Possible MAG Switch AD Coming for PA-18s. FAA Looking for comments

[SJ]

I got a call from a guy at the FAA yesterday. I should be receiving in a few days the action information and comment information on a new area of concern for them - the left side mounted mag switches - where several have been inadvertently shut off in flight one causing a broken back. At that time I will get it posted. Meanwhile, I told him I would solicit comments and send him the link to the thread regarding the issue.

Here are the things I discussed with him:

1. I don't know what year they changed from what he called the "chicken head" switch (which is really an amplifier knob term, "chicken foot" as the old rotary mag switch does not really look like a chicken foot does) to two toggle switches, but they are concerned about both.

2. Most folks move the switches to the panel when they do a rebuild. It just makes it easier to remember to get the mags off, and the wiring is cleaner.

3. Of course, they would like to see a keyed switch or something like the rotary on the panel. I informed him that most people put a semi-guarded set of two toggle switches on the panel.

4. He said the cause of the shutoff was getting clothes caught in the mag switch.

5. I suggested an SB rather than an AD. He said that mechanics told him those don't work in Alaska, that to get compliance it has to be an AD.

6. Alaska is the state where this originates, as apparently the back injury occured there.

7. Obviously, compliance of running a couple new wires and putting in a couple toggles is not terribly onerous, but I also mentioned that some folks would prefer not to comply who have restored planes for historical purposes.

So rather than get all crabby about another potential AD, let's offer some constructive comments and suggestions here - you may choose to wait for the "official" information before commenting, but the above is the gist of it.

Thanks

sj

[aktango58]

SJ,

I believe he broken back was a cub out of Yakutat, (Icy Bay strip I think) that a guide lost power at low level on takeoff when his shirt hooked the switches. The local FAA guy that investigated this is a Juneau FSDO guy with lots of GA time, (mechanic) and had his own shop in Arizona.

I find it interesting that after 60 years of cubs with those switches, we suddenly have two or three go down with this and it is a problem.

A simple solution might be a little bit larger protector on either side of the toggle switches. For the rotation switches, I don't know unless they were rotated so that working the trim won't catch a shirt.

Requiring spin training for PPL would save more lives in the long run imho.

[Tadpole]

Requiring spin training for PPL would save more lives in the long run imho.

Something I still haven't done that I really, really need to.

[behindpropellers]

If they are going to require them to be moved they should put the requirement for the next time the fuselage is recovered.

[cubflier]

This is just plain stupid. You can get your shirt sleeve caught on your throttle, and your you know what hung up in your zipper.

And - I'm not crabby about this. Why not just tell them this is STUPID rather than trying to play ambassador to something this moronic.


Jerry

[PA-22/20-160]

I have had the mags shut off twice on take off when my coat hit the toggles when I was adjusting the trim. My mags are now in the panel from the experience.

[OLDCROWE]

Been there done that, got the (torn) shirt.

My cub is still on the originally located semi-guarded swhtches and yes I've inadvertantilly shut off the rear switch a couple of other times too so I won't fly in a loose fitting or thick sleved jacket, not an issue since.... and yes I will be moving them at re-cover+.

Does it rate an AD, I think not.

[mvivion]

I've experienced sudden silence a couple of times while a low level, and it does have a tendency to focus your energies. Those side mounted toggle switches were the dumbest idea ANY aircraft manufacturer ever came up with, in my opinion. Wearing winter gear it's going to happen.

That said I too think a service bulletin is the appropriate tool, not an AD.

MTV

[Jim 4WF]

I had my dog sleeping in the back seat, resting her nose by the window and was slowly increasing throttle. Maybe we need to move these too. How about an AD for dogs looking out the window, No long sleeves, sleeping while flying, etc.... AUGH Feds--- get a job

[supercub24a]

This is just plain stupid. You can get your shirt sleeve caught on your throttle, and your you know what hung up in your zipper.

And - I'm not crabby about this. Why not just tell them this is STUPID rather than trying to play ambassador to something this moronic.


Jerry

I agree!!! have over 2000 hrs in a cub with switches on the side ! if we want the goverment to regulate our commen sence and stupidity!!!!!!!!! then so be it ! were is it going to stop??? i would say a AD on something like this is Stupid !!!!! most AD's are out there because the mechanics are not inspecting per 43 its a common sence issue.
Steve C

[bob turner]

All this after a half century of fairly successful flying. But it is not the most egregious abuse of power. We are about to get locked down until we cannot breathe. In the last few years there has been a move to make mandatory reports for some pretty innocuous events. That, of course, has generated statistics showing that such events are on the increase - and that something must be done. We are inventing problems so we can solve them!

General aviation is now somewhere near half its strength in the 1970s, yet we are now a threat in so many more ways - soon all airports will be accessible only by a smart card, issued to a select few - and no kid will be able to simply buy a Cub and learn how to fly. It is almost over - enjoy your Cubs while you can.

Opinion, of course.

[DesperadoPilot]

When Cubs are outlawed, only outlaws will have Cubs.....

[skywagon8a]

Those side mounted toggle switches were the dumbest idea ANY aircraft manufacturer ever came up with, in my opinion. MTV

I do believe that the side mounted mag switches emanated from the J-3 which is soloed from the back seat. This was carried forward to the PA-18 so that the instructor had access to the switches.

That being said, perhaps a possible solution would be to place a (spring loaded?) hinged cover over the switches which would protect them from unwanted interference? Something along these lines would be relatively easy to install without having to recover the fuselage and/or relocate wires.

I do believe that an AD note is a bit harsh. Perhaps an enterprising SC.orger will develop a kit for this purpose. The FAA could send an airworthiness alert to all Cub owners with the recommendation that a guard be installed and word about the "kit" will be spread through SC.org and from these individuals to others.

Another possible solution could be to change the switches to the type which have to be pulled to unlock before they can be moved. Something along this idea.
swt-ms21027c221.jpg

[Aviator]

The scariest thing for a grunt in the field is a 2nd Lt. who says he's got an idea. This idea is just as scary - not to mention stupid. No need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Are they going to relocate the door handle, the throttle, the fuel selector, the rudder pedals, the flap handle, etc., because someone's clothes MIGHT get caught in it? Best to scrap the idea altogether. Besides, I want the mag SW accessible from the rear seat. Leave well enough alone! My 2c.

[skywagon8a]

Question? Doesn't the original Piper toggle switch installation have sheet metal guards between and beside the toggles to prevent inadvertent operation? I can not locate a picture. If so, a question for Mr FAA man who talked to SJ. Did the accident airplane have these guards in place? If not then the accident plane was not in compliance with the type design. This means that everyone else out there should not have to do anything other than to confirm that they are in compliance. Lets be sure of this question before a mole hill becomes a mountain.

[skipster]

More needless bullsh** I have the A-7 mag switch and have NEVER had any issue with it. I did close the back seat throttle with my elbow once.

[SJ]

Folks, it could be that if we come up with a workable solution that people would adopt that it could avoid going to AD. Again, nonconstructive comments don't really help, it's already being raised as an issue so at this point expelling hot air on the subject is moot.

I don't remember the early supercubs being front seat solo only, like the PA-18-105's. Were they in fact front solo only? This could be useful in the discussion if soloing from the rear - but the starter button better be near the mags then, huh?

I don't disagree that there are LOTS of things to catch with your clothes, elbows, etc, and I have done them all (except the mags) many times. However, because somebody got hurt they are making an issue out of it. Once we have the official comment info available, let's work to get this thing quashed or dealt with in a reasonable manner at least - like at rebuild, or simple guarded switch arrangement.

Keep the ideas coming (other than "let's kill the FAA").

sj

sj

[T.J.]

Piper Switch Guard......P/N15300-00, 2 required. Problem solved, no AD required.

[SJ]

Piper Switch Guard......P/N15300-00, 2 required. Problem solved, no AD required.

I wonder if the "offending" aircraft had these. If not, this seems like the right solution.

sj

[mvivion]

I wonder if the "offending" aircraft had these. If not, this seems like the right solution.

sj

All our Cubs had those, as did my 1979 model. I still managed to turn them off while adjusting trim, and wearing a parka in winter. Only once by me, and at low level, but it was immediately apparent what had happened, and easy to fix. Learning experience. I also had a trainee do it, again low level and in winter gear. I got the switches back on pretty fast, knowing exactly what happened.

Even with the guards, it's pretty easy to snag a switch or two while cranking the trim wheel and wearing heavy winter gear.

I firmly agree with having the mag switches available to the person in back for dual flight. I had a student manage to kill the engine low one day in a simulated engine failure that turned into a real one. Idle set too low, etc. "Okay, now take your left hand, put it on the key switch...now turn that key switch to the start position."......... That was in our Top Cub, which has ignition on the instrument panel.

I see no issue at all with the old rotary style switches located in that same spot, except I'm not sure they are still available.

MTV

[BradleyG]

When I first got my PA-18, I inadvertently shut my engine down on a cross wind landing working the throttle. ( My left elbow in a doward movement hit both mag switches.) fortunately it was in the flare. Upon inspection I found the switches protruding about 1/32 of an inch or less beyond the guards. When I removed the unit to try and adjust the switches inward, it proved way more complicated that first apparent. (major reworking with wiring not just nut adjustment.) My solution without major modification, was to place a large velcro patch (two loop sides stuck together and to the area just above the mag switches ) This covered the switches thus not allowing inadvertent shut off during flight. Switch throw for normal operation is accomplished by just raising the velcro flap. The great thing about this mod is that it is not permanent. Just stick on Velcro, however it works.

[MainlandCub]

Using FAA thinking one could argue that relocating the switches to the instrument panel violates the original type design because the switches are no longer accessible from both seats. I would like to see their analysis on that one before they issue the AD!

The Super Cub probably remains one of the most often used aircraft for tailwheel conversions, and even ab initio training. I think the issue of access from the back seat should be considered by the FAA before they hit the walnut with the proverbial sledge hammer.

There is a New Zealand AD that requires installation of a guard around the fuel selector when the aircraft is on ag-ops. Back in the day, someone managed to turn the fuel off with their coat sleeve while working the sowing lever. The guard is a block of wood that goes around part of the fuel selector panel which means the fuel selector is no longer the highest point around. This was in the days of the rotary switches, which did not attract the same attention.

Steve, you could ask the FAA guy if they tested the switches to see if the operating force was below spec or not. i.e. if the switches were worn and the spring lost its tension the operating force would be a lot less than when new or in good condition, more easily permitting inadvertent operation. Similarly switches can sometimes go from open circuit to closed circuit (or vise-versa) without being operated the full throw. I would like to see this data before condemning the location of these switches.

Indeed one solution may be just to install switches with a higher operating force.

We teach situational awareness in flying training now. This highlights that one needs some situational awareness about one's body parts in the cockpit. If you are going to wave your arms about near the mag switches, fuel selectors etc. be careful! We've all knocked the throttle back by hitting the rear one with our elbows, so what is new about this?

The rotary switch in that location is about as cool as a mag switch can get. I'm surprised some people have still got them. If I had one it would be installed that's for sure! It will be a shame if they had to go.

Andrew.

[OLDCROWE]

Piper Switch Guard......P/N15300-00, 2 required. Problem solved, no AD required.

Mine has em...

[supercub24a]

Piper Switch Guard......P/N15300-00, 2 required. Problem solved, no AD required.

Look close to i believe they has a hole drilled for a pin ? from Piper

[ag-pilot]

Learned to fly in a Super Cub Sprayed a couple years with one and have hunted coyotes for over 25 years with one...Never shut both switches off but I have killed one mag a couple times. Never had a problem with the old A7 rotary switch. Lots of ways to hurt yourself with any airplane this is WAY down on my list but The federal boys need to find something to do since were turning GA airplanes into beer cans at a ever increasing rate thanks to over regulation and high fuel costs.

Time to CHANGE some FEDS not switches me thinks!

Dave

[bushmaster]

Any pictures of switch guard as I have turned of both mags in winter. I have the rotary switch and have considered moving it to panel with a key or whatever

[bob turner]

If you have to move it, put it in the wing root like the J-3. This has the advantage of no cutting of the fuselage fabric - just run new wires.

The FAA is curently looking for non-issues to blossom forth, so they can cure them. Mandatory reporting of the smallest incidents will help that effort.

On the switch - I believe half of you are talking about toggles and the other half are talking about the A-7. Personally, I prefer toggles - lots cheaper and somewhat easier conceptually when looking for a bad plug. A cover over the A-7 is difficult to imagine.

[Steve Pierce]

Here are some pictures of the factory toggle switches as installed by Piper with the switch guards. These came out of a 1971 model PA18 and have been in most original aircraft I have seen up to the ones built at Vero Beach in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I personally believe that requiring the switches be moved will create more problems than it will solve. Moving from the factory location on an aircraft that is currently in service will require removing 2 large interior panels to access the associated wiring plus relocating almost 8' of wiring and then finding a suitable location somewhere else to mount the switch/switches. Does everyone fly with a lot of winter gear? We don't here in Texas. The switch is the furthest thing aft on the side control panel, do we need to relocate the trim handle, carburetor heat and cabin heat switches as well? What about the fuel valve, it is really close when actuating the flap handle. Can this be addressed in a note in the operator's handbook or Safety Concern Sheet. Worse case scenario I would hope would be a placard to make people aware of the possibility of getting hung up in the switches.

100_7407.JPG

DSCF1349.JPG

DSCF1350.JPG

DSCF1351.JPG

[Steve Pierce]

Some more photos with the AAF type switch.

DSCF1353.JPG

DSCF1354.JPG

DSCF1355.JPG

DSCF1356.JPG

[Steve Pierce]

Talked about this issue with my Dad and he had a good point as well. This is not a mechanical issue. There is nothing wrong with the equipment but an operational issue. Didn't think Airworthiness Directives were issued for operational issues. The comment about things won't get done in Alaska without issuing an AD is kinda crazy in my opinion. There are people who fly that don't have pilot's licences, don't annual their aircraft or comply with ADs. You can't regulate everyone because of a few.

[MainlandCub]

Talked about this issue with my Dad and he had a good point as well. This is not a mechanical issue. There is nothing wrong with the equipment but an operational issue. Didn't think Airworthiness Directives were issued for operational issues. The comment about things won't get done in Alaska without issuing an AD is kinda crazy in my opinion. There are people who fly that don't have pilot's licences, don't annual their aircraft or comply with ADs. You can't regulate everyone because of a few.

Steve,

There are FAA AD's issued for operational issues. Stopping smoking in lavatories and pulling the oxygen generators out of lavatories are two that spring to mind. EASA tossed these out.

If it's any consolation our CAA is just as bizarre as your FAA, so you haven't got it alone.

Cheers,
Andrew.

[nesincg]

I've seen some PA-11s with the dual switches. Was considering changing mine to this. Guess I'll keep my heavy rotary switch.

[mvivion]

For those criticizing the FAA for being over zealous, take a look at many of the NTSB recommendations following accident investigations, and see how often the FAA implements these generally onerous suggestions.

One example is currently beIng discussed in the thread regarding seat belts for children. A terrible accident in Butte, MT a while back killed everyone in a PC 12. Th TSB strongly suggested to the FAA that the rules on seat belts be changed (there were more people than seats in that one) as a result. After consideration, the FAA opted NOT to change those regs.

So, give the FAA credit where due, and be VERY glad the NTSB doesn't have regulatory authority.


Give them your well thought out feedback, and positive suggestions.


Sometimes, it works


MTV

[sierra bravo]

Take a step back and look at the original post. An FAA guy called Steve J to alert him about an anticipated agency review of a potential hazard. Not a proposal for rule making, a general look that would include a comment period before the FAA would evaluate the cost-benefit of a related mandatory directive. How cool is it that the FAA alerted Steve? There is no proposal for any action at this time, right? Just anticipation of a review? And you guys are now notified so you can prepare to participate in the process? You ought to be thrilled in how this whole thing is taking shape. If you oppose action you'll get your chance to voice it because the FAA made you aware of it. That's the way the process should work. We as a group should encourage more of it.

[cubunltd]

I agree with skywagon8a. If the guards were not in place on the offending aircraft, why should we have to pay for it. Put out an alert to make sure they are installed. On another note, moving the switches to the panel is easy even with the covering in place.

John

[N5126H]

I got a call from a guy at the FAA yesterday. I should be receiving in a few days the action information and comment information on a new area of concern for them - the left side mounted mag switches - where several have been inadvertently shut off in flight one causing a broken back. At that time I will get it posted. Meanwhile, I told him I would solicit comments and send him the link to the thread regarding the issue.

Here are the things I discussed with him:

1. I don't know what year they changed from what he called the "chicken head" switch (which is really an amplifier knob term, "chicken foot" as the old rotary mag switch does not really look like a chicken foot does) to two toggle switches, but they are concerned about both.

2. Most folks move the switches to the panel when they do a rebuild. It just makes it easier to remember to get the mags off, and the wiring is cleaner.

3. Of course, they would like to see a keyed switch or something like the rotary on the panel. I informed him that most people put a semi-guarded set of two toggle switches on the panel.

4. He said the cause of the shutoff was getting clothes caught in the mag switch.

5. I suggested an SB rather than an AD. He said that mechanics told him those don't work in Alaska, that to get compliance it has to be an AD.

6. Alaska is the state where this originates, as apparently the back injury occured there.

7. Obviously, compliance of running a couple new wires and putting in a couple toggles is not terribly onerous, but I also mentioned that some folks would prefer not to comply who have restored planes for historical purposes.

So rather than get all crabby about another potential AD, let's offer some constructive comments and suggestions here - you may choose to wait for the "official" information before commenting, but the above is the gist of it.

Thanks

sj

I have the "chicken neck (head/foot)" switch in my cub, and offer these thoughts,

The chicken neck is the only tool an instructor has to turn the aircraft off.

The chicken neck is the only thing that is easy to reach from behind the struts that kills the engine. I have seen folks lose control of the aircraft while hand proping on skis and while chasing the aircraft the switch being reachable from behind the strut saved the day.

It is good for the passenger to be able to control the mags during hand propping operations.

OK, that is the best I can do and be constructive, anything else would fall into the unacceptable behavior area.

Bill

[coxcub]

These switch guards seem to cover the problem - just close them as part of the pre-take off mag check - "Both switches on and guarded"

Frank

[supercub24a]

i don't no what the big deal is there are already provisions in the piper switches to keep them from turning off see the holes in the guards, if it becomes an AD fill out alternet method of compliance!or maybe they will make the AD tell you to placard "Install Pin Before Flight" there we go! so were have we seen a AD like this??? AD 53-04-01

MTV is right be glad we here about these things and can comment on them mechanics/IA have a list of proposed AD's and gives you the ending date to comment
Steve C

[SJ]

Fadec offered these different options...

mags1.JPGmags2.JPGmags3.JPG

[Steve Pierce]

I have the "chicken neck (head/foot)" switch in my cub, and offer these thoughts,

The chicken neck is the only tool an instructor has to turn the aircraft off.

The chicken neck is the only thing that is easy to reach from behind the struts that kills the engine. I have seen folks lose control of the aircraft while hand proping on skis and while chasing the aircraft the switch being reachable from behind the strut saved the day.

It is good for the passenger to be able to control the mags during hand propping operations.

OK, that is the best I can do and be constructive, anything else would fall into the unacceptable behavior area.

Bill

Very good points I had not thought about.