of evaluating systems and determining malfunctioning components. This diverted from the tradition of overhauling and replacing components at time intervals despite still operating normally. This in turn saved maintenance down time, saved money, and prevented unnecessary interference with other components (Klein, 2021). As maintenance requirements evolved MSG-1 processes became more subjective relying on expert input and judgement. In order to expand maintenance operations and more data-driven decisions, MSG-1 required updating. MSG-2 is an improvement from MSG-1 by first removing 747 aircraft specific information, becoming more general in scope in order to relate it to other aircraft maintenance programs. It is also broken down into three maintenance areas 1) systems and components, 2) structures, and 3) engines. It operates in a bottom-up process using a flow diagram, that focuses on safety at any cost. The flow chart was designed to direct the selection of which maintenance process would be required for each component. An important update was the addition of operational experience and reliability data gathered from operating aircraft. This limited the use of subjective decisions or relying on an expert judgment. It also helped to improve the overall reliability and safety of the aircraft (Kinnison, 2012).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 4 MSG-3 is the latest iteration that is currently used in today’s maintenance programs. This version is the first to operate using a top-down approach, using a more straightforward and linear progression. The top-down approach looks more at how the failure affects the operation of the aircraft. The first thing is if the failure is evident to the crew during operation, from there it follows a flow chart with regards to being a safety issue or is it an economical issue. From each of these it is then designated per one of the three maintenance processes being it a HT, OC, or CM. This new iteration also utilizes a systematic approach to review and update maintenance tasks considering input of reliability data, operational experience, and technology advancements (The Evolution, 2023). These changes were needed to provide a crew fault notification, safety first process. By ensuring that the operating crew are either notified of any fault that occurs or if they are not notified, would the fault create a change in the operation and safety of the aircraft. Each program change provided a significant change from its predecessor as well as increased effectiveness. MSG-1 was revolutionary in maintenance program development, it was originally created specifically for the 747. While it was incredibly useful and helpful ensuring proper maintenance and sustaining reliability and safety of flight, it was limited in use for other aircraft. The change to MSG-2 was incredibly helpful as it no longer was aircraft specific, but at the same time it also became a little broader in some respects. The overall focus was reliability and safety above all, which in some respects required more maintenance personnel, it also did not take an economic view into account. This process also did not address the potential of “hidden failures” that would not alert the aircrew. Overall MSG-2 was a very effective change for it’s time over that of MSG-1.

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 5 Lastly MSG-3 has certainly been created with multiple changes, from a bottom-up to a top-down approach, as well as safety and economy being taken into consideration. Currently to date there has not been an MSG-4 created, it would be safe to say that MSG-3 has been highly effective in its implementation and use of maintaining safe and reliable aircraft.

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) 6 References Kinnison, H. & Siddiqui, T. (2012). Aviation Maintenance Management. (2 nd ed.). The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. Klein, E. (2021, March). Maintenance Steering Group Introduction, Overview, and Evolution. Retrieved from Maintenance Steering Group Introduction, Overview, and Evolution | Aviation Pros The Evolution of Aviation Maintenance. (2023). Retrieved from The Evolution of Aviation Maintenance – North Central Institute (nci.edu)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Related Documents

Maritime Investigation Summary Report.doc

Group5_Lab8.docx

SAR 2 Online F2023.docx

ASSIGNMENT 1 c0864825.docx

1 Journal Critique Assignment Instructions (30).docx

2 Journal Critique Assignment Instructions AAA (1).docx

Assignment 1 - Gray Zone Warfare - Maj Keith Johnson 8-11-23.docx

Lab 4 - Instruction(1).pdf

417projectFAQ.pdf

417assignment5.pdf

CE343_Lab 12.pdf

Module 3 Worksheet – Assessing a Community-1.docx

Recommended textbooks for you

Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engi...

Civil Engineering

ISBN:9781305084766

Author:Saeed Moaveni

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Solid Waste Engineering

Civil Engineering

ISBN:9781305635203

Author:Worrell, William A.

Publisher:Cengage Learning,

Architectural Drafting and Design (MindTap Course...

Civil Engineering

ISBN:9781285165738

Author:Alan Jefferis, David A. Madsen, David P. Madsen

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Traffic and Highway Engineering

Civil Engineering

ISBN:9781305156241

Author:Garber, Nicholas J.

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Fundamentals Of Construction Estimating

Civil Engineering

ISBN:9781337399395

Author:Pratt, David J.

Publisher:Cengage,

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engi...
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781305084766
Author:Saeed Moaveni
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Solid Waste Engineering
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781305635203
Author:Worrell, William A.
Publisher:Cengage Learning,
Architectural Drafting and Design (MindTap Course...
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781285165738
Author:Alan Jefferis, David A. Madsen, David P. Madsen
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Traffic and Highway Engineering
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781305156241
Author:Garber, Nicholas J.
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Fundamentals Of Construction Estimating
Civil Engineering
ISBN:9781337399395
Author:Pratt, David J.
Publisher:Cengage,