WHITE PAPER

Background Why Transition to a MSG-3

Based Maintenance Schedule?

White Paper By Dave Nakata, VP Consulting Services

A Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) – 3 based maintenance schedule can help an

air carrier enhance its operational safety net and provide a positive contribution to the
air carrier’s fiscal bottom line.

MSG-3 was released to the aviation industry in 1980 by the Air Transport Association (ATA) of America. Its forerunners,
MSG-1 (1968) and MSG-2 (1970), were used to help the industry move away from an overhaul mindset (basically overhaul
or restore almost everything on an airplane at a specific fixed interval, e.g., every six years) to a defined engineering logic
that determined the most appropriate scheduled maintenance task and interval for an aircraft’s major components and
structure.

MSG-1 was developed for, and only used on the Boeing 747-100 aircraft. Among its many benefits, MSG-1 introduced three
broad maintenance processes: Hard Time (HT), On-Condition (OC) and Condition Monitoring (CM), that using an
engineering logic, were assigned to various components and structure on the B747-100 aircraft . MSG-2’s development
was sponsored by ATA; produced a more generic document and logic; retained the three processes of HT/ OC/ CM and
was used on aircraft such as the DC-10 and L-1011.

The following are the definitions for HT, OC and CM as reflected in the MSG-2 document:

Hard-Time Limit
A maximum interval for performing maintenance tasks. These intervals usually apply to overhaul,
but also apply to total life of parts or units.

On Condition
Repetitive inspections, or tests to determine the condition of units or systems or portions of
structure (Ref.: FAA Advisory Circular 121-1).
WHITE PAPER

Background Why Transition to a MSG-3

Based Maintenance Schedule?

Condition Monitoring
For items that have neither hard time limits nor on condition maintenance as their primary
maintenance process. Condition monitoring is accomplished by appropriate means available to
an operator for finding and resolving problem areas. These means range from notices of unusual
problems to special analysis of unit performance. No specific monitoring system is implied for
any given unit (Ref.: FAA Procedures 8310.4, paragraph 3033).”

In 1979, the ATA extended a general invitation to the aviation community to meet at ATA headquarters in Washington, D. C.
and discuss the shortcomings of MSG-2. A number of domestic and international air carriers, regulatory authorities,
aircraft and engine manufacturers, and the U.S. Navy responded. A number of shortcomings were identified by this group
and this provided the catalyst for changes to MSG-2. As the revisions were developed it became apparent that something
significantly different from MSG-2 was evolving; the final outcome in 1980 was MSG-3.

Why transition to MSG-3?

Many of the shortcomings of MSG-2 that were identified in 1979 provide justification for transitioning to MSG-3 today.
There were actually 14 MSG-2 shortcomings identified. Some of the reasons why an air carrier should transition to aMSG-3
program include:

1. MSG-2 does not differentiate between maintenance being done for safety reasons versus economic reasons.

2. MSG-2 logic needs to be more rigorous. A user can determine what he/she wants to be done to a component and work
the logic so that that outcome is generated. Emotion is not precluded from the decision making process.

3. MSG-2 does not treat hidden functional failures adequately (this is even more critical in today’s “electronic” aircraft
where many redundant systems are “hidden”).

4. MSG-2 does not address current FAA regulations, e.g., FAR 25.571 (damage tolerance and fatigue evaluation of struc
tures), aging aircraft concerns, Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) requirements, Enhanced Zonal
Analysis Procedures (EZAP) that specifically address wiring concerns and promotes a “clean as you go” culture or
analysis for Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF) tasks and intervals.

5. MSG-3 analysis normally selects fewer scheduled maintenance tasks than MSG-2 because MSG-3 uses a “top-down”
approach compared to the “bottom-up” approach required by MSG-2 and other pre-MSG-3 logics.

a. As an example, MSG-2 logic looks at a hydraulic pump and analyzes what piece parts in the hydraulic pump
might fail and then determines what maintenance should be accomplished to prevent one or more of the
piece parts from failing.
 WHITE PAPER

Background Why Transition to a MSG-3

Based Maintenance Schedule?

b. Conversely, MSG-3 logic will look at the aircraft’s hydraulic distribution systems to determine the
consequence of loss or failure of one the hydraulic distribution systems, and depending on the consequence
(safety or operational/economic), determine if there is an applicable and effective task to prevent the loss of
a hydraulic system.

MSG-3 takes a systems analysis approach; MSG-2 takes a piece parts analysis approach.

6. MSG-3 provides a strong and well tested analytical logic which helps eliminate and minimize emotion from the decision
making process of determining if a maintenance task is needed or not. The MSG-3 logic can eliminate selection of a
maintenance task because “we’ve always done it”; “just in case”, or because “it makes us feel good”.

7. The maintenance processes, HT/OC/CM, of MSG-2 are confusing. Few people can agree on the definitions, or for
example, what maintenance is supposed to be accomplished under the OC process: A Detailed Inspection or a Func-
tional Check or an Operational Check or a Visual Check or a General Visual Inspection?

8. Conversion to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule will provide significant and tangible economic returns for an air
carrier. This benefit can be as much as a 30% reduction in scheduled maintenance costs. The benefits can be achieved
by reduction in the number of task and/or their accomplishment frequency; span time reduction and use of a formalized
zonal inspection program which also can help minimize the number of directed inspections.

Reduction in the number of maintenance tasks can also provide for a more safe operation. Studies and
statistics have revealed that more maintenance is not always better for the aircraft nor does more
maintenance make the aircraft more reliable.

However, it has been determined that more maintenance does open the potential for more human induced
maintenance errors, which in turn, can impact safety and operational economics.

9. MSG-2 based maintenance schedules promote, and in some instances, mandate an air carrier to develop and manage
an “alert” based reliability program. Every component assigned the “CM” process is required to be statistically moni-
tored by the air carrier. Per the MSG-2 document: “Condition monitoring is accomplished by appropriate means avail-
able to an operator for finding and resolving problem areas. These means range from notices of unusual problems to
special analysis of unit performance.”

10. Conversion to MSG-3 is promoted by the FAA: “Principal maintenance inspectors (PMI) should allow and encourage
their assigned operators to utilize the less confusing MSG-3 task-type terminology in the maintenance time limitations
document rather than the MSG-2 process-type terminology.”

In addition to the reasons listed above, it should be noted that transitioning to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule can
also provide the catalyst for an air carrier to move away from its traditional “alert” based reliability program to a program.
WHITE PAPER

Background Why Transition to a MSG-3

Based Maintenance Schedule?

A move to MSG-3 can help the air carrier justify an upgrade to its traditional reliability program that is more in line with the
enhanced Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) as reflected in FAA Advisory Circulars 120-79 (Developing
And Implementing A Continuing Analysis And Surveillance System) and 120-16D (Air Carrier Maintenance Programs). The
distraction of using limited resources to ‘chase’ alerts versus a more proactive focus on safety related issues and/or
events provides another strong justification for transitioning to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule.

To further clarify, MSG-3 can be applied to out-ofproduction aircraft. Transition to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule
an also help minimize confusion generated by operating a mixed fleet of aircraft, e.g., B737-Classics on a MSG-2 based
maintenance schedule and B737-Next Generations on a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule.

Lastly, just transitioning from a MSG-2 type maintenance schedule to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule is only part of
the formula for success. In order for the air carrier to derive the greatest benefits from MSG-3, MSG-3 training must be
provided to the air carrier’s management, technicians, substantial maintenance providers (if applicable), and the air
carrier’s local regulatory authority (if they are willing). MSG-3 promotes a different type of maintenance philosophy and
typically requires a significant cultural change within the air carrier’s organization. To facilitate these changes, MSG-3
training is necessary.

In summary, transition to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule, with adequate training, can provide air carrier’s a means
to reduce aircraft cost of ownership and provide additional strength to their existing safety net.

Dave Nakata, VP, Consulting Services

Mr. Nakata is a thirty-eight year veteran of the aviation maintenance

industry. He is a recognized authority in development and implementation
of approved maintenance, CASS, reliability and quality assurance programs.

EmpowerMX Consulting Services Group offers a full range of services in the development and implementation of a MSG-3 based maintenance
schedule as well as CASS and event based reliability programs. Contact Dave Nakata at 651-788-8877
for more information.