New Mooney Service Bulletin M20-335A, "seems serious"

[Mooney_Allegro]

I got a UPS delivered envelope in the mail yesterday from Mooney that seems very important.  Mooney says if people don't do it, they will make it into an Airworthiness Directive.  They say to have the work done IMMEDIATELY and the Time of Compliance is: Before Next Flight.   It affects newer Acclaim and Ovations and the Ultras.   The rudder and elevator needs to come off the plane and balanced to make sure it's within specs.  If not within specs, then the plane needs to be ferried at no more than 127 knots to a maintenance facility to handle the repair.   It's a 14-page Service Bulletin plus another 25 pages of instructions on balancing the controls and the jigs needed etc.   The instructions make it sounds like the mechanics need to be very careful with disassembly and reassembly or things could get screwed up in a hurry.  Does anyone know how this was discovered and what could happen if you don't comply?   My issue is there's always a chance of a maintenance-induced-error with something as big as this.  The bulletin is filled up with words like, "DO NOT", "BE GENTLE", "DO NOT BEND",  "DAMAGE COULD OCCUR", "DO NOT OVERTIGHTEN" etc etc.   
 

Here's what it says:  The package contains a released Mooney service bulletin for your aircraft.  We encourage you to take action on its guidance immediately. Rest assured that our motivation is the continued safety of our aircraft fleet and our customer base.

As you will note from the service bulletin, we discovered accuracy errors with the control balance methodology of our paint vendors.  This issue has been isolated to the empennage controls, including the elevator and rudder.  Some of these surface have been found to reside outside of the balance limits established by Mooney process and maintenance practice.  It is important that the balance of your aircrafts controls be evaluated and corrected if necessary.

Please do not delay with this action and please respond with the return information as indicated in the service bulletin.  Mooney considers this a mandatory service bulletin. We will continuously monitor compliance with the bulletin.  If response is weak, we will ask the FAA to issue an Airworthiness Directive to mandate compliance, so your cooperation is necessary.  

We apologize for the inconvenience imposed by this service bulletin, but safety is at the heart of our actions.

Sincerely,

Kevin E. Hawley, Chief Engineer

[DVA]

Here’s the SB

 

https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4147179/technical_documents/service_bulletins/M20-335A.pdf

 

This is not a little deal - this is a significant faux pax that is not being handled well right now by Mooney.

 

There is nowhere near enough background information and reasoning for the strong mandate presented to owners.

 

I’m critical of the lack of proper warranty coverage (8 hours) which is less than half the needed time to complete in our opinion, and the obvious immediate “before next flight” language. They must have seen or calculated an unsafe flutter condition based on this, if this is true, they should disclose this information now.

 

This is largely about manufactures liability at this point.

 

My guess is that an emergency AD will be forthcoming regardless as Mooney effectively just grounded 26 relatively new aircraft. If no AD is issued then the scare and immediacy of this was unnecessary.

 

Very disappointed.

 

DVA

 

[alextstone]

Here’s the SB
 
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4147179/technical_documents/service_bulletins/M20-335A.pdf
 
This is not a little deal - this is a significant faux pax that is not being handled well right now by Mooney.
 
There is nowhere near enough background information and reasoning for the strong mandate presented to owners.
 
I’m critical of the lack of proper warranty coverage (8 hours) which is less than half the needed time to complete in our opinion, and the obvious immediate “before next flight” language. They must have seen or calculated an unsafe flutter condition based on this, if this is true, they should disclose this information now.
 
This is largely about manufactures liability at this point.
 
My guess is that an emergency AD will be forthcoming regardless as Mooney effectively just grounded 26 relatively new aircraft. If no AD is issued then the scare and immediacy of this was unnecessary.
 
Very disappointed.
 
DVA
 

Ohh, not good at all.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

If it is really that serious Mooney is doing themselves and their owners a disservice by not asking the FAA to make it an AD right away. 
Jim

They probably are right now, but making it law takes time even as an emergency AD. I think the latter just means they can skip the usual public review period.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[orionflt]

with out going deeply into the service bulletin it sounds like the paint shop Mooney has been using was not following the proper procedures for balancing the flight control surfaces after painting. as Dave DVA stated the inbalance could result in flutter of the flight control surface. most of you have seen the Piper flutter video, that flutter could cause structural failure if the flutter is not reduced or eliminated. 

I definitely think Mooney should go to the FAA for an AD due to the seriousness of this issue, but I am sure that since it is only a small number of newer aircraft that they may be able to have those aircraft looked at with out one. I did not see if Mooney was providing warranty for those affected, I hope they are to help encourage compliance.

Brian  

[carusoam]

If concerned if this applies to your AC... I copied the following from the SB posted by DVA above...

MODELS/ SN AFFECTED:

• M20R - S/N 29-0520 thru 29-0525
• M20TN - S/N 31-0128 thru 31-0143
• M20U - S/N 32-0003, 32-0008
• M20V - S/N 33-0004, 33-0006, 33-0007

Wondering if these are the same planes that have been through the tail removal process already...

Good luck with the lottery... looks like there are less than about 20 planes total... unless I missed something.

Best regards,

-a-

[orionflt]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

If concerned if this applies to your AC... I copied the following from the SB posted by DVA above...

MODELS/ SN AFFECTED:

• M20R - S/N 29-0520 thru 29-0525     =6
• M20TN - S/N 31-0128 thru 31-0143 =16
• M20U - S/N 32-0003, 32-0008             =2
• M20V - S/N 33-0004, 33-0006, 33-0007 =3

Wondering if these are the same planes that have been through the tail removal process already...

Good luck with the lottery... looks like there are less than about 20 planes total... unless I missed something.

Best regards,

-a-

hmmmm my math says  27

[carusoam]

Brian,

I did the math as long as I could...

But the tears of joy kept getting in the way...

My O is too old to be on the list, today...

Hoping this doesn’t expand into something worse.

Best regards,

-a-

[orionflt]

I hope not, sounds like the paint shop just didn't follow the book for balancing surfaces. 

Brian

[Mooney_Allegro]

7 hours ago, orionflt said:

with out going deeply into the service bulletin it sounds like the paint shop Mooney has been using was not following the proper procedures for balancing the flight control surfaces after painting. as Dave DVA stated the inbalance could result in flutter of the flight control surface. most of you have seen the Piper flutter video, that flutter could cause structural failure if the flutter is not reduced or eliminated. 

I definitely think Mooney should go to the FAA for an AD due to the seriousness of this issue, but I am sure that since it is only a small number of newer aircraft that they may be able to have those aircraft looked at with out one. I did not see if Mooney was providing warranty for those affected, I hope they are to help encourage compliance.

Brian  

Mooney is not covering any labor or parts if the affected aircraft is outside of the Mooney International Corporation factory warranty program as stated in the Service Bulletin.  

[aviatoreb]

Maybe they have reason to believe that this must be done now, today, yesterday but the government is closed so rather than wait through Christmas, New years Govt closure, this is what they could release on the same day lest one incident occur while waiting for the stronger release.  Maybe that AD will come soon?

This is kind of scary - first thought is to ask myself if my recently repainted airplane was balanced properly.  Yeah I know it was balanced, and by the book...but...

[Txbyker]

23 hours ago, carusoam said:

If concerned if this applies to your AC... I copied the following from the SB posted by DVA above...

MODELS/ SN AFFECTED:

• M20R - S/N 29-0520 thru 29-0525
• M20TN - S/N 31-0128 thru 31-0143
• M20U - S/N 32-0003, 32-0008
• M20V - S/N 33-0004, 33-0006, 33-0007

Wondering if these are the same planes that have been through the tail removal process already...

Good luck with the lottery... looks like there are less than about 20 planes total... unless I missed something.

Best regards,

-a-

Looks like these could be planes since factory restart.  I believe they came with a 5 year, 1000 hour warranty?

Russ

[Yetti]

In the world of airplanes, this seems like a first world problem.   Wonder which plane this showed up on to alert the factory.

[aviatoreb]

9 minutes ago, Yetti said:

In the world of airplanes, this seems like a first world problem.   Wonder which plane this showed up on to alert the factory.

I wonder what happened to cause the alert.  Was there an incident?  AN inflight incident?  Or was there someone who knows how things should be built who was present to observe something being assembled incorrectly and understood the implications.

[Bravoman]

Just the kind of thing that makes folks want to rush out and buy a new Mooney.

[Yetti]

29 minutes ago, Bravoman said:

Just the kind of thing that makes folks want to rush out and buy a new Mooney.

I can safely say "I cannot afford"

[bradp]

If anyone saw the paint job on the Ultra they had in the caravan / at Oshkosh for the factory demo - it was a really crap job - especially for a $700k aircraft.  @kpaul and @Marcopolo saw it with me I think.  The barely airworthy C model parked across from it had a more durable and careful application of paint. I’m not entirely surprised.  

[ragedracer1977]

This is the kind of thing a manufacturer should cover 100%.  I understand ADs for parts that wear or weird stuff discovered 30 years later, but this is literally a factory screw up that flight time or extended use did not cause. 

[LANCECASPER]

When you shut down production for 4-5 years you lose continuity. People move on to other jobs, they retire and the collective knowledge base goes down. For this to have taken this long to discover is the scariest part.

[Mooney_Allegro]

3 hours ago, Txbyker said:

Looks like these could be planes since factory restart.  I believe they came with a 5 year, 1000 hour warranty.

Russ

My plane is listed in the Service Bulletin and it came with a 3-year warranty only.  I believe you could purchase up to a 5-year warranty as an upgrade when you purchased the plane new.   My plane was one of the ones sitting on the factory floor for 7 years until it was completed.  

[kpaul]

2 hours ago, bradp said:

If anyone saw the paint job on the Ultra they had in the caravan / at Oshkosh for the factory demo - it was a really crap job - especially for a $700k aircraft.  @kpaul and @Marcopolo saw it with me I think.  The barely airworthy C model parked across from it had a more durable and careful application of paint. I’m not entirely surprised.  

Ha, yep. Nothing like seeing a 15 hour plane with paint peeling off the elevator horns and half of the pilot side wing walk missing.

The factory answer was "we flew through rain on the way."  YGBSM!

I flew through 2 hours of rain this past week, all my paint is still there.

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, kpaul said:

Ha, yep. Nothing like seeing a 15 hour plane with paint peeling off the elevator horns and half of the pilot side wing walk missing.

The factory answer was "we flew through rain on the way."  YGBSM!

I flew through 2 hours of rain this past week, all my paint is still there.

Who did the factory paint?  Was it done in house or was it done by subcontract somewhere nearby?

I had a new paint job done about 9 months ago, and every time I look at it I marvel how intensely smooth and deep and adhering the workmanship done was.  I am shocked to hear that the new Mooneys may be coming off the factory floor with anything less than excellent paint.

[bradp]

Learning points. Don’t throw a banana out the pilot window over the Atlantic Ocean.  It will smack back and cause a damned mess.  I flew through some moderate to heavy precipitation and the banana splat stain was still on the h stab.  

By the transitive property (Erik is that the right one?) a banana therefore has more adherence qualities than a modern Mooney factory paint job. 

[aviatoreb]

9 minutes ago, bradp said:

Learning points. Don’t throw a banana out the pilot window over the Atlantic Ocean.  It will smack back and cause a damned mess.  I flew through some moderate to heavy precipitation and the banana splat stain was still on the h stab.  

By the transitive property (Erik is that the right one?) a banana therefore has more adherence qualities than a modern Mooney factory paint job. 

Yup.  transitivity.   Very good. A>B, B>C therefore A>C, and hence bananas are more sticky than factory paint.

[kpaul]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Who did the factory paint?  Was it done in house or was it done by subcontract somewhere nearby?

I'm not sure who is doing the paint.  Maybe @mike_elliott does, he has some time transitioning new owners.