Narrative:

Flew a scheduled flight from den to ase. Flight appeared normal in all respects. Shut down both engines after parking in ase. Captain tried a total of 4 times to restart #2 engine without success. System control told us to wait for a mechanic from den. The engine would come up to 45-47 percent nh and hang. Apparently the secondary fuel nozzles would not function. We inspected the engine (without opening it) and saw lots of fuel draining from the engine. When the mechanic arrived he immediately found one of the secondary fuel nozzles improperly and incompletely installed. He said raw fuel had been spraying inside the cowling and on the hot section of the engine and that he didn't know why it hadn't blown the wing off the airplane. Later, this mechanic and another who arrived with additional parts (o-rings) discovered 2 more nozzles that were spraying fuel. The mechanics informed us that work on the nozzles had been started the previous night and then discontinued because they lacked the parts (o-rings) to complete the work. The nozzles were evidently reinstalled with old o-rings, contrary to proper procedure. Management has suggested that the captain and I failed to perform a proper preflight inspection of the aircraft, citing the leaking fuel and the fuel which had sprayed onto the fuselage as items we should have seen. However, both the captain and I carefully inspected this aircraft prior to accepting it in den and found no irregularities. This was the second aircraft brought to us for this flight because we had rejected the first aircraft. Management has also suggested that we should have discovered the problem in ase prior to the attempted engine starts. The problem would not have been evident until after we had attempted to start the engine, however. Therefore, a walk-around (which was not performed in ase until after the engine failed to start) would have failed to uncover the problem. Furthermore, the fact that the captain attempted to start the engine prior to a walk-around is not significant because the propeller brake could be set on #2 and a walk- around accomplished after the start.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR MDT CREW FOUND THAT AN ENG WOULD NOT START BECAUSE OF INCOMPLETE MAINT. MGMNT IS HARASSING THE FLC FOR NOT HAVING FOUND THE DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO THE FIRST FLT.

Narrative: FLEW A SCHEDULED FLT FROM DEN TO ASE. FLT APPEARED NORMAL IN ALL RESPECTS. SHUT DOWN BOTH ENGS AFTER PARKING IN ASE. CAPT TRIED A TOTAL OF 4 TIMES TO RESTART #2 ENG WITHOUT SUCCESS. SYS CTL TOLD US TO WAIT FOR A MECH FROM DEN. THE ENG WOULD COME UP TO 45-47 PERCENT NH AND HANG. APPARENTLY THE SECONDARY FUEL NOZZLES WOULD NOT FUNCTION. WE INSPECTED THE ENG (WITHOUT OPENING IT) AND SAW LOTS OF FUEL DRAINING FROM THE ENG. WHEN THE MECH ARRIVED HE IMMEDIATELY FOUND ONE OF THE SECONDARY FUEL NOZZLES IMPROPERLY AND INCOMPLETELY INSTALLED. HE SAID RAW FUEL HAD BEEN SPRAYING INSIDE THE COWLING AND ON THE HOT SECTION OF THE ENG AND THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHY IT HADN'T BLOWN THE WING OFF THE AIRPLANE. LATER, THIS MECH AND ANOTHER WHO ARRIVED WITH ADDITIONAL PARTS (O-RINGS) DISCOVERED 2 MORE NOZZLES THAT WERE SPRAYING FUEL. THE MECHS INFORMED US THAT WORK ON THE NOZZLES HAD BEEN STARTED THE PREVIOUS NIGHT AND THEN DISCONTINUED BECAUSE THEY LACKED THE PARTS (O-RINGS) TO COMPLETE THE WORK. THE NOZZLES WERE EVIDENTLY REINSTALLED WITH OLD O-RINGS, CONTRARY TO PROPER PROC. MGMNT HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE CAPT AND I FAILED TO PERFORM A PROPER PREFLT INSPECTION OF THE ACFT, CITING THE LEAKING FUEL AND THE FUEL WHICH HAD SPRAYED ONTO THE FUSELAGE AS ITEMS WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN. HOWEVER, BOTH THE CAPT AND I CAREFULLY INSPECTED THIS ACFT PRIOR TO ACCEPTING IT IN DEN AND FOUND NO IRREGULARITIES. THIS WAS THE SECOND ACFT BROUGHT TO US FOR THIS FLT BECAUSE WE HAD REJECTED THE FIRST ACFT. MGMNT HAS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM IN ASE PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPTED ENG STARTS. THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EVIDENT UNTIL AFTER WE HAD ATTEMPTED TO START THE ENG, HOWEVER. THEREFORE, A WALK-AROUND (WHICH WAS NOT PERFORMED IN ASE UNTIL AFTER THE ENG FAILED TO START) WOULD HAVE FAILED TO UNCOVER THE PROBLEM. FURTHERMORE, THE FACT THAT THE CAPT ATTEMPTED TO START THE ENG PRIOR TO A WALK-AROUND IS NOT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THE PROP BRAKE COULD BE SET ON #2 AND A WALK- AROUND ACCOMPLISHED AFTER THE START.

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.