MSG-3Maintenance Steering Group3
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Conducting the MSG-3 analysis requires a substantial investment in time, resources, and personnel.
Applying a similar percentage based on the C-5's financial gains against the two test case aircraft would most likely yield similar investment costs and cost avoidances due to the MSG-3 efforts.
(72) As with the F-15, accounting for the $10M investment to conduct the MSG-3 study across the fleet of 530 KC-135s would produce a cost per aircraft of $18,870.
However, rather than moving all remaining 1,555 inspection personnel to regional facilities, only a percentage would be required at the central inspection sites, due to the MSG-3's lengthened intervals for heavy inspections.
This option enables the unit to conduct its light and medium inspections at the base using the MSG-3 approach.
This option requires approximately $10M per aircraft fleet, or $80M across the Air Force's eight aircraft types, to conduct the failure analysis and to determine the inspection task packaging for the MSG-3 approach.
To implement a vigorous MSG-3 reevaluation across the eight or more weapon systems candidates, several actions need to be taken.
The MSG-3 approach offers the Air Force an opportunity to fully exploit AFSO21 efficiencies to produce combat-ready aircraft with increased availability, reduced cost, and improved unit control through an iterative and responsive inspection construct.
(20.) Dave Nakata, "Why Transition to a MSG-3 Based Maintenance Schedule?," EmpowerMX White Paper, [Online] Available: http://, accessed 12 December 2006.
(22.) Airline Transport Association (ATA) of America MSG-3, Operator/ Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development, Revision 2003,1,5.
(25.) ATA of America MSG-3, Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development, 4.