CHAPTER 1

Aircraft Maintenance Goals and objectives and type of

Maintenance
Aviation in the Beginning
The 24th International Air Transportation Conference was held in
Louisville, Kentucky, June 5–7, 1996. One of the many evening
activities available to the attendees was a tour of the main facilities of
United Parcel Service (UPS) at the Louisville International Airport.
About 15 people signed up for the tour. After watching the young
college students hustle around unloading, sorting, and loading the
packages and listening to the tour guide’s explanation of this unique
distribution system, we were escorted out to the flight line parking ramp
to look at airplanes. Our tour guide led us up the portable air stairs into
the huge chasm that was the Boeing 747 freighter. She stood there for a
moment, silently looking around at the huge, empty airframe. Her tour
guests did the same. Finally she spoke. ―The cargo area inside this 747
freighter is longer than the Wright brothers’ first flight,‖ she said with
some pride. ―And the deck we are standing on is higher off the ground
than that first flight was.‖1 Certainly aviation has come a long way since
that windy December day in 1903 when Wilbur and Orville Wright
made history at Kill Devil Hills near Kitty Hawk, North Carolina.
Likewise, the field of aviation maintenance has made great strides. The
early days of aviation were filled with experimenters, daredevils, and
showoffs called barnstormers for obvious reasons. With their stunt
flying and other antics, they were trying to prove to the public the safety
and utility of this newfangled machine, the airplane. Selling ―rides‖ to
the curious became a side business. At first, aviation was more
entertainment than transportation, but that soon changed. Just as modern
jet liners boast dimensions greater than those of the first flight itself, the
technological advances in aviation over the ensuing 100 years are
equally impressive. And the approach to the maintenance of these
complex vehicles has kept pace. Today, aviation is the safest mode of
transport in the world.2 A considerable part of that safety record can be
attributed to the efforts of mechanics, technicians, engineers, and
managers who work in the field of aviation maintenance.

Early Aviation Maintenance

In those early days of aviation, maintenance was performed ―as
necessary‖ and the machines often required several hours of
maintenance time for every hour of flying time. Major maintenance
activities consisted of overhauling nearly everything on the aircraft on a
periodic basis. Even though the airplanes and their systems were quite
simple at first, maintenance carried out in this manner became quite
expensive. With the increasing complexity of the aircraft and their
onboard systems over the following years, that expense rose
accordingly.
The modern approach to maintenance is more sophisticated. The
aircraft are designed for safety, airworthiness, and maintainability, and a
detailed maintenance program is developed along with every new model
aircraft or derivative of an existing model. This initial maintenance
program can then be tailored by each airline to accommodate the nature
of their individual operations. This ensures continued airworthy
operation under any circumstances. Backing up that individual
undertaking are the ongoing efforts by manufacturers, airlines, and
regulators to improve design and maintenance techniques and to keep
the aviation industry on the leading edge.
Of course, such a sophisticated approach to maintenance requires
sophisticated management, both in development of the initial
maintenance program and at the airlines to accomplish all that is
necessary to maintain that superior record of safety mentioned earlier.
Introduction
Why do we have to do maintenance? It is simple: ―The
maintenance of an aircraft provides assurance of flight safety, reliability,
and airworthiness.‖ The aircraft maintenance department is responsible
for accomplishing all maintenance tasks as per the aircraft manufacturer
and the company’s requirements. The goal is a safe, reliable, and
airworthy aircraft.
The aircraft maintenance department provides maintenance and
preventive maintenance to ensure reliability, which translates into
aircraft availability. These functions do not preclude a random failure or
degradation of any part or system, but routine maintenance and checks
will keep these from happening and keep the aircraft in good flying
condition.

The Role of the Engineer

The design of systems or components is not only limited by the
imperfections of the physical world (i.e., the ―natural entropy‖ of the
system), it is also limited by a number of other constraints which we
could refer to as ―man-made entropy.‖ A design engineer may be limited
from making the perfect design by the technology or the state of the art
within any facet of the design effort. He or she may be limited by ability
or technique; or, more often than not, the designer may be limited by
economics; i.e., there just is not enough money to build that nearly
perfect system that is on the drawing board or in the designer’s mind.
Although the designer is limited by many factors, in the tradition of
good engineering practice, the designer is obliged to build the best
system possible within the constraints given.
 Another common situation in design occurs when the designer has
produced what he or she believes is the optimum system when the boss,
who is responsible for budget asks, ―How much will it cost to build
this?‖ The designer has meticulously calculated that these widgets can
be mass produced for $1200 each. ―Great,‖ says the boss. ―Now
redesign it so we can build it for under a thousand dollars.‖ That means
redesign, usually with reduced tolerances, cheaper materials, and,
unfortunately, more entropy. More entropy sometimes translates into
more maintenance required. The design engineer’s primary concern,
then, is to minimize (not eliminate) the entropy of the system he or she is
designing while staying within the required constraints.
The Role of the Mechanic
The mechanic [aircraft maintenance technician (AMT), repairer, or
maintainer], on the other hand, has a different problem. Let us, once
again, refer to the field of thermodynamics. One important point to
understand is that entropy not only exists in every system, but that the
entropy of a system is always increasing. That means that the designed-
in level of perfection (imperfection?) will not be permanent. Some
components or systems will deteriorate from use, and some will
deteriorate from lack of use (time or environment related). Misuse by an
operator or user may also cause some premature deterioration or
degradation of the system or even outright damage. This deterioration or
degradation of the system represents an increase in the total entropy of
the system. Therefore, while the engineer’s job is to minimize the
entropy of a system during design, the mechanic’s job is to combat the
natural, continual increase in the entropy of the system during its
operational lifetime.
 To summarize, it is the engineer’s responsibility to design the
system with as high degree of perfection (low entropy) as possible
within reasonable limits. The mechanic’s responsibility is to remove and
replace parts, troubleshoot systems, isolate faults in systems by
following the fault isolation manual (FIM, discussed in Chap. 5), and
restore systems for their intended use.

Two Types of Maintenance

Figure 1-1 is a graph showing the level of perfection of a
typical system. One hundred percent perfection is at the very top of the
y-axis. The x-axis depicts time. There are no numbers on the scales on
either axis since actual values have no meaning in this theoretical
discussion. The left end of the curve shows the level of perfection
attained by the designers of our real world system. Note that the curve
begins to turn downward with time. This is a representation of the
natural increase in entropy of the system—the natural deterioration of
the system—over time. When the system deteriorates to some lower
(arbitrarily set) level of perfection, we perform some corrective action:
adjusting, tweaking, servicing, or some other form of maintenance to
restore the system to its designed-in level of perfection. That is, we
reduce the entropy to its original level. This is called preventive
maintenance and is usually performed at regular intervals. This is done
to prevent deterioration of the system to an unusable level and to keep it
in operational condition. It is sometimes referred to as scheduled
maintenance. This schedule could be daily, every flight, every 200 flight
hours, or every 100 cycles (a cycle is a takeoff and a landing).
 Figure 1-2 shows the system restored to its normal level (curves a
and b). There are times, of course, when the system deteriorates rather
rapidly in service to a low level of perfection (curve c). At other times
the system breaks down completely (curve d). In these cases, the
maintenance actions necessary to restore the system are more definitive,
often requiring extensive testing, troubleshooting, adjusting, and, very
often, the replacement, restoration, or complete overhaul of parts or
subsystems. Since these breakdowns occur at various, unpredictable
intervals, the maintenance actions employed to correct the problem are
referred to as unscheduled maintenance.
Reliability
The level of perfection we have been talking about can also
be referred to as the reliability of the system. The designed-in level
of perfection is known as the inherent reliability of that system.
This is as good as the system gets during real world operation. No
amount of maintenance can increase system reliability any higher
than this inherent level. However, it is desirable for the operator to
maintain this level of reliability (or this level of perfection) at all
times. However we will discuss the reliability and Maintenance in
more detail in chapter 5.
Redesign
Figure 1-3 shows the original curve of our theoretical system,
curve A. The dashed line shows the system’s original level of
perfection. Our system, however, has now been redesigned to a
higher level of perfection; that is, a higher level of reliability with a
corresponding decreases in total entropy. During this redesign, new
components, new materials, or new techniques may have been
used to reduce the natural entropy of the system. In some cases, a
reduction in manmade entropy may result because the designer
applied tighter tolerances, attained improved design skills, or
changed the design philosophy.
Although the designers have reduced the entropy of the
system, the system will still deteriorate. It is quite possible that the
rate of deterioration will change from the original design
depending upon numerous factors; thus, the slope of the curve may
increase, decrease, or stay the same. Whichever is the case, the
maintenance requirements of the system could be affected in some
way?
If the decay is steeper, as in (B) in Fig. 1-3, the point at
which preventive maintenance needs to be performed might occur
sooner, and the interval between subsequent actions would be
shorter. The result is that maintenance will be needed more often.
In this case, the inherent reliability is increased, but more
maintenance is required to maintain that level of reliability (level
of perfection). Unless the performance characteristics of the
system have been improved, this redesign may not be acceptable.
A decision must be made to determine if the performance
improvement justifies more maintenance and thus an increase in
maintenance costs.
Establishing a Maintenance Program
Although there has been a considerable amount of improvement in
the quality and reliability of components and systems, as well as in
materials and procedures, over the 100-year life of aviation, we still have
not reached total perfection. Aviation equipment, no matter how good or
how reliable, still needs attention from time to time. Scheduled
maintenance and servicing are needed to ensure the designed-in level of
perfection (reliability). Due to the nature of the real world, some of these
components and systems will, sooner or later, deteriorate beyond a
tolerable level or will fail completely. In other instances, users,
operators, or even maintenance people who interface with these
components and systems can misuse or even abuse the equipment to the
extent of damage or deterioration that will require the need for some sort
of maintenance action. We have seen that components and systems fail
in different ways and at different rates. This results in a requirement for
unscheduled maintenance that is somewhat erratic and uncertain. There
are often waves of work and no-work periods that need to be managed to
smooth out the workload and stabilize the manpower requirements.
Those components exhibiting life limits or measurable wear-out
characteristics can be part of a systematic, scheduled maintenance
program. Design redundancy, line replaceable units, and minimum
dispatch requirements have been established as management efforts to
smooth out maintenance workload. But there are numerous components
and systems on an aircraft that do not lend themselves to such
adjustment for convenience. Occasionally, inspections and/or
modifications of equipment are dictated—within specified time limits—
by aviation regulators as well as by manufacturers. It is necessary, then,
that the maintenance and engineering organization of an airline be
prepared to address the maintenance of aircraft and aircraft systems with
a well-thought-out and wellexecuted program. The remainder of this
textbook will address the multi-faceted process known as aircraft
maintenance and engineering. The program discussed herein has been
created over the years by concentrated and integrated efforts by pilots,
airlines, maintenance people, manufacturers, component and system
suppliers, regulatory authorities, and professional and business
organizations within the aviation industry. Not every airline will need to
be organized and operated in the same manner or style, but the programs
and activities discussed in this text will apply to all operators.

Maintenance Steering Group

Introduction:
The maintenance programs currently in use in commercial aviation
were developed by the industry using two basic approaches: the process-
oriented approach and the task-oriented approach.
The differences in these two methods are twofold: (a) the attitude
toward maintenance actions and (b) the manner in which maintenance
actions are determined and assigned to components and systems.
Although the commercial aviation industry has recently gone to the
taskoriented approach for the most recent airplane models, there are
many older airplanes still in service whose maintenance programs were
developed by the process-oriented approach. In recent years,
McDonnell-Douglas (now part of Boeing) and Boeing have developed
new task-oriented maintenance programs for some of these older model
aircraft. The operators can purchase these new programs from the
manufacturer.
The process-oriented approach to maintenance uses three primary
maintenance processes to accomplish the scheduled maintenance
actions. These processes are called hard time (HT), on-condition (OC),
and condition monitoring (CM). The hard time and on-condition
processes are used for components or systems that, respectively, have
definite life limits or detectable wear-out periods. These are the items in
categories A, B, and C discussed in Chap. 1 and illustrated in Table 1-1.

The condition monitoring process is used to monitor systems and

components that cannot utilize either the HT or OC processes. These
CM items are operated to failure, and failure rates are tracked to aid in
failure prediction or failure prevention efforts. These are the ―operate to
failure‖ items in categories D, E, and F of Table 1-1. The task-oriented
approach to maintenance uses predetermined maintenance tasks to avoid
in-service failures. Equipment redundancies are sometimes used to allow
in-service failures to occur without adversely affecting safety and
operation. A reliability program is usually employed (similar to, but
more elaborate than, the CM process) for those components or systems
whose failure rates are not predictable and for those that have no
scheduled maintenance tasks.
Both of these maintenance philosophies—the process oriented and
the task oriented—are discussed in general below along with the basic
method of generating the program. How the maintenance tasks and task
intervals are determined will be discussed in detail in later sections.

The Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) Approach or MSG-1

The Boeing Company started the modern approach to maintenance
program development in 1968 with the Boeing 747 airplane, then the
largest commercial airplane. It was the start of a new era in aviation, the
era of the jumbo jets, and the company felt that this new era should
begin with a more sophisticated approach to maintenance program
development. They organized teams of representatives from the Boeing
Company’s design and maintenance program groups along with
representatives from the suppliers and the airlines who were interested in
buying the airplane. The FAA was also included to ensure that
regulatory requirements were properly addressed.

The process used involved six industry working groups (IWGs):

(a) Structures
(b) Mechanical systems
(c) Engine and auxiliary power plant (APU)
(d) Electrical and avionics systems
(e) Flight controls and hydraulics
(f) Zonal.
Each group addressed their specific systems in the same way to
develop an adequate initial maintenance program. Armed with
information on system operation, maintenance significant items (MSIs)
and their associated functions, failure modes, failure effects, and failure
causes, the group analyzed each item using a logic tree to determine
requirements.
This approach to maintenance program development was called a
―bottom-up‖ approach because it looked at the components as the most
likely causes of equipment malfunction. The purpose of the analysis was
to determine which of three processes would be required to repair the
item and return it to service. The three processes were identified as HT,
OC, and CM as defined above.
This maintenance steering group (MSG) approach to maintenance
program development was so successful on the 747 that it was modified
slightly for use with other aircraft. The specific references to the 747
airplane were removed, and the new generalized process could be used
on all aircraft. It was renamed MSG-2 and applied to the development of
maintenance programs for the Lockheed L-1011 and the McDonnell-
Douglas DC-10 airplanes. Other slight modifications were made to the
process in 1972 by European manufacturers, and the resulting procedure
used in Europe became known as EMSG.

Maintenance Steering Group 2 MSG 2 Approach

The MSG-2 process was slightly different for the three
maintenance areas studied:
(a) Systems and components
(b) Structures and
(c) Engines.
Table 2-1 summarizes the steps for each
Step 1, Identify the maintenance or structure items requiring
analysis.
Step 2, Identify the functions and failure modes associated with the
item and the effect of a failure.
Step 3, Identify those tasks which may have potential
effectiveness.
Step 4, assess the applicability of those tasks and select those
Deemed necessary.
Step 5, for structures only, evaluate initial sampling thresholds.
 The process flow diagram in the MSG-2 document is too
complex to repeat here, especially since the MSG-2 process is no
longer used. It is important, however, to understand how the
maintenance processes were assigned to the tasks selected.
Figure 2-1 is a simplified diagram of that process. Briefly, if
failure of the unit is safety related (block 1) and there is
maintenance check available to detect a reduction in failure
resistance (block 4), then the item in question is identified as on-
condition. If no such check is available, then the item is classified
as hard time. The student can follow the logic of Fig. 2-1 for the
other conditions.
Once the maintenance action was determined, it was
necessary to define how often such maintenance should be done.
Available data on failure rates, removal rates, etc. of the item were
then used to determine how often the maintenance should be
performed
Process-Oriented Maintenance
Process-oriented maintenance programs are developed for aviation using
decision logic procedures developed by the Air Transport Association of
America (ATA). The MSG-2 process is a bottom-up approach whereby
each unit (system, component, or appliance) on the aircraft is analyzed
and assigned to one of the primary maintenance processes, HT, OC, or
CM. In general, hard time means the removal of an item at a
predetermined interval, usually specified in either so many flight hours
or so many flight cycles. In some cases the hard time interval may be in
calendar time. On-condition means that the item will be checked at
specified intervals (in hours, cycles, or calendar time) to determine its
remaining serviceability. Condition monitoring involves the monitoring
of failure rates, removal rates, etc. to facilitate maintenance planning.
Let us look at each process in more detail.

The hard time (HT) process

Hard time is a failure preventive process which requires that the item be
removed from the vehicle and either completely overhauled, partially
overhauled (restored), or discarded before exceeding the specified
interval. The hard time interval may be specified by calendar time, by
engine or airplane check interval (engine change, ―C‖ check, etc.), by
landing or operating cycles, by flight hours, by block hours, by specified
flights (over water, terminating, etc.), or in conjunction with another
process (OC for instance).
When HT is specified, the component will be removed from the
vehicle and overhauled, restored, or discarded, whichever is appropriate.
This will be done before the component has exceeded the specified time
interval. The component overhaul or restoration will restore the
component to a condition that will give reasonable assurance of
satisfactory operation until the next scheduled removal. Ideally, hard
time would be applied to a component that always fails at X hours of
operation. This component would then be replaced at the last scheduled
maintenance period prior to the accumulation of X hours; thus, the
operator would get maximum hours out of the component and the
component would never fail in service (ideally).
Hard time is also applied to items having a direct adverse effect on
safety and items subject to reliability degradation with age but having no
possible maintenance check for that condition. The former components,
as we will see later, are not eligible for condition monitoring because of
the safety issue. The latter components, such as rubber products, do not
lend themselves to any periodic check for condition; i.e., there is no OC
check to determine how much serviceability is remaining.
As an example, structural inspection, landing gear overhaul, and
replacement of life-limited engine parts are all controlled by hard time.
Frequently, mechanical linkages and actuators, hydraulic pumps and
motors, electric motors and generators, and similar items subject to a
definite wear-out cycle will also be identified as hard time. For items
having clearly defined wear-out periods, hard time is probably the most
economical process. However, these items can also be OC or CM,
depending on the operator, as long as they are not safety related.

The on-condition (OC) process

On-condition is a failure preventive process that requires that the
item be periodically inspected or tested against some appropriate
physical standard (wear or deterioration limits) to determine whether or
not the item can continue in service. After failing an OC check, the
component must be overhauled or restored to the extent of at least
replacing out-of-tolerance parts. Overhaul or repair must restore the unit
to a condition that will give reasonable assurance of satisfactory
operation for at least one additional OC check interval. If the item
cannot be overhauled or restored, or if it cannot be restored to a
condition where it can operate one more OC check period, then it should
be discarded.
On-condition must be restricted to components, equipment, or
systems on which a determination of continued airworthiness may be
made by measurements, tests, or other means without doing a tear-down
inspection. These oncondition checks are to be performed within the
time limits (intervals) prescribed for each OC check. On-condition
determination of continued airworthiness is a quantifying check with
specified tolerances and/or wear limits which must be set forth in the
operator’s maintenance manuals.
The periodically scheduled OC checks must constitute meaningful
determination of suitability for continued operation for another
scheduled OC check interval. If the check performed provides enough
information regarding the condition and failure resistance of the item to
give reasonable assurance of its continued airworthiness during the next
check period, the item is properly categorized as on-condition. If the
check constitutes merely a maintenance task— servicing, adjustment, or
a go/no-go determination—and is not making a meaningful disclosure of
actual condition, the item is, in fact, operating as a condition monitored
item. It should be classified as CM and not OC. In some cases, it could
even be classified as HT. A simple operational check is not an
acceptable requisite for the on-condition process. On-condition checks
must measure or evaluate the wear and/or deterioration condition of the
item.
The on-condition process also encompasses periodic collection of
data that will reveal the physical condition of a component, system, or
engine. Through analysis and evaluation, OC data must be able to
ascertain continued airworthiness and/or deterioration of failure
resistance and imminence of failure. On-condition data must be directed
to an individual component, system, or engine (by serial number). It is a
priori (before the fact) failure data that can be used to measure
decreasing life expectancy and/or predict failure imminence. Examples
of OC checks are as follows: (a) tire tread and brake linings, (b)
scheduled bore scope inspections of engines, (c) engine oil analysis, and
(d) in-flight engine performance analysis (i.e., engine condition
monitoring or ECM). In each of the above stated cases, one can measure
degradation and determine, from established norms, how much life or
serviceability remains.
Most of the commercial airplane operators in the United States use
the oncondition process to control engine overhaul. The determination of
when to remove an engine is based on engine data collected by an ECM
program. Data showing engine performance degradation, such as oil and
fuel consumption, bore scope inspection results, trends in recorded in-
flight instrument readings, oil analysis, etc. are compared to standards to
predict decreasing engine reliability and failure imminence. Engine data
programs attempt to provide data to indicate the need to remove engines
before an in-flight shutdown (IFSD) occurs; i.e., they are failure
preventive processes.
Two points to remember about the on-condition process: (a) if a
satisfactory on-condition check can be accomplished to ensure
serviceability with reasonable probability until the next OC check, or if
evaluation of the OC data collected will predict failure imminence, then
the OC process will achieve close to maximum life on components and
engines; and (b) on-condition applicability is limited by the requirement
for a satisfactory condition measurement or pertinent failure predicting
data.
The condition monitoring (CM) process
The condition monitoring process is applied when neither the hard
time nor the on-condition process can be applied. The CM process
involves the monitoring of the failure rates, removals, etc. of individual
components or systems that do not have a definite lifetime or a
noticeable wear-out period. Condition monitoring is not a failure
preventive process as are HT and OC. There are no maintenance tasks
suitable for evaluating the life expectancy of the CM item and there is no
requirement to replace the item before it fails. Neither time nor condition
standards can be used to control CM items because these components do
not have such attributes. Therefore, CM components are operated until
failure occurs and replacement of CM items is an unscheduled
maintenance action.
Since CM items are operated to failure, the ATA states that these
items must comply with the following conditions1
1. A CM item has no direct, adverse effect on safety when it fails;
i.e., the aircraft continues to fly to a safe landing. Generally, CM items
have only this indirect, non adverse effect on safety due to system
redundancy.
2. A CM item must not have any hidden function (i.e., a
malfunction that is not evident to the crew) whose failure may have a
direct adverse effect on safety. However, if there is a hidden function
and the availability or operation of that hidden function is verified by a
scheduled operational test or other non measurement test made by the
flight crew or maintenance crew, CM can still be used.
3. A CM item must be included in the operator’s condition
monitoring or reliability program; i.e., there must be some sort of data
collection and analysis for those items for maintenance to get a better
understanding of the nature of failure for those components or systems
Task-Oriented Maintenance
Task-oriented maintenance programs are created for aviation using
decision logic procedures developed by the Air Transport Association of
America. The process called MSG-3 is a modification of and an
improvement on the MSG-2 approach.
The MSG-3 technique is a top-down consequence of failure
approach whereby failure analysis is conducted at the highest
management level of airplane systems instead of the component level as
in MSG-2. The MSG-3 logic is used to identify suitable scheduled
maintenance tasks to prevent failures and to maintain the inherent level
of reliability of the system. There are three categories of tasks developed
by the MSG-3 approach:
1. Airframe system tasks
2. Structural item tasks
3. Zonal tasks

Maintenance tasks for airframe systems

Under the MSG-3 approach, eight maintenance tasks have been defined
for airframe systems. These tasks are assigned in accordance with the
decision analysis results and the specific requirements of the system,
component, etc. under consideration. These eight tasks are listed and
defined below:
1. Lubrication: An act of replenishing oil, grease, or other substances
that maintains the inherent design capabilities by reducing friction
and/or conducting away heat.
2. Servicing: An act of attending to basic needs of components and/or
systems for the purpose of maintaining the inherent design capabilities.
 3. Inspection: An examination of an item and comparison against a
specific standard.
4. Functional check: A quantitative check to determine if each function
of an item performs within specified limits. This check may require use
of additional equipment.
5. Operational check: A task to determine if an item is fulfilling its
intended purpose. This is a failure-finding task and does not require
quantitative tolerances or any equipment other than the item itself.
6. Visual check: An observation to determine if an item is fulfilling its
intended purpose. This is a failure-finding task and does not require
quantitative tolerances.
7. Restoration: That work necessary to return the item to a specific
standard. Restoration may vary from cleaning the unit or replacing a
single part up to and including a complete overhaul.
8. Discard: The removal from service of any item at a specified life
limit.

Maintenance tasks for structural items

Airplanes are subjected to three sources of structural deterioration as
discussed below
1. Environmental deterioration: The physical deterioration of an
item’s strength or resistance to failure as a result of chemical
interaction with its climate or environment. Environmental
deteriorations may be time dependent.

2. Accidental damage. The physical deterioration of an item caused

by contact or impact with an object or influence that is not a part
of the airplane, or damage as a result of human error that occurred
 during manufacture, operation of the vehicle, or performance of
maintenance.
3. Fatigue damage. The initiation of a crack or cracks due to cyclic
Loading and subsequent propagation of such cracks.

Zonal maintenance tasks

The zonal maintenance program ensures that all systems, wiring,
mechanical controls, components, and the installation contained
within the specified zone on the aircraft receive adequate surveillance
to determine the security of installation and general condition. The
logical process is normally used by type certificate (TC) and
supplement type certificate (STC) holder for developing their
maintenance and inspection for zonal maintenance by using MSG-3
logic to develop a series of inspections, and a numerical reference is
assigned to each zone when it is analyzed. Due to aging aircraft, the
FAA has established specific damage tolerance criteria based on
inspection of an aircraft operator’s continued airworthiness program.
The AC 120-93 provides for detailed damage tolerance inspection
(DTI) for repair and alterations that affect fatigue-critical structure of
the aircraft. The DTI process includes the area to be inspected, the
inspection methods and techniques, and the inspection procedures.
The program packages a number for general visual inspection tasks,
generated against the item in the system’s maintenance program, into
one or more zonal surveillance tasks. Zonal maintenance and
inspection level techniques are performed in two types as in the
following list.
1. General visual inspection
2. Detailed visual inspection
The Current MSG Process—MSG-3
The MSG-2 process was modified in 1980 in a document released
by the Air Transport Association of America.3 The document states
―MSG-3 did not constitute a fundamental departure from the previous
version, but was built upon the existing framework of MSG-2 which had
been validated by 10 years of reliable aircraft operation using the
maintenance programs based thereon.‖ The MSG-3 program adjusted
the decision logic to provide a more straightforward and linear
progression through the logic. The MSG-3 process is a topdown
approach or consequence of failure approach. In other words, how does
the failure affect the operation? It does not matter whether a system,
subsystem, or component fails or deteriorates. What matters is how the
failure affects the aircraft operation. The failure is assigned one of two
basic categories: safety and economic. Figure 2-2 is a simplified diagram
of the first step in the MSG-3 logic process.4 The maintenance tasks
resulting from the MSG-3 approach may include hard time, on-
condition, and condition monitoring tasks similar to those of MSG-2, but
they are not referred to by those terms. The MSG-3 approach is more
flexible in developing the overall maintenance program. The flow chart
of Fig. 2-2 is used to determine if the failure is evident to the flight crew
or hidden from them (level I analysis). Those failures that are evident are
further separated into safety related and operationally related with the
latter split into those that are of economic significance and those that are
not. These types are numbered 5, 6, and 7. The significance of these
categories will be addressed later. Those failures that are determined to
be hidden from the crew are divided into safety related and non safety
related items. These are designated as categories 8 and 9.
 On the failure modes. If the equipment is new, or has been
extensively modified for the new model aircraft, the learning process
may take a little more time. The airframe manufacturer is responsible for
providing this training to the working groups. The manufacturer is also
responsible for furnishing any available performance and failure rate
data to the working groups. Once the group assimilates this information,
they begin to run through the logic diagrams, answering the questions
appropriately and determining the maintenance approach that best suits
the problem. Each failure in each operational mode is addressed. The
working group first determines if the failure is hidden to the crew or is
obvious. Then they determine whether or not the problem is safety
related and, in the case of evident failures, whether or not it has
operational impact. Next, they determine which maintenance tasks
should be applied using Figs. 2-3 and 2-4 (level II analysis). Finally, the
group determines at what maintenance interval that task should be
performed. This latter exercise makes use of the failure rate data as well
as the experience of the working group members.
In the year 2000, the ATA’s Technical Information and
Communication Committee (TICC) incorporated ATA Spec 100 and
ATA Spec 2100 into I Spec 22005: Information Standards for Aviation
Maintenance. It is currently used in aerospace for its content, structure,
technical documentation, and electronic exchange of aircraft
engineering, maintenance, and flight operations information. It is used in
the specification of maintenance requirements, procedures, aircraft
configuration control, and flight operations. As always, the objective is
to keep costs to a minimum among operators and manufacturers and to
improve information quality, which can facilitate manufacturers’
delivery of data for operational needs.
Maintenance Intervals Defined
The maintenance work interval depends on the aircraft
manufacturer with the cooperation of the airline’s operator discretion.
Various maintenance checks have been named and defined in the MSG-
3 process and are to be considered standard. However, many airlines
have defined their own named intervals, but as long as the integrity is
maintained of the original maintenance required task or an approved
FAA deviation. Aircraft maintenance checks are normally driven by
total air time (TAT), the number of hours an aircraft has flown, and total
landing cycles (CYC), which translates into each time an aircraft lands it
generates one cycle. Under FAA oversight, airlines and aircraft
operators must prepare a continuous airworthiness maintenance program
(CAMP) under their operations specification. The CAMP program
outlines routine and detailed inspection. Airlines and aircraft operators
and airworthiness authorities commonly refer to these types of
inspections as checks. These checks are known as A, B, C, D checks.

Daily checks
Daily checks consist of the oil level check. The oil level on the
aircraft engine must be checked between 15 and 30 minutes after engine
shutdown to obtain an accurate reading. This means that the oil level
cannot be checked and replenished prior to the first flight of the day. It
can only be done soon after landing. (If one must check the oil level
prior to first departure, the engine must be run for 2 minutes or more to
warm up the oil. Fifteen minutes after shutting down, the oil level can be
checked. This is not a normal procedure, but it is necessary in some
cases.)
 The daily checks also include any time-deferred maintenance
items, such as an aircraft engine being on oil watch. ETOPS-type aircraft
also receive a predeparture service check, which is also part of the daily
checks
48-hour checks
A 48-hour check, for most aircraft models, replaces what used to
be called a daily check. The 48-hour check is performed every 48 hours
depending on airline operations specifications. This check may include
tasks that are more detailed than the daily checks; for example, items
such as wheel and brake inspection, replenishment of fluids such as
engine oil and hydraulic, auxiliary power unit oil replenishment and
inspection, general visual inspection of the fuselage, wings, interior, and
flight deck.
Hourly limit checks
Certain checks determined by the MSG analysis have maintenance tasks
assigned by the number of hours the unit or system has been operating:
100, 200, 250 hours, etc. This approach is used for engines, airplane
flight controls, and numerous other systems that are operating on a
continual basis during the flight or on the ground.
Operating cycle limit checks
Other airplane systems are maintained on a schedule determined by the
number of operating cycles they have endured. For example, landing
gear is used only during takeoffs and landings, and the number of those
operations will vary with the flight schedule. Airframe structures, power
plant/engine components, such as LP and HP impellors and HP turbine
blades and some other components are also subject to cyclic stresses and
will have numerous tasks in this category.
Letter checks
Until the development of the Boeing 777, all aircraft utilizing the MSG-
3 processes for maintenance program development had various letter
checks identified in the maintenance program. These checks were
identified as A, B, C, and D checks. The Boeing 777, using a modified
MSG-3 process (called MSG-3, Revision 2) eliminated the letter
checks.6 Every task that was not on the transit check was identified by
hours or cycles only, and these tasks were not grouped into letter checks
as was done for previous model aircraft. This produced an optimum
maintenance program in that it allowed maintenance to be done at the
most appropriate time for the equipment or system. For the operator, it
makes the program more adaptable to their needs. Some operators,
however, still schedule this maintenance in blocks at specific time or
cycle intervals.

Changing Basic Maintenance Intervals

Operational conditions will often require that an operator change
the basic maintenance program to better address the organizational needs
and to accommodate the fifth objective of a maintenance program (see
Chap. 3). For example, operation in hot humid climates may require that
corrosion control tasks be performed more often than the MRB report
indicates while operating the same vehicles in a dry, desert climate may
reduce the needed frequency for these tasks. In the latter situation,
however, items sensitive to sand and dust will need increased attention
in the maintenance program.
It is expected that an operator will change the original maintenance
intervals for certain tasks or for entire letter checks whenever in-service
experience dictates. However, to do this, the operator must have proof
that a change is warranted. The accepted proof for such maintenance
interval changes is in the form of data collected through the operator’s
condition monitoring program or reliability program. Details on this will
be covered later in Chap. 18. As aircraft get older, task intervals for
certain items may have to be shortened while others may be lengthened.
Maintenance is a dynamic process.