Narrative:

Flight xx from mhlm to kmia. B757-200F during engine start, we experienced difficulty starting the right engine. Unable to get it to rotate to starting speed we returned to the ramp. Airport conditions were VFR, en route and destination WX was forecast to be good. The airplane takeoff weight was approximately 20 tons below maximum gross weight and we carried a large load of fresh shrimp from previous stop, san salvador, bound to miami. Due to runway work and conditions, mhlm has an active NOTAM which closes the airport from XA00 to XB00 local time. These were issues pressing my actions and decisions in order to get the airplane to its destination, rather than be caught in the curfew which implied 12 plus hours on the ground with consequent loss of perishable cargo and other revenue due to cancellations of subsequent flts, as the company runs a tight and time critical schedule on each of its aircraft. Keeping communications with company's maintenance base and with the help of local qualified mechanic, we proceeded to inspect the right engine starter unit. I checked the aircraft MEL for dispatch relief and other airplane manuals, but there were no provisions regarding the starter unit. Consideration was made regarding whether the flight could be continued with an engine start unit inoperative and since the item is used mainly for the purpose of engine start on the ground and plays absolutely no role in flight I concluded that the flight could be accomplished without the issue compromising the safety of the operation. The mechanic then proceeded to exchange start units from 1 engine to the other and we successfully got both engines running normally. Granted a small extension in the curfew deadline by ATC, we managed to get the airplane back to miami. An aircraft log entry was made stating difficulty in engine start, and the item was properly addressed by maintenance at the company base by replacing the defective unit and signing off the book. An FAA inspector has questioned my logbook entry, as there was no detail of any work done on the ground at mhlm, and an investigation pending charges or penalties is in process. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states the FAA has dropped the case. His company approached both boeing and engine manufacturer both of whom stated that there was no safety aspect involved with the starter unit. FAA's main concern was the lack of documentation by the FAA qualified mechanic at san pedro sula who should have entered the work accomplished. Reporter takes blame for that since his sense of urgency was so great to avoid the curfew and possible loss of cargo. This crew had already lost a load of live chickens earlier due to temperature problems and several issues at play.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARGO 757-200 HAS STARTER PROBS. MAINT ACCOMPLISHED BUT NOT COMPLETELY ENTERED IN LOGBOOK.

Narrative: FLT XX FROM MHLM TO KMIA. B757-200F DURING ENG START, WE EXPERIENCED DIFFICULTY STARTING THE R ENG. UNABLE TO GET IT TO ROTATE TO STARTING SPD WE RETURNED TO THE RAMP. ARPT CONDITIONS WERE VFR, ENRTE AND DEST WX WAS FORECAST TO BE GOOD. THE AIRPLANE TKOF WT WAS APPROX 20 TONS BELOW MAX GROSS WT AND WE CARRIED A LARGE LOAD OF FRESH SHRIMP FROM PREVIOUS STOP, SAN SALVADOR, BOUND TO MIAMI. DUE TO RWY WORK AND CONDITIONS, MHLM HAS AN ACTIVE NOTAM WHICH CLOSES THE ARPT FROM XA00 TO XB00 LCL TIME. THESE WERE ISSUES PRESSING MY ACTIONS AND DECISIONS IN ORDER TO GET THE AIRPLANE TO ITS DEST, RATHER THAN BE CAUGHT IN THE CURFEW WHICH IMPLIED 12 PLUS HRS ON THE GND WITH CONSEQUENT LOSS OF PERISHABLE CARGO AND OTHER REVENUE DUE TO CANCELLATIONS OF SUBSEQUENT FLTS, AS THE COMPANY RUNS A TIGHT AND TIME CRITICAL SCHEDULE ON EACH OF ITS ACFT. KEEPING COMS WITH COMPANY'S MAINT BASE AND WITH THE HELP OF LCL QUALIFIED MECH, WE PROCEEDED TO INSPECT THE R ENG STARTER UNIT. I CHKED THE ACFT MEL FOR DISPATCH RELIEF AND OTHER AIRPLANE MANUALS, BUT THERE WERE NO PROVISIONS REGARDING THE STARTER UNIT. CONSIDERATION WAS MADE REGARDING WHETHER THE FLT COULD BE CONTINUED WITH AN ENG START UNIT INOP AND SINCE THE ITEM IS USED MAINLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENG START ON THE GND AND PLAYS ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE IN FLT I CONCLUDED THAT THE FLT COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT THE ISSUE COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF THE OP. THE MECH THEN PROCEEDED TO EXCHANGE START UNITS FROM 1 ENG TO THE OTHER AND WE SUCCESSFULLY GOT BOTH ENGS RUNNING NORMALLY. GRANTED A SMALL EXTENSION IN THE CURFEW DEADLINE BY ATC, WE MANAGED TO GET THE AIRPLANE BACK TO MIAMI. AN ACFT LOG ENTRY WAS MADE STATING DIFFICULTY IN ENG START, AND THE ITEM WAS PROPERLY ADDRESSED BY MAINT AT THE COMPANY BASE BY REPLACING THE DEFECTIVE UNIT AND SIGNING OFF THE BOOK. AN FAA INSPECTOR HAS QUESTIONED MY LOGBOOK ENTRY, AS THERE WAS NO DETAIL OF ANY WORK DONE ON THE GND AT MHLM, AND AN INVESTIGATION PENDING CHARGES OR PENALTIES IS IN PROCESS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THE FAA HAS DROPPED THE CASE. HIS COMPANY APCHED BOTH BOEING AND ENG MANUFACTURER BOTH OF WHOM STATED THAT THERE WAS NO SAFETY ASPECT INVOLVED WITH THE STARTER UNIT. FAA'S MAIN CONCERN WAS THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION BY THE FAA QUALIFIED MECH AT SAN PEDRO SULA WHO SHOULD HAVE ENTERED THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED. RPTR TAKES BLAME FOR THAT SINCE HIS SENSE OF URGENCY WAS SO GREAT TO AVOID THE CURFEW AND POSSIBLE LOSS OF CARGO. THIS CREW HAD ALREADY LOST A LOAD OF LIVE CHICKENS EARLIER DUE TO TEMP PROBS AND SEVERAL ISSUES AT PLAY.

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.