Narrative:

After 2 unsuccessful attempts to start the left engine on our light transport. Maintenance then changes the ignitors and attempted to start the engine. They succeeded in starting the engine, but a tail pipe fire occurred due to the residual fuel from the 2 previous attempts. The engine was immediately shut down while ground crews sprayed the tail pipe area with extinguishing agent (dry chemical). Maintenance then flushed the aft engine area with water attempting to clean the agent from the engine, and performed several successful engine starts and runups, one of which included a premature fuel cutoff followed by a reintroduction of fuel resulting in a billowing white cloud of fuel vapor, and requiring yet another dry motor run followed by another startup and runup. My phone call to dispatch and the ensuing conversation with a management pilot over my concerns about flying the aircraft west/O a proper inspection resulted in harsh remarks from the management pilot, such as I should either trust the fact that maintenance won't sign off on unsafe aircraft, or find another company to work for! Following the conversation, I personally inspected the aircraft visually on the exterior, all the areas I felt were effected by either the fire or the extinguishing agent, and made a determination, with the assistance of the lead maintenance person, that the aircraft would be safe for flight. We (first officer and I) flew a revenue flight with 21 people on board from iad to abe, and then a part 91 reposition from abe to avp where the aircraft maintenance base is located. The engine was changed after a boroscope examination resulted in the determination the engine needed to be changed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LTT EXPERIENCE A TAILPIPE FIRE DURING ENGINE START. REPORTER CLAIMS HE WAS COERCED INTO FLYING AN ACFT HE DID NOT THINK AIRWORTHY.

Narrative: AFTER 2 UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO START THE LEFT ENG ON OUR LTT. MAINT THEN CHANGES THE IGNITORS AND ATTEMPTED TO START THE ENG. THEY SUCCEEDED IN STARTING THE ENG, BUT A TAIL PIPE FIRE OCCURRED DUE TO THE RESIDUAL FUEL FROM THE 2 PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS. THE ENG WAS IMMEDIATELY SHUT DOWN WHILE GND CREWS SPRAYED THE TAIL PIPE AREA WITH EXTINGUISHING AGENT (DRY CHEMICAL). MAINT THEN FLUSHED THE AFT ENG AREA WITH WATER ATTEMPTING TO CLEAN THE AGENT FROM THE ENG, AND PERFORMED SEVERAL SUCCESSFUL ENG STARTS AND RUNUPS, ONE OF WHICH INCLUDED A PREMATURE FUEL CUTOFF FOLLOWED BY A REINTRODUCTION OF FUEL RESULTING IN A BILLOWING WHITE CLOUD OF FUEL VAPOR, AND REQUIRING YET ANOTHER DRY MOTOR RUN FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER STARTUP AND RUNUP. MY PHONE CALL TO DISPATCH AND THE ENSUING CONVERSATION WITH A MGMNT PLT OVER MY CONCERNS ABOUT FLYING THE ACFT W/O A PROPER INSPECTION RESULTED IN HARSH REMARKS FROM THE MGMNT PLT, SUCH AS I SHOULD EITHER TRUST THE FACT THAT MAINT WON'T SIGN OFF ON UNSAFE ACFT, OR FIND ANOTHER COMPANY TO WORK FOR! FOLLOWING THE CONVERSATION, I PERSONALLY INSPECTED THE ACFT VISUALLY ON THE EXTERIOR, ALL THE AREAS I FELT WERE EFFECTED BY EITHER THE FIRE OR THE EXTINGUISHING AGENT, AND MADE A DETERMINATION, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEAD MAINT PERSON, THAT THE ACFT WOULD BE SAFE FOR FLT. WE (F/O AND I) FLEW A REVENUE FLT WITH 21 PEOPLE ON BOARD FROM IAD TO ABE, AND THEN A PART 91 REPOSITION FROM ABE TO AVP WHERE THE ACFT MAINT BASE IS LOCATED. THE ENG WAS CHANGED AFTER A BOROSCOPE EXAM RESULTED IN THE DETERMINATION THE ENG NEEDED TO BE CHANGED.

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