On aircraft scheduled maintenance program development

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present issues and challenges of scheduled maintenance task development within the maintenance review board (MRB) process, and to find potential areas of improvement in the application of the MSG‐3 methodology for aircraft systems. Design/methodology/approach The issues and challenges as well as potential areas of improvement have been identified through a constructive review that consists of two parts. The first part is a benchmarking between the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG‐3) methodology and other established and documented versions of reliability‐centred maintenance (RCM). This benchmarking focuses on the MSG‐3 methodology and compares it with some RCM standards to identify differences and thereby find ways to facilitate the application of MSG‐3. The second part includes a discussion about methodologies and tools that can support different steps of the MSG‐3 methodology within the framework of the MRB process. Findings The MSG‐3 methodology is closely related to the RCM methodology, in which the anticipated consequences of failure are considered for risk evaluation. However, MSG‐3 considers neither environmental effects of failures nor operational consequences of hidden failures. Furthermore, in MSG‐3, the operational check (failure‐finding inspection) is given priority before all other tasks, whereas in RCM it is considered as a default action, where there is no other applicable and effective option. While RCM allows cost‐effectiveness analysis for all failures that have no safety consequences, MSG‐3 just allows it for failures with economic consequences. A maintenance program that is established through the MRB process fulfils the requirements of continuous airworthiness, but there is no foundation to claim that it is the optimal or the most effective program from an operator's point‐of‐view. The major challenge when striving to achieve a more effective maintenance program within the MRB process is to acquire supporting methodologies and tools for adequate risk analysis, for optimal interval assignments, and for selection of the most effective maintenance task. Originality/value The paper presents a critical review of existing aircraft scheduled maintenance program development methodologies, and demonstrates the differences between MSG‐3 and other RCM methodologies.