Page 6 Par 2-1 benefits of the experience gained during those years should be used to improve the document for future applications. Thus, Revision 1 to MSG-3 was developed. The FAA and industry began applying MSG-3 Revision 1 in 1988 for the ongoing development of new aircraft and aircraft engine Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) documents.
(5) Airline/Manufacturer Maintenance Program Development Document MSG-3, Revision 2 (September 12, 1993). Further refinements made to the MSG-3 Revision 1 analysis resulted in Revision 2 to MSG-3. In 1993, the FAA and industry began applying MSG-3 Revision 2 for development of new and derivative aircraft and engine MRBR documents.
(6) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Program Development, Revision 2001 (March 2000). This version was reformatted into an electronic document to adapt to the use of computer technology.
(7) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Maintenance Program Development, Revision 2001.1 (February 2001). To include the large corporate aircraft and aging large transport legacy aircraft segment in the MSG-3 process, the FAA and industry began using MSG-3 Revision 2001.1 in 2001. This revision introduced significant changes, including inspection definitions, corrected terminology, and expanded wording on safety/emergency equipment. Also, with the advent in the manufacturer development of more technologically advanced fly-by-wire aircraft, and to improve the safety of legacy transport aircraft, it became necessary to introduce sections on enhanced zonal analysis procedures (EZAP) and Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Field (L/HIRF) protection.
(8) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development, Revision 2002.1 (March 2002). Significant changes in this revision included the recording of all assumptions, the consideration of all vendor recommendations, procedures for fault-tolerant systems, Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) considerations, and the inclusion of analysis of nonmetallic structures.
(9) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development, Revision 2003.1 (March 2003). The most significant changes included adding three-letter task abbreviations/acronyms, further revised fault-tolerant systems procedures, definition changes for fault-tolerant systems, and further clarification of the definition of safety/emergency systems or equipment.
(10) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development Revision 2005.1 (March 2005). Changes introduced in this version included adding the need to identify design features that affect fuel tank safety (FTS), defining differentiation of Structural Significant Items (SSI) and Principal Structural Elements (PSE), correcting the relation of fatigue damage (FD) to nonmetallic materials, revising EZAPs to reflect recommendations from the FAA’s Aging Transport Systems Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ATSRAC) on aging wiring, and adding a definition for electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS).
(11) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development Revision 2007.1 (April 2007). Changes introduced in this version expanded the text to better define and consider structural wear damage. This change expanded the text and added a
Par 2-1 Page 7 flowchart to better explain the Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) versus the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) task and interval determination procedure. This revision also added text and revised flowcharts to clarify the FD logic. It was a major rewrite of the L/HIRF protection systems.
(12) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development Revision 2009.1 (December 2009). Changes introduced in this version added structural health monitoring and scheduled structural health monitoring concepts and revised FD analysis. This change added a note requiring that General Visual Inspections (GVI) developed from Category 5 or 8 logic be retained as system and powerplant tasks and not become covered by zonal inspections.
(13) ATA MSG-3 Operator/Manufacturer Scheduled Maintenance Development Revision 2011.1 (September 2011). This change clarified definitions for SSI and Maintenance Significant Items (MSI), clarified analysis for Environmental Deterioration (ED)/Accidental Damage (AD) and structural degradation of MSIs, updated the definition of fault-tolerant systems, clarified flightcrew duties, updated L/HIRF, and revised wording dealing with line replaceable unit (LRU)-level L/HIRF issues.
2-2. MRB APPLICABILITY.
a. Uses of the MRB Process. The MRB process should be used for:
(1) Transport category airplanes designed to carry 10 or more people or having a maximum weight of 33,000 lb or more,
(2) Transport category “A” helicopters, or
(3) Powered-lift aircraft.
b. Optional Uses of the MRB Process. Additionally, an MRB may be used for any aircraft by choice of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)/type-certificate holder (TCH).
Refer to Appendix 4, Figure 1, Maintenance Program Development Process Selection Flowchart.
2-3. MRBR.
a. Purpose of an MRBR. Industry and regulatory authorities generate an MRBR as a coordinated effort of achieving timely compliance with the applicable certification regulatory requirements and the minimum scheduled maintenance requirements. An MRBR contains the minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements for a particular aircraft and on-wing engine maintenance programs. Develop the MRBR in accordance with the guidelines in this advisory circular (AC). Do not confuse the MRBR requirements with an operator maintenance program. After FAA approval, the requirements become a base or framework around which each operator can develop its own individual aircraft maintenance program.
b. Use of the MSG Analysis Process. You must use the latest version of the ATA MSG analysis process and procedures for the development of an MRBR for all new aircraft or engines.
For development of derivative designs (amended TC), the applicant should apply the most
current version of MSG-3 logic to those systems or structures that have changed. Reapplication for a TC after an expired TC application requires using the most recent version of the MSG logic process. The FAA no longer supports MSG-2 at the committee or working group (WG) level.
Each OEM/TCH is responsible for supporting the regulatory requirements for their MSG-2 aircraft.
c. Approval of an Operator's Program Performance. Aircraft/engine design and performance form the MRBR requirements. An operators' program performance is the responsibility of the operator, with oversight by the local regulatory authority. The appropriate certificate-holding district office (CHDO) must initially approve and thereafter accept changes to an operator's aircraft maintenance program and methods used to implement these MRBR requirements. Refer to Figure 2-1.
FIGURE 2-1. MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD PROCESS FLOWCHART Maintenance Review Board Timeline (MRB oughout the aircraft lifecycle) Maintenance Review Board Process Aircraft Operational Life Proposed MRB TC Applicant/ TC Applicant Holder Review requests FAA to convene MRB Operators provide the TC Holder with reports of task adequacy, task failures, unanticipated ISC Review MRB Chair problems, and age-condition information ISC Analysis Acceptance? Approves Report Reviews and adjust task intervals. Operators assist the TC necessary to substantiate the tasks and to holder to perform age-exploration sampling WG Analysis MRB, ISC & WG -Operators -Manufacturers Established -MRB Advisors MRB Report -TCB Observers Operators implement the maintenance
- Maint Proo Rule program provided in the ICA or develop their Manufacturer _ Syst/Powerplant own program, based on the initial prepares design & _Structural Prog maintenance program requirements experience data for analysis and Discussion, feedback & rationalization of Zonal Prog contained in the ICA and service experience review for WGs, CMRs ISC and MRB Type Certification ICA intenance Manual Maintenance Instructions Introduction Scheduling Info ICA acceptance required before issuance of first A/W Systems Description certificate or delivery of first AJW Control & Operation A/C to customer, whichever Limitations Identified CMRs Servicing Info is later Finalized CMM may be utilized Approved by Limitations FAA ACO AW Approved by FAA ACO CMRs ALI/CMR Scura Fa Special Tools Protective Tre: 1000D or other acceptable ATA ISpec 2200, GAMA Spec 2 & 7, or AECMA ICA format Pre-Type Certification Post Type Certification
2-4. MRBR PROPOSAL DELIVERY SCHEDULE GUIDELINES. The OEM/TCH may concurrently build the MRBRP. Portions of the MRBRP may be submitted for consideration when the design is frozen and applicable minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements have become mature and complete. This will improve the quality of the proposal by reducing discrepancies at the end of the process. The OEM/TCH Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH) Page 8 Par 2-3
Par 2-4 Page 9 (and 10) must be approved by the Industry Steering Committee (ISC) and accepted by the MRB chairperson before the start of any WG meetings. Deliver all WG data packages and documents to the regulatory authorities 30 calendar-days before scheduled meetings. Deliver the final MRBR proposal and any supporting documents to the MRB chairperson 90 calendar-days before expected approval of the document.
2-5. VALIDATION OF ASSOCIATED MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES. The OEM/TCH must develop internal instructions and guidelines to enable the validation of all maintenance procedures written to support MRBR tasks, and then the OEM/TCH must validate them. The objective of the validation is to ensure that the procedure can be performed as written and that the procedure meets the intent of the MRBR task. At minimum, the OEM/TCH must make available a completed aircraft and the necessary qualified maintenance personnel where and when requested by the FAA. The OEM/TCH must demonstrate to the FAA that Failure Effect Category (FEC) 5 and 8 safety tasks can be adequately performed and that the procedure meets the intent of the MRB task. Additional tasks may be validated at FAA’s discretion.
NOTE: Figure 2-1 outlines the relationships between the various documents involved in the creation of the minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements, including the MRBR.
2-6. CMRs. During aircraft design certification and concurrent with the MRB process, leading up to the type certification process, the OEM/TCH accomplishes an analysis, in accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23, § 23.1309; part 25, § 25.1309;
part 27, § 27.1309; and part 29, § 29.1309. The analysis intends to detect any safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic condition. This system safety assessment leads to a design decision to create candidate Certification Maintenance Requirements (CCMR).
a. Additional Information. For further information regarding this subject, please see the current editions of AC 23.1309-1, System Safety Analysis and Assessment for Part 23 Airplanes;
AC 25.1309-1, System Design and Analysis; AC 25-19, Certification Maintenance Requirements; AC 27-1, Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft; and AC 29-2, Certification of Transport Category Rotorcraft.
b. Limitations. If a CCMR may be satisfied by an MSG-3 task, the following limitations apply:
(1) Only MSG-3 Category 5 and 8 tasks may take credit for a CCMR.
(2) If certification transfers a CCMR to the ISC based on a balancing MRB task, the ISC manages that task from that point forward (see subparagraph 6-3(n)(7)).
Par 3-1 Page 11 CHAPTER 3. INDUSTRY PARTICIPATION
3-1. INDUSTRY STEERING COMMITTEE (ISC). The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)/type-certificate holder (TCH) will work with the expected participating operators of the aircraft, the engine OEM/TCH, and other product vendors to form an ISC to address the minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements for the aircraft and engines. Representatives from aircraft, engine, propeller, and appliance manufacturers and intended operators normally comprise the ISC. Representatives of maintenance organizations may also be part of the ISC, subject to coordination with the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) chairperson. The ISC chairperson will work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) MRB chairperson. The MRB chairperson is responsible for coordinating with other participating regulatory authorities.
The ISC chairperson is responsible for (1) developing and establishing a Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH) for the development of the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) proposal; and (2) directing the activities of the working groups (WG) and preparing the MRBR.
Under the direction of the selected ISC chairperson, the ISC will perform the functions in the PPH, as listed in subparagraph 3-2a of this chapter. As applicable, the following information should be in each PPH. A typical format for the PPH is provided in Appendix 3, Policy and Procedures Handbook (PPH) Format. This example contains all of the necessary elements for a PPH, but the format may vary for legacy products. Deviation from Appendix 3 will be negotiated between the ISC and MRB chairpersons.
3-2. ISC FUNCTIONS. Perform these functions:
a. Approve the PPH and forward it to the MRB chairperson for review and acceptance.
During the MRB PPH review process, the FAA MRB chairperson will direct comments to the OEM/TCH. The ISC must approve the initial PPH and all subsequent revisions; the FAA must accept the initial PPH before any WG meetings can begin.
b. Determine the number and type of each WG that will be necessary and then organize and manage those groups. The ISC should ensure that a representative number of operators attend each WG meeting. The ISC goal should be a minimum of three operators.
c. Provide the MRB chairperson with a list of the number and types of each WG, the name and affiliation of each member, and any subsequent personnel changes.
d. Arrange for required aircraft technical/MSG training for all ISC and WG members and FAA/regulatory authorities.
e. Invite the MRB chairperson and selected MRB members to ISC meetings.
f. Invite other regulatory authorities to ISC and WG meetings, with concurrence and coordination of the MRB chairperson.
g. Attend ISC meetings. ISC chairpersons/co-chairpersons may attend internal MRB meetings when invited by the MRB chairperson.
h. Review and accept all final WG analyses and presentations, returning those that are unacceptable to the WG.
Page 12 Par 3-2
i. Establish a tracking system for issues that are identified from WG analyses and will resolve all open actions.
j. Provide complete and accurate meeting minutes for all ISC and WG meetings. Establish a method of distributing and tracking all meeting minutes.
k. Establish a tracking system to ensure resolution of all maintenance issues and open action items or concerns. Document and resolve all maintenance issues and open action items or provide a plan for closure before presenting an MRBR proposal to the MRB chairperson.
l. Provide to the appropriate MRB members all supporting technical data/analysis for the proposed MRBR.
m. Review and provide comments on proposed MRBR.
3-3. MSG WGs. Appropriate representatives of the OEM/TCH (aircraft/engine), vendors, operators, maintenance organizations and regulatory authorities must comprise WGs. An industry representative will chair the WG; he or she is selected by the WG and accepted by the ISC. WG responsibilities include the following functions in addition to those included in subparagraph 3-2a:
a. Develop minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements for new or derivative aircraft/engine using the latest revision of the MSG process and the latest approved PPH.
b. Establish sampling requirements when an analysis determines that such sampling is applicable and effective in the identification of the failure cause. These failures could have an adverse effect on the continued airworthiness or safety of the aircraft.
c. Produce a set of meeting minutes for each WG activity.
3-4. OEM/TCH FUNCTIONS. The OEM/TCH will perform the following functions:
a. Develop and prepare a draft PPH for ISC approval.
b. Provide required aircraft technical/MSG training for all ISC and WG members and FAA/regulatory authorities before holding the first WG meeting.
c. Provide the ISC with a comprehensive candidate Maintenance Significant Items (MSI) and Structural Significant Items (SSI) list and a list of the items precluded from the candidate MSI/SSI list before beginning any ISC/WG meeting.
d. Arrange for the required attendance of the appropriate OEM/TCH design personnel at each ISC/WG meeting.
e. Provide WG members with current technical data to support the analysis of each MSI, SSI, and zones of the aircraft for analysis by each WG. The data are required 30 days before the ISC/WG meeting.
Par 3-4 Page 13 (and 14)
f. Arrange for technical support and access to the aircraft, appropriate OEM/TCH, and/or vendor facility, as required for the development of analysis and tasks.
g. During each ISC/MRB meeting, provide the ISC/MRB and appropriate WG members, with an updated report of all airworthiness limitation items (ALI), Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), and design changes that impact the MSG-3 analysis.
h. Ensure that the OEM/TCH manuals contain information and procedures for accomplishing all on-aircraft systems/structures/zonal tasks covered in the MRBR.
i. Participate in all ISC and WG activities in support of the development of the MRBR.
j. Record all ISC and WG activity and discussion in meeting minutes, and record unresolved open actions/open issues in a formal ongoing action list or report.
k. Provide the MRB chairperson a copy of all supporting technical data/analysis for the proposed MRBR at the conclusion of the project.
l. Submit the MRBR proposal to the MRB chairperson at least 90 calendar-days before scheduled approval.
m. When the OEM/TCH conducts sampling and analytical inspections of the aircraft, powerplant, or systems/components on an opportunity basis, the OEM/TCH will provide timely notification to the MRB chairperson (or representative) regarding the time and location of the inspection to permit MRB chairperson (or representative) participation. When the attendance of the MRB Chairperson (or representative) is not possible, the OEM/TCH must provide a copy of the complete inspection report to the MRB chairperson.
Par 4-1 Page 15 CHAPTER 4. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) PARTICIPATION
4-1. U.S. ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER (OEM)/TYPE-CERTIFICATE HOLDER (TCH). The OEM/TCH formally notifies the responsible Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) manager of its intention to develop a Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR) proposal.
a. Assigning a Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Chairperson. The appropriate AEG manager will assign a qualified individual as MRB chairperson to manage the specific MRB process for the FAA. The MRB chairperson selects and manages additional MRB members.
Through the appropriate division/office manager, the MRB chairperson will formally invite experienced and qualified FAA working group (WG) advisors to participate in each WG.
Acceptance to participate is considered a commitment for the duration of the project.
b. Notification of MRB Composition. The MRB chairperson will provide formal written notification to the Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300, of the MRB’s composition. Refer to Figure 4-1, Memo to AFS-300 to Establish a Maintenance Review Board. The MRB chairperson will also invite the manager of AFS-300, or his or her representative, to participate in the MRB process.
c. Coordination with Aircraft Certification Service (AIR). The FAA MRB chairperson is also responsible for coordination on all issues of concern with FAA certification within the appropriate AIR project manager and engineering staff. This may require developing issue papers and responding to AIR issue papers or seeking consultation on new technological issues that may arise during the design and development process of the aircraft.
d. Assignment of MRB Members. The MRB chairperson will assign an FAA MRB member to each WG. The MRB chairperson may assign additional FAA advisors to each WG if necessary. The MRB should include, and the chairperson should ensure the participation of, qualified Flight Standards Service (AFS) inspector personnel and AEG personnel, and the chairperson should also encourage the participation of engineering representatives from the controlling FAA certification/directorate office.
Page 16 Par 4-1 FIGURE 4-1. MEMO TO AFS-300 TO ESTABLISH A MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD
Federal Aviation Administration Memorandum Date: XX/XX/XXXX To: Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300 From: Manager, XXX Aircraft Evaluation Group Prepared by: XXXXXXXXXX Subject: ACTION: Establishment of a Maintenance Review Board for the ABC Aviation Model 500 Aircraft The Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO) and the Flight Standards Divisions each have responsibility for specific tasks in the aircraft certification process. Within the Flight Standards Divisions, the Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG) has a variety of responsibilities including: the development, acceptance and revision of the minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements for derivative or newly type certificated aircraft and powerplants. These minimum scheduled tasking/interval requirements are contained in the Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report and are part of the requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25, § 25.1529 and Appendix H. These functions are accomplished through the establishment of technical boards as provided by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 8900.1.
Order 8900.1 sets forth responsibilities and guidelines for Flight Standards Divisions and the AEGs in accomplishing certain aircraft certification and operation evaluation responsibilities.
Composition and functions of the MRB are contained in the current edition of Advisory Circular (AC) 121-22. Other pertinent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy letters, orders, and advisory material may also apply.
The FAA aircraft certification and the MRB Maintenance Steering Group - 3rd Task Force (MSG-3) analysis of the ABC Aviation Model 500 aircraft will be conducted concurrently with (insert name of participating National Aviation Authority (NAA) here.)
Par 4-1 Page 17 FIGURE 4-1. MEMO TO AFS-300 TO ESTABLISH A MAINTENANCE REVIEW
BOARD (CONTINUED) We anticipate the following schedule:
• The MRB will first meet in January, 2013.
• The MRB MSG-3 working group analyses will take place between March 2013 and September 2014.
• Aircraft maintenance task validation will occur during the flight test program.
• First aircraft delivery should occur in September 2015.
Identified below are the proposed MRB members. Please advise me if you wish to include a representative from AFS-300.
Maintenance Review Board Members:
Chairperson – Alan Able, XXX AEG Powerplants/Air/Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) – Bob Baker, XXX AEG Avionics/Electrical – Cynthia Clinton, XXX AEG Mechanical Systems – David Delkin, ASO ATL FSDO-11 Structural – Edward Elkins, XXX AEG Zonal/High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) – Fredrick Fox, AGL CHI FSDO-31 The chairperson of this board is responsible for planning the board functions, coordinating with the aircraft manufacturer and other concerned FAA offices and resolving any technical deficiencies. The chairperson will be guided by established processes and procedures in accomplishing assigned tasks. The members of the board will be responsible for technical input, consultation and development of technical recommendations in support of accomplishing assigned objectives. Technical guidance and direction to the board is available through the appropriate AEG office manager and the Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300).
4-2. FOREIGN OEM/TCH.
a. MRB Chairperson for Certification of Foreign Aircraft. During the certification process of a foreign-manufactured aircraft, the applicant will formally request FAA participation from the appropriate AEG. The AEG office manager will assign a qualified FAA MRB chairperson who will perform the duties as the FAA representative on the international MRB/Industry Steering Committee (ISC).
b. Responsibilities of FAA MRB Chairperson.
(1) This FAA MRB chairperson is the counterpart to the international MRB chairperson in all matters concerning MRB activities and Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) processes. The MRB chairperson is the sole authority regarding FAA requirements. The chairperson also provides the collective input from all the FAA advisors regarding WG activities. The primary duty is to ensure compliance with the applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) minimum tasking/interval requirements/FAA regulatory requirements. Also, to the