Maintenance Steering Group 3 MSG3 Scott Vandersall 730

Maintenance Steering Group 3 (MSG-3) Scott Vandersall 730 ACSG Chief Engineer 9 Nov 2006

Overview Ø MSG-3 – What is it? – Objectives / Methodology • Decision Logic – Maintenance Philosophy Differences – Structural & Systems Inherent Reliability – Hierarchical Maintenance Ø Industry Trends /Success Ø Benefits – Realized Benefits Ø Work Cards Ø Implementation Ø MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification

C-5 MSG-3 Ø Why: Recommendations from a C-5 General Officer Steering Group to Improve Aircraft Availability – Transition from fly-to-fail philosophy Ø What: Develop and Catalog Scheduled C-5 Inspection and Maintenance Requirements Along With Scheduled Intervals and Rationale for Each Task. Ø How: Using Scheduled Maintenance Program Development Approach Described in Air Transportation Association’s MSG-3 Decision Logic Document.

MSG-3 Program Ø MSG-3 or RCM? – RCM is the philosophy – MSG-3 is the methodology used to execute the philosophy Ø Improve Reliability and Aircraft Availability – Maximize MC Rates – Minimize NMCS and NMCM Rates Ø Reduce Maintenance Costs – Eliminate unnecessary maintenance tasks – Extend the interval(s) of maintenance tasks – Improve efficiency of maintenance tasks (standardizes work) Ø Ensures Operational Safety, Suitability, & Effectiveness Ø Enabler for Air Force Smart Operations 21 (AFSO 21) and Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) “LEAN” Overall Maintenance Program

e. Log 21 Goal 64. 1% Percent Available Aircraft Available e. Log 21 Goal C-5 Aircraft Availability

Hierarchical Maintenance Program 8 Yr Tasks 4 Yr Tasks Inspection intensity is typically increased as the task is elevated hierarchically 16 Month Tasks 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 (I 3 P) Study

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 Vs. Hierarchical maintenance tasks: higher level intervals satisfy the requirements of lower level intervals Vs. Enterprise review and approval with a single team responsible for the entire maintenance program (both field and PDM) Vs. Performance Based Planning: Each tail is monitored and maintenance requirements tailored for each Maintenance task built for each interval independent of task content in other intervals Stovepipe review and approval of the maintenance program based on field or PDM maintenance Fleet Wide Planning: Inspections and fixes are most often applied through the entire fleet

Benefits Ø Maximizes aircraft availability – Major Tenet of Aircraft Availability Improvement Plan (AAIP) – Extended inspection intervals frees up assets Ø Ø Safeguards inherent safety and reliability Ensures Operational Safety, Suitability, & Effectiveness Reduces Costs / Cost Avoidance Creates program credibility and instills confidence by involving all stakeholders Ø Integrates all levels of maintenance activity Ø Outcome has logic that is defensible at all levels of scrutiny Ø Assures that all areas of the aircraft are thoroughly covered and have the proper level of inspection

Realized Benefits ØSlat 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 ØProvide 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 ØMSG-3 Supply Parts Identification ØStock Listed Parts – Sources of Supply ØStock Listed Parts – By Work Unit Code (WUC) ØNot Stock Listed (NSL) Parts – By WUC

MSG-3 Supply Parts Identification Ø 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 SOURCES DLA/GSA Total Parts Percent 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 750 11 Airframe 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 109 42 Electrical Power Supply 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 52 55 59 61 62 63 64 System Auto Pilot Malfunction Analysis & Recording Flight Mgmt System/GPS HF Communications VHF Communications UHF Communications Interphone Total Parts 40 74 19 16 11 19 29

Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont. ) WUC System Total Parts 4 65 IFF 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 91 Emergency Equipment 97 Explosive Devices & Comp Totals Total Parts 20 2 3609

Not-Stock Listed Parts (In Work Listing Posted on Requirements Symposium Web Site)

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC System Total Parts 87 11 Airframe 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 13 42 Electrical Power Supply 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 3 52 Auto Pilot 55 4 59 Malfunction Analysis & Recording Flight Mgmt System/GPS 62 VHF Communications 3 63 UHF Communications 1 64 Interphone 2 1

Not Stock Listed Parts by WUC – (Cont. ) WUC System 68 AFSATCOM 91 Emergency Equipment Totals Total Parts 2 6 311

SUMMARY Ø Full Air Staff Commitment to MSG-3 Ø 3, 949 Parts Identified – 3, 609 Parts Stock Listed – 340 Part Not Stock Listed Ø 77% of the Parts – DLA Source of Supply Ø 13% of the Parts – WR-ALC (Robins) Ø List Provided for the Not Stock Listed Parts

Questions?

Back-up Slides

Maintain Structural Inherent Reliability CHECK INTERVAL 1 2 3 4 Structural Inherent Reliability (Design Strength) Upgrade Deterioration Restore Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration SAFETY BOUNDARY ØNot necessary to find every defect in a zone at every check. ØProgram provides multiple opportunities to detect degradation prior to reaching the limit of acceptable deterioration. ØRepairs restore structure to original Inherent Reliability. Upgrades are necessary when deterioration rate is excessive.

Maintain System Inherent Reliability CHECK INTERVAL 1 2 3 Original System Design IR Deteriorated System IR 4 Component Replacement Deterioration Limit Of Acceptable Deterioration SAFETY BOUNDARY ØNormally system component replacements will not restore system Inherent Reliability back to original design level ØReliability Enhancement Visit (REV) restores deteriorated system to its original design level ØSystem upgrade increases inherent reliability above original design level Upgrade REV

Realized Benefits cont. . 88 Total Forced Structural Maintenance Plan Items Not Inspected FSMP TASK ITEM DESCRIPTION FF 7 & FF 7 B Fuselage Side Panel Frames, FS 544 to FS 1024 FF 16 Contour Box Beam Backup Fittings FS 310 through FS 465 FF 28 & FF 28 B (B model = FS 484 only) Forward Ramp Lock Hooks at FS 454 and FS 484 FF 33 & FF 33 B Forward Fuselage Upper Lobe Skin From FS 416 To FS 581 CF 8 & CF 8 B Upper Lobe Frame Flange at FS 1744 AF 1 B Longeron and Doubler Above Aft Personnel Door at FS 1844 AF 4 & AF 4 B AFT Personnel Door Frames and Internal Support Beams

C-5 Program Status INSPECTION CURRENT INSPECTION INTERVAL PROPOSED POST MSG-3 INSPECTION INTERVAL A/C Pre-Flight Prior to first flight of the day All Thru-Flight Prior to take-off at intermediate stop All Home Station Every 105 days Every 120 days 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-5 A) PDM (C-5 C) PDM (C-5 B) 60 months 84 months ACI Special Inspection In conjunction w/ PDM As specified 8 Years (96 months) Specific All Specific

Is the MLG Wheel a Maintenance Significant Item (MSI) Could failure affect SAFETY (on the ground or in flight), including safety/emergency systems or equipment? Could failure have significant ECONOMIC impact? No Could failure have significant OPERATIONAL impact? Yes No Could failure be UNDETECTABLE or not likely to be detected by the operating crew during normal duties? No One or more “Yes” answers will lead to further analysis All “No” would lead to no further analysis Level 1 Analysis Is the functional failure EVIDENT to the operating crew during the performance of normal duties? Yes Evident Failure Yes Level 2 Analysis Evident Safety Maintenance tasks and intervals required to assure safe operation Hidden Failure 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 or secondary damage resulting from the functional failure have a DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating SAFETY? No No No Does the functional failure have DIRECT adverse EFFECT on operating CAPABILITY? Yes Evident Operational Servicing Task at Pre/Post Flight Restoration task at Major ISO GVI task at ISO Discard at PDM Yes No No Evident Economic Maintenance tasks and intervals desirable if cost is less than repair cost of failure Hidden Safety Maintenance tasks and intervals required to assure availability necessary to avoid multiple failures effects Hidden Non-Safety Maintenance tasks and intervals desirable to assure the availability to avoid the economic effects of multiple failures

Current Status of C-5 Program Ø Enhanced Zonal Analyses & Research • Completed • Approximately 400 Wiring Tasks Ø Structural Analyses and Task Consolidation – In Review (ECD: Nov 06) – Intervals Predicated on Structural Tasks Ø Systems Analyses - Completed Ø Systems Task Consolidation - Completed Ø Parts Supportability Analysis by System – In Progress (ECD: Aug 07) Ø Commercial Best Practice Work Cards (ECD: Jun 08) Ø 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 (Months) 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% Ø Man-hours based on average available 750 man-hours per day Ø Goal – reduce maintenance costs and maintain Pre MSG-3 reliability Ø 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 Hours Reliability-Based MSG-3 Program Traditional Program Time Ø Pay-off – cheaper to maintain a more reliable aircraft Ø Data Provided by Delta Tiger Team Consultant

Implementation Ø FY 10 Implementation Ø General Officer Approval Required – AF/A 4, AFMC, ANG, AFRES, AETC Ø Phased Approach Ø 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. 730 th 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 Support IETMS 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 Funding Until parts, manpower, support equipment and work package content is identified extent of funding is unknown Enterprise Coordination Maintenance Culture 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 FY 10 start date

Conclusion Ø 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 ØStock Listed ØNot Stock Listed

Local Manufacture Parts Stock Listed by 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 45 46 49 66 System Hydraulic & Pneumatic Fuel System Misc. Utilities Emergency Communications Total Parts 5 14 1 1 46

Local Manufacture Parts Not Stock Listed by WUC 14 23 51 System Flight Controls Turbofan Power Plant Instruments Total Parts 12 16 1 29