I was recently flying a 1987 - M7-235 and in section 4 of the POH it has a section on "Strip Level Requirements" in which it says

"The required strip length for take-off and landing shall be not less than 568 meters (1863 ft) plus 56 meters for each 1,000 feet or part thereof..... "

I can post a rough PDF, but didn't want to clog the site..

My question is, what does this do for insurance when I hoped to keep it at a one-way 300 meter (sea level) strip? And, why would they put in such a limitation?

Thanks
Damien

Hi Damiens,

There is no “POHâ€￾ for the M-7-235.

The FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual is here:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a530ab_6 ... 354478.pdf

The limitations are in Section 2 of the AFM, not Section 4, and the AFM fortunately contains no landing, take-off or cruise performance figures with which a regulator or insurer could beat a Maule pilot.

So I guess that you are looking at a completely different, perhaps unofficial, document.

In practice, I think you’ll find that a 300 meter runway with no obstacles is ample for an M-7-235 under most operating conditions (weight, crosswind, etc.) and with average piloting skill and experience.

Njacko wrote:Hi Damiens,

There is no “POHâ€￾ for the M-7-235.

The FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual is here:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a530ab_6 ... 354478.pdf

The limitations are in Section 2 of the AFM, not Section 4, and the AFM fortunately contains no landing, take-off or cruise performance figures with which a regulator or insurer could beat a Maule pilot.

So I guess that you are looking at a completely different, perhaps unofficial, document.

In practice, I think you’ll find that a 300 meter runway with no obstacles is ample for an M-7-235 under most operating conditions (weight, crosswind, etc.) and with average piloting skill and experience.

Interesting, thanks for that. I will find a way to put a link to the document. It looks like it might be an old Australian thing, it refers to the The Department of aviation, I’m guessing that is now what we call CASA.

Damiens wrote:

Njacko wrote:Hi Damiens,

There is no “POHâ€￾ for the M-7-235.

The FAA approved Airplane Flight Manual is here:
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a530ab_6 ... 354478.pdf

The limitations are in Section 2 of the AFM, not Section 4, and the AFM fortunately contains no landing, take-off or cruise performance figures with which a regulator or insurer could beat a Maule pilot.

So I guess that you are looking at a completely different, perhaps unofficial, document.

In practice, I think you’ll find that a 300 meter runway with no obstacles is ample for an M-7-235 under most operating conditions (weight, crosswind, etc.) and with average piloting skill and experience.

Interesting, thanks for that. I will find a way to put a link to the document. It looks like it might be an old Australian thing, it refers to the The Department of aviation, I’m guessing that is now what we call CASA.

This is a link to the document.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19HFVAi ... sp=sharing

It looks official enough, but was constructed in 1995. My only concern is that any aircraft that I may purchase might have this restriction on it and therefore give an insurance company an "out" if there was a landing problem on a strip less than 560m.

Would I be able to refer back to the FAA document (above) and say that it supersedes all previous flight manuals?

Where are you located and flying this plane?

The strip length page does not appear to be part of the original document, it could be an addition for AU certification, or a company that was using the airplane for commercial purposes and they needed that verbiage for insurance reasons.

Mog wrote:Where are you located and flying this plane?

The strip length page does not appear to be part of the original document, it could be an addition for AU certification, or a company that was using the airplane for commercial purposes and they needed that verbiage for insurance reasons.

The aircraft was in NSW, Australia. I guess it is good to hear that strip length is not a typical inclusion.

Are you still in the Southern Hemisphere, or did you bring the plane back up closer to its birth place. That could certainly be a factor I guess. Could call Maule tomorrow and you could ask if that was a requirement for certification down under.

It looks like the Dept of Aviation (now CASA) cooked up a completely new Australian manual because the FAA-approved manual wasn’t good enough for them. Like Maules have been falling out of the sky all over the USA for half a century on account of their deficient FAA Airplane Filght Manuals...

This is not unusual. The United Kingdom certification authorities are also prone to adding idiotic flight manual supplements and/or airframe modifications so as to justify their existence and safeguard their gold-plated pensions.

That is one reason why so many foreign pilots are willing to jump through any hoop and crawl over broken glass to keep our airplanes on the FAA register.

If converting to N-reg is not an option, you could ask CASA if they have a new version of their manual. A later version might or might not have some sensible performance charts in Section P2 which would supersede the 568 m restriction. As it stands, however, the airplane is unusable for its original purpose as a bushplane. If you land it on a 567 meter runway you are not only uninsured but probably guilty of reckless operation of an aircraft or some such offence beloved of our Aviation Authorities.

Damien, FYI the POH for the M5 I operate in Tassie ( placed on the Australian register in 1979) has T/O & landing charts & no statements re: minimum landing length. My "normal" landing distance is under 150m mid-weight! A strip length restriction of 560m would eliminate operation to only main airports so why own a STOL Maule? A call to CASA for an explanation would be my approach. Let the forum know how you go. All the best, Paul

VH-MEU wrote:Damien, FYI the POH for the M5 I operate in Tassie ( placed on the Australian register in 1979) has T/O & landing charts & no statements re: minimum landing length. My "normal" landing distance is under 150m mid-weight! A strip length restriction of 560m would eliminate operation to only main airports so why own a STOL Maule? A call to CASA for an explanation would be my approach. Let the forum know how you go. All the best, Paul

Thanks Paul, good to hear that it is not mentioned in your POH. I agree that 560m is next to useless. I am a little concerned about waking up the sleeping giant that is CASA. If we get close to a purchase and there is a restriction in in the manual of the prospective aircraft, I will give them a call and let everyone know what transpires. Cheers Damien