 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Pilot reported that an aircraft was allowed to continue flying following an observed engine limitation exceedance.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1747932 |
| Time | |
| Date | 202006 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 135 |
| Flight Phase | Landing |
| Route In Use | Direct |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Flight Instructor |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 8 Flight Crew Total 9000 Flight Crew Type 300 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
That day; after completing the check rides; I was tasked by the company president to ride along as an observer the next day on a line mission in order to evaluate the performance of the only other company pilot. I told the PIC I was not a sic; I was there simply to observe.during a climb; the PIC exceeded a published engine limitation of 104% ng by; what I remember seeing; 0.1 % ng. I would estimate about 1.5 seconds. I could be wrong; but this I remember; it happened and was over so fast. The PIC did not choose to land & I did not force him to. We continued the flight for another hour or so with no issues and everything running and indicating normal.I did not personally check with the maintenance department to see if the PIC had advised maintenance. I made an even worse mistake by allowing us to fly again the next day without knowing if the PIC had contacted maintenance or not. We returned to base the following afternoon. I should have grounded the aircraft until I knew definitively the aircraft was airworthy.today; I took the initiative and contacted the director of maintenance and the president of the company about what happened.lesson learned: I allowed my 'observation' role to supersede my duty to intervene. It will never happen again; I know better.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Pilot reported that an aircraft was allowed to continue flying following an observed engine limitation exceedance.
Narrative: That day; after completing the check rides; I was tasked by the company president to ride along as an observer the next day on a line mission in order to evaluate the performance of the only other company pilot. I told the PIC I was not a SIC; I was there simply to observe.During a climb; the PIC exceeded a published engine limitation of 104% NG by; what I remember seeing; 0.1 % NG. I would estimate about 1.5 seconds. I could be wrong; but this I remember; it happened and was over so fast. The PIC did not choose to land & I did not force him to. We continued the flight for another hour or so with no issues and everything running and indicating normal.I did not personally check with the maintenance department to see if the PIC had advised maintenance. I made an even worse mistake by allowing us to fly again the next day without knowing if the PIC had contacted maintenance or not. We returned to base the following afternoon. I should have grounded the aircraft until I knew definitively the aircraft was airworthy.Today; I took the initiative and contacted the Director of Maintenance and the president of the company about what happened.Lesson learned: I allowed my 'observation' role to supersede my duty to intervene. It will never happen again; I know better.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.