Mandatory SB-30

[AK Mauler]

I am surprized I am the first to vent on this new SB! It is not a huge deal to comply with the "color coding", but I do not completely agree with the motivation. I would suggest that the functional test prior to flight would show which way the elevator moves when you haul back on the yoke. I also wonder about if the elevator was rigged in reverse, wouldn't the yoke feel extremely light or require the pilot to push it in to overcome the elevator weight? I have to think it would feel very different during the "controls free and clear" portion of the check list. I look at the control surfaces as I move the yoke to see if the alerons line up with the take-off flaps and see the elevator go up and down.

I understand 2 planes have crashed from reversed elevator rigging and possibly this could save a life, but is this the remedy?

I will buy my yellow paint and comply, just wanted to see what everyone else out there is thinking on this one.

[Craig]

Perhaps the FAA became involved in this solution?

[Green Hornet]

AK Mauler,
Can you provide a link to this SB 30. I tried Maule and the FAA and can't find any mention.
Thanks

[rjb]

I got the service bulletin from Maule so although I have low
expectations, I am surprised that Maule hasn't heard of their
own service bulletin (true, it's not on the web site).

I have mixed emotions about color coding the cable attachment.
I like Darwin controlling the gene pool; yet I've attempted to
do some very stupid things and thankfully failed; seems a shame
to sacrifice a wonderful airplane to ineptness.

[AK Mauler]

I received my service bulletin in the mail yesterday 4/7/2008. I would expect it to be on the mauleairinc.com site soon. It says it is applicable to all models, so it will be a wide distribution. I am sure it was motivated by either lawyers, insurance companies, or the FAA. If you haven't received your copy yet, it is probably still in the mail.

[RobBurson]

Got mine in the mail also.

RB

[Duane]

This SB was initiated by the FAA.. So we had to come up with a system to mark the elevator cables. In my experience as a glider pilot and instructor, nothing replaces the preflight/pretakeoff check. but ppl will be ppl.

[beaver]

I received # 30 in the mail yesterday as well, since the Maule web-site only goes thru # 28 what in the world was # 29 ???? Anybody know ?

[a64pilot]

I doubt that the FAA had anything to do with an SB, except approving it. If it were FAA it would be an AD. There is no such thing as a mandatory SB, unless your using the aircraft for compensation or hire. If your flying under part 91 as most of us here are, you don't have to comply. Although compliance is not mandatory, you probably should if for no other reason than resale value. If it were me , I'd wait until annual time to comply with SL's and SB's. It's cheaper that way.
More aircraft than you might think have been lost to reversed rigging. One of the first YB-17's was lost on it's first flight because the test pilot didn't look to see which way the ailerons moved for example. There is a video floating around the internet where a turbine powered Caribou took off with the controls locked, again with an experimental test pilot on board, who obviously didn't do a controls check at all.
on edit: look at the bright side, it could be an AD that required some kind of expensive modification to make it impossible to rig it backwards. I haven't seen the SB, but maybe Maule is looking out for us by coming up with a cheap fix before the FAA mandated something difficult and expensive. If you have worked with the Guv'mint before you know they love difficult and expensive.

[N6EA]

An old friend tells a story of a Martin Mars that had been fresh out of maintenance and was attempting take off from San Fran Bay. The captain was on the step and hauling back all the while dialing in elevator trim. When it became apparent they were not going to leave the water or clear the Bay Bridge unless something changed in a hurry, he ran the trim the opposite direction and the Mars lept off the water and cleared the bridge. Elevator trim rigged backwards almost cost the navy an airplane and a bridge.

[aero101]

I think that the most recent incident happened right here on runway in my front yard!!! Mechanics down the way had replaced an elevator cable on an annual inspection, installed backwards, didn't do a check on the free and correct travel, airplane sat for a year. Owner out of bi-annual, fired up plane with an instructor in RH seat, didn't notice (or didn't click) that yoke statically resting in his chest instead of full fwd, moved controls thru the motions, but didn't physically look for free and correct travel. He applied full power, as nose started over he kept pulling back, and of course ended up on his back. Of course at that point things happened very quickly! Funny thing is FAA didn't notice problem, kept checking for locked brakes until I looked at airplane and saw that things were backwards, knowing that with full power on an M7, you could probably drag it into air with brakes locked on a dirt strip? Anyway, bottom line is looks like the FAA suggested this needed to be done to make installation Murphy Proof, but this could and has happened on several other aircraft types / control surfaces. Bottom line is that it should have been checked for free and correct travel twice prior to the flight and wasn't checked properly even once!! Fortunately, the owner walked away uninjured, the CFI ended up with a Brain Concussion, but has recovered fully and currently back to instructing. Airplane totalled, sitting on my ramp waiting on insurance company to sell salvage, which I'd like to have!!! Seems like kind of knee jerk action to me on FAA's part and surprized that Maule bought into it, but with lawyers, etc these days, who knows anymore?

[Ernie]

As is the case with many accidents with AC or anything else, several small errors in judgment/application seem to compound themselves with the tragic results.

When I read the SB I was reminded again why I am a proud Maule owner. Take off a couple of inspection covers and apply some yellow paint in specified areas. Just use your imagination and think how the SB might have read if we all flew some other AC.[/list]

[W.A.T.]

This SB was initiated by the FAA.. So we had to come up with a system to mark the elevator cables. In my experience as a glider pilot and instructor, nothing replaces the preflight/pretakeoff check. but ppl will be ppl.

Duane,

Great to see your on the forum!!!

Just to let to let you guys know, Duane is the "Inspector" at the Maule factory, you can take what he says to the bank.

David Maule was telling me that he believes that the FAA will be making it an AD.

IMO...They might as well add the ailerons to the list as well. Much easier to miss if they are connected backward.

David

[flyer]

HOW RIDICULOUS


The next step may be to put yellow paint on the aileron cables then the brake/rudder cables. How about a sign in the cockpit to remind us to pull back to go up?

This type of over regulation belongs in commercial aviation not in general aviation. I think we should accept responsibility for our own mistakes or oversights. If you want to put yellow paint on these things, it should be up to you. How about checking the controls after they have been worked on?

flyer

[W.A.T.]

HOW RIDICULOUS


The next step may be to put yellow paint on the aileron cables then the brake/rudder cables. How about a sign in the cockpit to remind us to pull back to go up?

This type of over regulation belongs in commercial aviation not in general aviation. I think we should accept responsibility for our own mistakes or oversights. If you want to put yellow paint on these things, it should be up to you. How about checking the controls after they have been worked on?

flyer

flyer,

I totally agree...