PIC of commuter light transport questions ATCT local controller's technique for clearing him for tak...

Attributes
ACN	104394
Time
Date	198902
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : pit
State Reference	PA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : alb
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, High Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 1850 flight time type : 450
ASRS Report	104394
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 7000 flight time type : 1500
ASRS Report	104393
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe conflict : ground less severe
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

On a previous leg this morning the captain and I noticed a higher than normal itt on the right engine during climb out. Also at cruise the engine became temperature limited at a lower altitude than we would have expected. We reported this to our maintenance facility while en route to our destination (unv). They considered the matter and gave it a deferred status. We continued the leg to our destination, landed and took off for our next destination and landed uneventfully. Leaving pit we were cleared for an immediate takeoff. There was an aircraft on 3 mi final at the time. Before V1 I called, 'power set left, not set right.' the captain attempted to correct the situation by advancing the right power lever and elected to continue the takeoff. We reached V1 and vr 1 and rotated, and climbed out. We experienced conditions similar to the ones experienced earlier with the right engine while en route. The captain elected to divert to mdt based on the WX and conditions at our destination (unv) and his lack of confidence in the right engine should we need to execute a missed approach. Maintenance did a ground runup of the aircraft. They found nothing wrong and returned the aircraft to service. Although this cannot be considered a real incident, several things come to mind. Was maintenance correct in telling us to continue once we reported our first findings? Was the captain justified in continuing the takeoff in pit although target torque was not achieved on the right engine? Did maintenance do a thorough enough check of the aircraft after the diversion? I believe the captain felt pressure to continue the takeoff because of the WX and the aircraft on final and possibly his previous experience with maintenance telling him things were acceptable although he believed otherwise. Supplemental information from acn 104393: at V1/vr speed I noticed a slight mechanical problem that should have called for an aborted takeoff. Why would the tower clear any aircraft to takeoff and another to land on the same runway in such low visibility condition when they could not see me nor the other aircraft.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PIC OF COMMUTER LTT QUESTIONS ATCT LCL CTLR'S TECHNIQUE FOR CLEARING HIM FOR TKOF IMC WITH ACR-MLG ON 3 NM FINAL. FO IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT ACFT MAINTENANCE PROC DISCREPANCY.

Narrative: ON A PREVIOUS LEG THIS MORNING THE CAPT AND I NOTICED A HIGHER THAN NORMAL ITT ON THE RIGHT ENG DURING CLBOUT. ALSO AT CRUISE THE ENG BECAME TEMP LIMITED AT A LOWER ALT THAN WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED. WE RPTED THIS TO OUR MAINT FAC WHILE ENRTE TO OUR DEST (UNV). THEY CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND GAVE IT A DEFERRED STATUS. WE CONTINUED THE LEG TO OUR DEST, LANDED AND TOOK OFF FOR OUR NEXT DEST AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. LEAVING PIT WE WERE CLRED FOR AN IMMEDIATE TKOF. THERE WAS AN ACFT ON 3 MI FINAL AT THE TIME. BEFORE V1 I CALLED, 'PWR SET LEFT, NOT SET RIGHT.' THE CAPT ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT THE SITUATION BY ADVANCING THE RIGHT PWR LEVER AND ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE TKOF. WE REACHED V1 AND VR 1 AND ROTATED, AND CLBED OUT. WE EXPERIENCED CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THE ONES EXPERIENCED EARLIER WITH THE RIGHT ENG WHILE ENRTE. THE CAPT ELECTED TO DIVERT TO MDT BASED ON THE WX AND CONDITIONS AT OUR DEST (UNV) AND HIS LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN THE RIGHT ENG SHOULD WE NEED TO EXECUTE A MISSED APCH. MAINT DID A GND RUNUP OF THE ACFT. THEY FOUND NOTHING WRONG AND RETURNED THE ACFT TO SVC. ALTHOUGH THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A REAL INCIDENT, SEVERAL THINGS COME TO MIND. WAS MAINT CORRECT IN TELLING US TO CONTINUE ONCE WE RPTED OUR FIRST FINDINGS? WAS THE CAPT JUSTIFIED IN CONTINUING THE TKOF IN PIT ALTHOUGH TARGET TORQUE WAS NOT ACHIEVED ON THE RIGHT ENG? DID MAINT DO A THOROUGH ENOUGH CHK OF THE ACFT AFTER THE DIVERSION? I BELIEVE THE CAPT FELT PRESSURE TO CONTINUE THE TKOF BECAUSE OF THE WX AND THE ACFT ON FINAL AND POSSIBLY HIS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH MAINT TELLING HIM THINGS WERE ACCEPTABLE ALTHOUGH HE BELIEVED OTHERWISE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 104393: AT V1/VR SPD I NOTICED A SLIGHT MECHANICAL PROB THAT SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR AN ABORTED TKOF. WHY WOULD THE TWR CLR ANY ACFT TO TKOF AND ANOTHER TO LAND ON THE SAME RWY IN SUCH LOW VISIBILITY CONDITION WHEN THEY COULD NOT SEE ME NOR THE OTHER ACFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.

PIC of commuter light transport questions ATCT local controller's technique for clearing him for takeoff IMC with air carrier-medium large transport on 3 NM final. First officer is more concerned about aircraft maintenance procedure discrepancy.