Effective managers provide positive and negative consequences to their proposal. Justify your response by providing and supporting one pro and one con to your recommendation.

Description

References

MSG 3 in Skybrary (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (external Web link)
Advisory Circular Maintenance Review Boards – MSG 3 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (external Web link)
MSG-3 Embraer Air and MSG-3 Articles on ProQuest (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (external Web link)
Incidents of Wiring Damage and MSG-3 in SkyBrary (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (external

In this discussion activity, address the following:

Critically analyze the elements of the current MSG-3 program. From a maintenance management perspective, provide one recommendation to improve the current MSG-3 program.
Effective managers provide positive and negative consequences to their proposal. Justify your response by providing and supporting one pro and one con to your recommendation.
After your primary, original posting, review and respond to a minimum of two of your classmates’ postings. From a manager’s perspective evaluate their proposal. Provide critical analysis of their proposed improvement, their pro and con response. Could you make a decision based on the information provided? What would you add/change to their response?

Reply to below 2 peers. each 1 paragraph and 1 reference.

1.
The maintenance steering group 3 is a initiative which aims at addressing maintenance requirements for commercial aircraft. It aims at reducing unnecessary inspection and maintenance tasks to improve the efficiency of maintenance reliability programs while still meeting the regulatory requirements of the FAA. (“Maintenance Steering Group-3”,December 2017).

From my understanding the MSG 3 approaches scheduled maintenance first by assessing system failures not specifically by components but by the overall system and then analyzing the overall effects of system failure based on economics and safety. This is exactly my expectation of what a civilian reliability program would be, a common sense approach to analyzing system criticality and then assigning scheduled maintenance requirements on those findings. For example a landing gear system critical to the safety of flight for any aircraft will be assigned scheduled maintenance requirements based on that fact. The MSG3 concept also established inspection requirements based on zonal inspections.

One recommendation I would propose as a maintenance manager would be for the MSG 3 program to expand on specific inspection interval requirements based on system criticality. For instance, a flight control system is required inspection every X amount of flight hours along with all other critical safety of flight systems.

Effective managers provide positive and negative consequences to their proposal. Justify your response by providing and supporting one pro and one con to your recommendation.

One pro to my recommendation would be that inspection intervals are established and therefore can be coordinated in advance based on length of inspection and scheduled downtime. A con could be that this would increase the redundancy of inspection requirements and thus decrease the overall efficiency of the maintenance inspection program.

Reference:

Skybrary, Flight Safety Foundation “Maintenance Steering Group-3” ( (December 2017). Accessed from https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/MSG-3

2.
Reading thru the text on the MSG-3 process or program, I start to get an uneasy feeling. As a long time knuckle dragging mechanic who was taught, and then passed that on to people I taught, to always ere on the side of safety. If you suspect a part may be bad or close to bad change it. I get the feeling that some of the control that an experienced mechanic has or the proverbial “gut feeling” is getting taken away. As I read on I get to the part of the text that states “This latter exercise makes use of the failure rate data as well as the experience of the working group members (Kinnison, n Sidiqui, 2013).” Then I get to the part concerning the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) and realize that MSG-3 from all outside appearance is essentially the new buyers owner’s manual. Taking the experience of the Working Group Members, who helped engineer and build the aircraft and passing it on to the new owners in a clear, concise, and standardized format. These rules are a minimum and the operator can add to but cannot delete from without proof that deviation from the set practices is warranted (Kinnison, n Sidiqui, 2013).

In a White Paper, Dave Nakata does a great job of addressing the shortcoming of MSG-2 that MSG-3 covers. He discusses how MSG-2 looks at a hydraulic pump as the pump and its individual components that might fail:

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 (Nakata, ND).

In the paper he also addresses how MSG-3 combats the old knuckle dragger and can “eliminate selection of a maintenance task because “we’ve always done it”; “just in case”, or because “it makes us feel good” (Nakata, ND).”

One way I can see to improve MSG-3 would be to create a program or even a modified campaign to get old school mechanics to embrace the program. A con may be because MSG-3 is more analytical, some older mechanics may feel that control and the ability to be “just a good ol’ mechanic” are being taken away. However, with aircraft technology advancing almost on a daily basis, the need to identify possible failures in items that can’t be felt or touched, such as circuit cards or virtual circuit breakers needs to be embraced. The pro to my suggestion would be getting these old timers to step into the next century and quit looking down their nose at people who troubleshoot an aircraft with a touch pad instead screwdriver handle against their ear and help teach the younger generation some old school techniques to changing components after the fault has been identified.

Kinnison, H., & Sidiqui, T., (2013) Aviation maintenance management, second edition. Mcgraw-Hill education. Kindle edition

Nakata, D. (ND) Background why transition to a MSG-3 based maintenance schedule? EmpowerMX Consulting Services Group Retrieved from: www.empowermx.com/system/files_force/EmpowerMX_WP_MSG3_Schedule.pdf (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.?…

I left this as a link to make sure it was available. If it does not work let me know and I will attach a PDF version


 

. .

get-your-custom-paper

The post Effective managers provide positive and negative consequences to their proposal. Justify your response by providing and supporting one pro and one con to your recommendation. appeared first on Dissertation Help Service.

“Get 15% discount on your first 3 orders with us”
Use the following coupon
FIRST15

Order Now