Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
On aircraft scheduled maintenance program development
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Operation, Maintenance and Acoustics.
2010 (English)In: Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, ISSN 1355-2511, E-ISSN 1758-7832, Vol. 16, no 3, 229-255 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2010. Vol. 16, no 3, 229-255 p.
National Category
Other Civil Engineering
Research subject
Operation and Maintenance
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-8856DOI: 10.1108/13552511011072899Local ID: 767d7f00-60b4-11df-ab16-000ea68e967bOAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-8856DiVA: diva2:981794
Note
Validerad; 2010; 20100516 (aliahm)Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2017-11-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ahmadi, AlirezaKumar, UdaySöderholm, Peter
By organisation
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources EngineeringOperation, Maintenance and Acoustics
In the same journal
Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering
Other Civil Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 55 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf