Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3)-based

Maintenance and Performance-based Planning

and Logistics (PBP&L) Programs

A White Paper
Security, Government & Infrastructure, a division of Intergraph

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) and Reliability-centered Maintenance

(RCM) Defined......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Background....................................................................................................................................2
2.2 MSG versus RCM..........................................................................................................................2
2.3 MSG Process Evolutions ...............................................................................................................2
2.4 MSG-3 and Aged Aircraft..............................................................................................................3
2.5 Hierarchical Maintenance Concepts ..............................................................................................3
2.6 Commercial Aviation Success .......................................................................................................3

3.

Intergraph MSG-3 Analysis Process ..................................................................................... 5

3.1 Maintenance Effectiveness ............................................................................................................5
3.2 Standard and Enhanced Zonal Analyses ........................................................................................5
3.3 Commercial Best Practice Work Cards..........................................................................................5
3.4 Improved Aircraft Safety ...............................................................................................................6
3.5 Enhanced Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability................................................................6
3.6 Complete Operational Service Life (OSL) Support.......................................................................6
3.7 Intergraph Maintenance Program Training ....................................................................................6
3.8 MSG-3 Maintenance Program Database (MPDB).........................................................................7

4.

Performance-based Planning & Logistics Program (PBP&L)............................................ 8

4.1 Intergraph PBP&L Process ............................................................................................................8
4.2 PBP&L Reliability Improvement Tool ..........................................................................................8
4.3 PBP&L Data Repository................................................................................................................9
4.4 PBP&L Parts Analysis Tool (PAT) ...............................................................................................9

5.

Intergraph MSG-3 and PBP&L Programs......................................................................... 10

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page i

1.

Introduction
Intergraphs award of the C-5 Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG-3)/Performance-based
Planning & Logistics (PBP&L) contracts was a direct result of the goal of the Air Mobility
Command C-5 Tiger Team that convened in May of 2000. The C-5 Tiger Team membership
included the General Officer Steering Group with representatives from each of the major
commands and Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC); depot operations officers; field
operations officers; and the Independent Analysis Team (IAT), including Brigadier General Tom
Owen, C-5 System Program Director; Stan Garriety, Northwest Airlines Maintenance Programs;
Bill Geib, Delta Airlines Maintenance Programs; and several Air Force Reserve maintenance officers.
The C-5 Tiger Teams charter encompassed the challenges, purpose, goal, and tasks associated
with the C-5 aircraft.
Challenges

What can we do now?

What can we change?
What do we need help with to change?

Purpose

To analyze command practices, processes and policies regarding operations, maintenance,

supply, sustainment, and logistics support for the C-5

Goal

To improve C-5 reliability, availability, and maintainability

Tasks

Analyze C-5 operational concepts and logistics practices in need of improvement

Make recommendations for improvement
o Solutions within Major Command authority
o Solutions requiring Air Staff/DoD authority

During C-5 Tiger Team discussions, Stan Garriety, a member of the IAT and now a subcontractor
to Intergraph, offered information about a commercial best practice maintenance program design
tool the MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development. This discussion,
and the resulting maintenance analysis research, ultimately led to Intergraphs award of the C-5
MSG-3 contract in September 2002, and the PBP&L contract award in September 2003.

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 1

2.

Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) and Reliabilitycentered Maintenance (RCM) Defined

MSG/RCM is a decision logic process used to determine what actions need to be accomplished to
ensure the availability of physical assets, in their specific operating context, when needed by the
operator or user. MSG is commercial aviations version of RCM.

2.1 Background
Pre-MSG aircraft were delivered with conservative maintenance programs designed exclusively by
the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). These programs were resource intensive and
expensive, and lacked the end-user input necessary to realize an efficient maintenance program.
The airlines wanted to be involved in building scheduled maintenance programs for the aircraft
they operated to improve safety, reliability, availability, maintainability, and reduce rising
maintenance costs.

2.2 MSG versus RCM

There are several reasons why MSG analysis is superior to standard RCM programs on commercial
and military aircraft. First, MSG has evolved over 35 years and was designed specifically for
aircraft. Second, MSG concepts incorporate a simple and concise inspection convention with
standard and enhanced zonal inspections. Third, MSG-based maintenance programs are compatible
with hierarchical maintenance concepts, facilitating a shift of structural inspections to later
intervals to capitalize on aircraft downtime. In addition, MSG moves systems inspections to lower
level inspection intervals, significantly improving aircraft reliability and availability.

2.3 MSG Process Evolutions

MSG has experienced several process evolutions throughout the years:
MSG-1, 1968: MSG-1, the Maintenance Evaluation and Program Development Document, was
specifically designed for the Boeing 747-100. After implementing MSG-1, the airlines who
operated the 747 realized an immediate reduction in total maintenance costs by an astounding 25 to
35 percent. This caused the airlines to lobby for removal of 747-100 terminology from the document
so all new commercial aircraft maintenance programs could be designed using the MSG-1 process.
MSG-2, 1970: The airline industry developed and implemented MSG-2, the Airline/Manufacturer
Maintenance Program Planning Document, as a follow-up to MSG-1. They removed Boeing 747
terminology to allow use on other aircraft. The MSG-2 philosophy was parts-driven, bottom-up,
and process-oriented. The first MSG-2 aircraft were the Lockheed L-1011 and the DC-10.
MSG-3, 1979: Nine years after the airline industry developed MSG-2, experience and events
indicated an update was necessary. The result was MSG-3, the Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled
Maintenance Development Document. The airlines restructured MSG-3 to be a system-driven,
top-down, and task-oriented process. Process-oriented means that on-condition, hard-time, and
condition monitoring processes, all RCM terms, were used in MSG-2 to describe inspection tasks.
MSG-3 inspection tasks are now written in a specific descriptive format (task-oriented) that is

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 2

easier to understand, instead of just citing the task process. The Boeing 757 and 767 were the first
MSG-3 decision logic designed aircraft.

2.4 MSG-3 and Aged Aircraft

Refinement through the years has proven that MSG-3s decision logic works even better on aged
aircraft because of the wealth of available knowledge and technical data. Known as empirical data,
this information is crucial to building a comprehensive scheduled maintenance program for any
asset. Analysts build MSG-3 working groups, leveraging knowledge and experience from field and
depot-level maintenance experts, engineers, and flight crew personnel for research and analysis.
These working groups determine exactly how each failure consequence affects operating safety and
reliability. Once the working groups analyze each structural item or system component, they draft
scheduled proactive and preventive maintenance tasks to eliminate or mitigate each failure mode
identified during the analysis process. These tasks become the new MSG-3 scheduled
maintenance program.

2.5 Hierarchical Maintenance Concepts

MSG-3-based maintenance programs are readily adaptable to hierarchical maintenance concepts,
the process of rolling up all lower-level core inspection requirements into the next higher
inspection interval. For example, once an aircraft reaches the heavy depot-level inspection interval,
all previous core tasks are included in the inspection work cards for a total scope inspection
program. This reduces overall inspection flow days (field- and depot-level); improves aircraft
reliability, availability, maintainability; and ultimately reduces the amount of time each aircraft
spends in depot functional check flight status. No matter how you compute the numbers, the
bottom line is a more mission-capable aircraft on the ramp.

2.6 Commercial Aviation Success

In 1968, under the new MSG-1 maintenance program for the Boeing 747-100, United Airlines
expended only 66,000 man-hours on major structural inspections before reaching a basic interval of
20,000 hours for the first heavy inspection for this aircraft. Using traditional maintenance
procedures, the smaller and less complex DC-8 required more than 4,000,000 man-hours on major
structural inspections to reach the same 20,000 hour structural inspection interval. Cost reductions
of this magnitude are of obvious importance to any organization responsible for maintaining large
fleets of complex equipment.
Interval
Check
Months
18
36
108

Pre-MSG-3
(Traditional
Program)
Flow
Man
Days
Hours
16
12,000
40
30,000
50
37,500

Post-MSG-3
Analysis
Flow
Days
7
30
40

Man
Hours
5,250
25,000
30,000

Man-hour
Savings
Percent
56
25
20

Figure 1: Northwest Airlines MSG-3 analysis of the DC-9. Reliability

increased to a phenomenal 98.5 percent.

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 3

More importantly, organizations can achieve these large cost reductions without a decrease in
reliability. A thorough understanding of the failure process in complex equipment has actually
improved reliability by pinpointing the focus on potential failures and facilitating the precise design
of proactive and preventive maintenance tasks.
The objective of the MSG decision logic process is to develop a scheduled maintenance program
that ensures maximum safety and reliability for the equipment at the lowest possible cost. The
economic benefit of MSG maintenance programs is underscored by comparing the Douglas DC-8
against the DC-10. The DC-8 traditional program had 339 scheduled overhaul items. In stark
contrast, the MSG DC-10 had only seven scheduled overhaul items. One item no longer subject to
overhaul limits in MSG maintenance programs is aircraft engines. Elimination of scheduled
overhauls not only led to major reductions in labor and material costs, but also reduced spare
engine inventories required to cover back shop maintenance by 50 percent. Engines for large
aircraft cost millions of dollars each. This fact alone guarantees major savings over time.

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 4

3.

Intergraph MSG-3 Analysis Process

The Intergraph MSG-3 analysis process is led by a team of skilled analysts and engineers trained in
MSG-3 processes. Intergraph has augmented the MSG-3 decision logic tool with the latest version
of RCM2 methodologies. RCM2 is especially useful during systems analysis preparation,
providing our analysts with step-by-step instructions for building Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis (FMEA). Intergraph uses FMEAs to systematically capture all the functions and failure
information prior to analysis. The initial analysis focuses on researching all empirical data, to
include technical experts, failure data, engineering reports, technical data, and all other information
pertinent to end-item maintenance.
Throughout the entire MSG-3 analysis process, Intergraph analysts consider the inherent reliability
and safety impact of every failure mode. We ultimately eliminate or mitigate failures by building
proactive and preventive scheduled inspection tasks with applicable and effective intervals. As a
result, Intergraph helps organizations achieve these goals with minimum total costs, including
maintenance and failure costs over time.

3.1 Maintenance Effectiveness

MSG-3 analysis is a rigorous, structured process that by-design determines optimal scheduled
inspection tasks and intervals. It employs a lean set of building-block inspections consisting of (1)
zonal, (2) general visual, (3) detailed visual, and (4) non-destructive. Each successively higher
inspection incorporates lower-level tasks. For example, a depot-level, non-destructive inspection
for a structural item will satisfy all lower-level visual inspections. The end result is a totally
integrated maintenance program.

3.2 Standard and Enhanced Zonal Analyses

Standard zonal inspections are general visual inspections applied to each zone, defined by access
and vantage point of the inspector. Zonal inspections are not designed to target a specific failure
mode, but rather to enhance safety by providing a level of security that ensures visually evident
failures will be addressed before they become serious. The commercial airline industry reported
that 80 percent of all structural defects are found during zonal inspections. Zonal inspections
support the entire maintenance program and keep the operators safe until they reach the time to
find, time to fix inspection interval.
Intergraph inventories and documents the contents of every zone on the aircraft and routes this data
through the MSG-3 zonal analysis decision logic. If an aircraft zone contains only structure, then
standard zonal inspections apply. If a zone contains wiring, Intergraph uses the enhanced logic tree
and answers a series of logic questions such as, Are there combustibles in close proximity to
wiring? Is there fuel or hydraulic lines in the zone? If the answer to these questions is yes, then we
design detailed and general visual inspection tasks to target these areas to ensure safety. Enhanced
zonal analysis is crucial to aged aircraft safety and reliability.

3.3 Commercial Best Practice Work Cards

Intergraph enhances maintainer understanding and inspection process standardization through the
development and deployment of commercial best practice work cards. These new work cards

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 5

include improved graphics, detailed task descriptions, and all pertinent data to accomplish each
task with minimal reference to other documents. The use of these superior work cards allows
inspectors of any skill level to effectively and independently execute inspection tasks while
ensuring consistency through all levels of the inspection program.

3.4 Improved Aircraft Safety

Prior to analysis, Intergraph MSG-3 researchers identify all Structurally Significant Items that have
airworthiness and safety ramifications. This ensures the analysis of all critical structures and the
development of tasks to avert failures.
Intergraph identifies all systems Maintenance Significant Items and places them in the appropriate
category (safety, operational, or economic) prior to analysis. This comprehensive decision logic
process thoroughly analyzes all safety and protective devices in their operating context and
develops appropriate maintenance tasks to prevent any malfunctions.

3.5 Enhanced Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability

Intergraphs MSG-3 approach improves reliability, availability, and maintainability through the
development and use of FMEAs to thoroughly analyze the aircraft systems failure processes. The
results include:

A maintenance program that provides comprehensive aircraft coverage

Significant improvement in the accuracy and quality of weapon system technical data
Precise management of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
Integration of all maintenance activities while focusing maintainers towards a common goal
Improved understanding of aircraft systems
Documentation and implementation of best practices
Compliant with Air Force Operational Safety, Suitability, & Effectiveness
Provides logical base for Lean-Continuous Process Improvement (Lean-CPI)

Intergraphs PBP&L program coupled with MSG-3 analysis results in a Lean-CPI driven
maintenance program.

3.6 Complete Operational Service Life (OSL) Support

Intergraphs MSG-3 maintenance programs will support the military warfighter for the entire
aircraft operational service life (OSL). Users attain all benefits by performing comprehensive
analysis on all aircraft structures and systems. Two significant aged aircraft factors are fatigue
damage and corrosion prevention/control. During structural analysis, aircraft maintainers analyze
aircraft accidental damage, environmental deterioration (corrosion), and fatigue damage to manage
the aircraft health. MSG-3 analysis determines the precise timing of all applicable scheduled
maintenance actions to ensure aircraft will be available when needed throughout their OSL.

3.7 Intergraph Maintenance Program Training

Intergraph developed the Intergraph Maintenance Program Analysis and Logistics Architecture
(IMPALA) training modules to instruct Intergraph and customer employees on how to perform

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 6

MSG-3/RCM2 analyses. Intergraph has successfully combined the best of MSG-3 and RCM2 into
our analysis processes for comprehensive asset management. The IMPALA modules are:

MSG-3/RCM2 Familiarization
Structural Analysis with Interval and Rating Scale Development
Systems Analysis with FMEA Development
Standard and Enhanced Zonal Analysis Programs
Task Building with Commercial Best Practice Work Cards, Task Consolidation, and
Individual Tail Number Bridge Packages
PBP&L with MSG-3 Maintenance Program Reliability Monitoring
Intergraph Maintenance Program Software Tools

3.8 MSG-3 Maintenance Program Database (MPDB)

The MSG-3 Maintenance Program Database (MPDB) is a comprehensive compilation of the MSG3 structural, systems, and zonal analyses; task and interval builder with editor; report section; and
all technical justification. It serves as a dynamic analysis record, including rationale, for the entire
aircraft OSL.

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 7

4.

Performance-based Planning & Logistics Program

(PBP&L)
Initial MSG-3 analysis realizes 80 percent of weapon system scheduled maintenance improvements.
To gain the other 20 percent, the sustaining organization must implement a robust reliability
program to continually monitor and trend aircraft discrepancies. Monitoring and tracking system
degradation is crucial to maintaining inherent safety and reliability, and to properly adjust a MSG3-based maintenance program.
Intergraph designs reliability programs to improve asset reliability and support dynamic MSG-3based maintenance programs. PBP&L is Intergraphs reliability architecture, specifically designed
to improve aircraft reliability, availability, and maintainability.

4.1 Intergraph PBP&L Process

Intergraphs skilled team of PBP&L analysts use a combination of experience, analytical skills, and
software tools to quickly identify negative trends or problem areas from across the aircraft fleet
to specific tail numbers. Once Intergraph identifies system degradation, we thoroughly research the
nature of the problem to isolate root cause(s). We study all viable solutions or repairs using returnon-investment analyses, recommending only the most economical and effective solution to our customers.
There are many avenues to correct reliability issues, depending on problem sources or root causes.
MSG-3 task and interval adjustments, process improvements, training, supply improvements, and
maintenance Reliability Enhancement Visits (REVs), are all possible remedies to correct degradation.
REVs are planned maintenance actions or repairs accomplished during scheduled inspections or
opportune downtime. All required resources, including manpower and support equipment, are
planned in advance so aircraft can be properly and expediently repaired at a suitable time. The
overarching objective is maximum safety and availability while minimizing costs and downtime.
After repair or process improvement, Intergraphs PBP&L process continually monitors and tracks
system health to verify that implemented solutions restore safety and reliability to inherent design levels.

4.2 PBP&L Reliability Improvement Tool

Intergraphs Maintenance Data Collection (MDC) analysis tool is a proactive approach to quickly
identifying opportunities to improve reliability. It provides:

Daily feeds from legacy MDC systems and Air Force Knowledge System (AFKS)
Maintenance data cleansing for fact-based reliability decisions
Dirty Dozen top-twelve poor performing aircraft
Complete system degradation drill down
Fleet versus aircraft mission capable rates
Comprehensive search using work unit codes by aircraft or fleet
Supply analysis drill down
Automatic and custom report generator with graphic displays

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 8

4.3 PBP&L Data Repository

The PBP&L data repository is an electronic file cabinet and process management tool that
centralizes reliability improvement data.

Instant management insight for all reliability efforts

Reliability issues tracked cradle-to-grave
Comprehensive search capability
Historical failure data for depot aircraft
Comprehensive report generator
Accessible from the C-5 Strategic Airlift Groups Aging Fleet Integrity and Reliability
Management (AFIRM) Web site

Figure 2: PBP&L Data Repository Block Diagram

4.4 PBP&L Parts Analysis Tool (PAT)

The PBP&L Parts Analysis Tool (PAT) is a proactive detailed analysis of parts issued or
backordered by base, fleet, tail number, or system work unit code

Daily AFKS feed

Aids in system reliability tracking by adding the complete supply system drill down
Allows reliability group to intervene before MICAP conditions occur

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 9

5.

Intergraph MSG-3 and PBP&L Programs

The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC), at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, recruited
Intergraph to perform a MSG-3 review of the C-5 Galaxy, one of the largest aircraft in the world.
They needed assurance that all areas of the aircraft would be thoroughly covered and have the
proper level of scheduled inspections. Additionally, they wanted a top-down review process
allowing them to focus on systems health rather than individual components.
Intergraph is conducting a thorough MSG-3/PBP&L analysis, developing a complete breakdown of
all structures and systems on the C-5. All structural items are classified as either safety of flight or
other structure. All C-5 safety and reliability issues are being successfully addressed, so they can be
defended against all levels of scrutiny. As a result of the comprehensive organizational and depotlevel structural, systems, and enhanced zonal analyses, WR-ALC will improve C-5 fleet aircraft
maintenance inspections, repair processes, and overall aircraft mission capable rates. A key
element of the Intergraph effort has been to re-baseline the C-5 maintenance program by extending
aircraft inspection intervals for all C-5 models.
Based on independent return-on-investment analyses, Intergraphs implementation of MSG-3 and
the associated extensions of the C-5 inspection intervals will substantially reduce PDM costs while
increasing aircraft reliability and availability over the weapon systems operational service life.
Integrated with a strong PBP&L program, this vanguard initiative will also deliver to the warfighter
significant improvements in C-5 mission capability and reliability.

MSG-3-based Maintenance and PBP&L Programs

Page 10

For more information, visit our Web site at

www.intergraph.com/sgi or contact:
Michael Reslie
Senior Business Development Manager
Office: 478.322.3336 Cell: 478.335.1043
E-mail: [email protected]
Stephen Turner
MSG-3/PBP&L Program Manager
Office: 478.926.3355 Cell: 478.320.4121
E-mail: [email protected]
Michael Rovinsky
MSG-3/PBP&L Program Manager
Office: 478.322.3251 Cell: 478.952.0571
E-mail:
[email protected]

Headquarters
Intergraph Corporation
170 Graphics Drive
Madison, AL 35758
For more information about Intergraph,
visit our Web site at
www.intergraph.com/sgi.
Intergraph and the Intergraph logo are
registered trademarks of Intergraph
Corporation. Other brands and product names
are trademarks of their respective owners.
Intergraph believes that the information in this
publication is accurate as of its publication
date. Such information is subject to change
without notice. Intergraph is not responsible
for inadvertent errors. 2006 Intergraph
Corporation, Huntsville, AL 35824-0001. All
Rights Reserved. 1/06 FS106A0