Narrative:

The aircraft was written up for smoke and fumes observed in the aircraft at 20;000 ft. Both bleeds were turned off and the smoke subsided. A review of the currently installed engines revealed they were both on the list for having faulty #2 carbon seals installed. The decision was made to change both engines. The right engine change was completed without further issues. The newly installed left engine was experiencing difficulty in starting and then temperature limiting before reaching takeoff power. Both newly received engines were repaired at pratt & whitney. In review of both 8130-3 airworthiness tags that came with the engines a statement was found indicating a ground performance run and vibration survey were required at installation. This requirement was not on any other engine we replaced in the field during an unscheduled event and nobody on my team was made aware in advance of this additional requirement. When I asked pratt & whitney why these engines were delivered to us without an operational check after such an extensive tear-down in the shop to replace the #2 carbon seals [they] informed me [that the company] has agreed to receive the engines in this condition. I do not have access to an overhaul manual for the 306C engine but I do not understand how such maintenance can be accomplished and the engine returned to a customer without so much as an operational leak check run to make sure the parts and components disturbed and the new seal are operational and the rotating components operate correctly. It is the understanding of maintenance technicians that when they receive a part with an 8130 tag they have a part which has been determined to be airworthy. Receiving engines in the past from pratt & whitney do not routinely have this requirement and there is no communication to the people in operational control of the aircraft to warn them when a non airworthy engine is shipped to be installed in the field and then to perform the final steps to determine if the engine components replaced and disturbed meet certification perimeters. The technician in the field is not certified to perform the maintenance on the engine components which the overhaul shop had removed and replaced; but is given the responsibility to verify they all work correctly in the field after installed on an airframe. In this case; one of the new engines was delivered and was temperature limited causing another engine change removal and installation to be performed. Once the next engine is installed; the ground performance runs and vibration survey must then be accomplished again to operationally check work performed by the engine manufacturer by a technician in the field not qualified to perform the maintenance tasks for which he is operationally checking.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Following a double engine change for smoke in the cabin; Maintenance personnel were unaware that engines received after overhaul could require testing on-wing prior to release for service.

Narrative: The aircraft was written up for smoke and fumes observed in the aircraft at 20;000 FT. Both bleeds were turned off and the smoke subsided. A review of the currently installed engines revealed they were both on the list for having faulty #2 carbon seals installed. The decision was made to change both engines. The right engine change was completed without further issues. The newly installed left engine was experiencing difficulty in starting and then temperature limiting before reaching takeoff power. Both newly received engines were repaired at Pratt & Whitney. In review of both 8130-3 airworthiness tags that came with the engines a statement was found indicating a ground performance run and vibration survey were required at installation. This requirement was not on any other engine we replaced in the field during an unscheduled event and nobody on my team was made aware in advance of this additional requirement. When I asked Pratt & Whitney why these engines were delivered to us without an operational check after such an extensive tear-down in the shop to replace the #2 carbon seals [they] informed me [that the company] has agreed to receive the engines in this condition. I do not have access to an Overhaul Manual for the 306C engine but I do not understand how such maintenance can be accomplished and the engine returned to a customer without so much as an operational leak check run to make sure the parts and components disturbed and the new seal are operational and the rotating components operate correctly. It is the understanding of Maintenance technicians that when they receive a part with an 8130 tag they have a part which has been determined to be airworthy. Receiving engines in the past from Pratt & Whitney do not routinely have this requirement and there is no communication to the people in Operational Control of the aircraft to warn them when a non airworthy engine is shipped to be installed in the field and then to perform the final steps to determine if the engine components replaced and disturbed meet certification perimeters. The technician in the field is not certified to perform the maintenance on the engine components which the overhaul shop had removed and replaced; but is given the responsibility to verify they all work correctly in the field after installed on an airframe. In this case; one of the new engines was delivered and was temperature limited causing another engine change removal and installation to be performed. Once the next engine is installed; the ground performance runs and vibration survey must then be accomplished again to operationally check work performed by the engine manufacturer by a technician in the field not qualified to perform the maintenance tasks for which he is operationally checking.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.