Main Article Content
Safety Management Systems, MSG-3, evaluation
Improving safety was the goal when Maintenance Steering Group (MSG) was first introduced for the Boeing 747 in 1968. The goal was to develop a system of evaluation for scheduled maintenance by using decision logic. This was MSG-1. As theory evolved, MSG-2 brought process orientation and failure modes analysis. Then in 1978, United Airlines, commissioned by the Department of Defense, developed a methodology based on tested and proven airline practices. With that MSG-3 was born. MSG-3 is the current standard for risk management in aviation (McLoughlin, 2006). In 2006, ICAO released a new initiative known as Safety Management Systems (ICAO, SMM, 2006). All domains within aviation will be required to implement a safety management system that complies with ICAO’s guidelines set forth by member states within their own regulations. This is the SSP or State Safety Program. The goal is to provide support for continued evolution of a proactive strategy to improve safety performance (ICAO Safety Management, n.d.). Aviation safety is key, but it is certainly not a new goal. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two programs, MSG-3 and SMS. The study reveals similarities and differences of organizational structures and procedures required to carry out the programs. By identifying growth areas for expertise and personnel, this analysis may be of interest to those starting the journey into SMS.