During taxi out check; a crj-200 flight crew noticed rudder did not go full left as indicated on EIC...

Attributes
ACN	788504
Time
Date	200805
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Regional Jet 200 ER&LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : taxi
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	maintenance : technician
Qualification	technician : airframe technician : powerplant
ASRS Report	788504
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : eicas indication
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact other
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : briefing performance deficiency : repair performance deficiency : testing performance deficiency : scheduled maintenance performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : installation performance deficiency : inspection
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

Aircraft was in remote area very close to taxiway and emergency equipment in area for another aircraft. Flight was pushed back from gate and taxi check by flight crew revealed rudder indication did not go full left. Upon boarding aircraft; I visually saw the indication on EICAS screen. Appeared to be 'DCU 1 issue.' right&right'ed DCU 1; did not change indication. Reinstalled original DCU; indication did not change. Maintenance controller said item was deferrable per MEL; so we began with the deferral. From the ground with the rudder left; the inspection stripe appeared visible; not knowing whether the crew had full deflection or not. Without communication to the flight crew they then went rudder right and again the inspection stripe appeared visible and parallel. Notified crew that item was deferrable and was beginning paperwork with maintenance control. Witnessed crew appeared to be verifying rudder deflection while I was completing deferral. Discussed the deferral with the flight crew and they felt comfortable and confident with it and had no questions. Maintenance control contacted me later in the day and told me that aircraft was ferrying back to ZZZ because the crew was not comfortable with the indication for left rudder travel. Apparently; aircraft was modified to install the witness inspection stripes for rudder travel indication to allow for the deferral process. The aircraft went in for paint job in april 2008 and somewhere between modification date and april 2008 the inspection stripe for left rudder indication had been moved from its original location. So when visually checking rudder travel indication from the ground; left rudder travel was not fully parallel with the witness stripe. It was later found rudder control system was free of any defects. The rudder indication potentiometer was adjusted; and the witness stripe was repositioned to the correct installation.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING TAXI OUT CHECK; A CRJ-200 FLIGHT CREW NOTICED RUDDER DID NOT GO FULL LEFT AS INDICATED ON EICAS SCREEN. ITEM DEFERRED; ACFT DEPARTED. ACFT LATER FERRIED BACK TO BASE DUE TO RUDDER CONCERNS.

Narrative: ACFT WAS IN REMOTE AREA VERY CLOSE TO TXWY AND EMER EQUIP IN AREA FOR ANOTHER ACFT. FLT WAS PUSHED BACK FROM GATE AND TAXI CHK BY FLT CREW REVEALED RUDDER INDICATION DID NOT GO FULL L. UPON BOARDING ACFT; I VISUALLY SAW THE INDICATION ON EICAS SCREEN. APPEARED TO BE 'DCU 1 ISSUE.' R&R'ED DCU 1; DID NOT CHANGE INDICATION. REINSTALLED ORIGINAL DCU; INDICATION DID NOT CHANGE. MAINT CTLR SAID ITEM WAS DEFERRABLE PER MEL; SO WE BEGAN WITH THE DEFERRAL. FROM THE GND WITH THE RUDDER L; THE INSPECTION STRIPE APPEARED VISIBLE; NOT KNOWING WHETHER THE CREW HAD FULL DEFLECTION OR NOT. WITHOUT COM TO THE FLT CREW THEY THEN WENT RUDDER R AND AGAIN THE INSPECTION STRIPE APPEARED VISIBLE AND PARALLEL. NOTIFIED CREW THAT ITEM WAS DEFERRABLE AND WAS BEGINNING PAPERWORK WITH MAINT CTL. WITNESSED CREW APPEARED TO BE VERIFYING RUDDER DEFLECTION WHILE I WAS COMPLETING DEFERRAL. DISCUSSED THE DEFERRAL WITH THE FLT CREW AND THEY FELT COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT WITH IT AND HAD NO QUESTIONS. MAINT CTL CONTACTED ME LATER IN THE DAY AND TOLD ME THAT ACFT WAS FERRYING BACK TO ZZZ BECAUSE THE CREW WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE INDICATION FOR L RUDDER TRAVEL. APPARENTLY; ACFT WAS MODIFIED TO INSTALL THE WITNESS INSPECTION STRIPES FOR RUDDER TRAVEL INDICATION TO ALLOW FOR THE DEFERRAL PROCESS. THE ACFT WENT IN FOR PAINT JOB IN APRIL 2008 AND SOMEWHERE BTWN MODIFICATION DATE AND APRIL 2008 THE INSPECTION STRIPE FOR L RUDDER INDICATION HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION. SO WHEN VISUALLY CHKING RUDDER TRAVEL INDICATION FROM THE GND; L RUDDER TRAVEL WAS NOT FULLY PARALLEL WITH THE WITNESS STRIPE. IT WAS LATER FOUND RUDDER CTL SYS WAS FREE OF ANY DEFECTS. THE RUDDER INDICATION POTENTIOMETER WAS ADJUSTED; AND THE WITNESS STRIPE WAS REPOSITIONED TO THE CORRECT INSTALLATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

During taxi out check; a crj-200 flight crew noticed rudder did not go full left as indicated on EICAS screen. Item deferred; aircraft departed. Aircraft later ferried back to base due to rudder concerns.