Narrative:

Problem arose by the engine inlet plug, which was made to lower standards than those issued by the aircraft manufacturer, became lodged in the aircraft's #1 engine. Thus reducing available airflow, thus reduced torque, higher itt. After 3 run-ups back at the gate, the mechanic discovered the plug and was disgusted to see that it was one of the (home made) design. (Soft foam rubber with diamond plate rubber flooring material glued to it.) the plugs do not fit properly into the cowl inlet and have frequently caused problems with many co-workers and myself to properly seat them into the cowl. To cover the total event, myself and my first officer found the aircraft in syracuse clean of any precipitation (wet or frozen). The ramp area was also clean. The aircraft was preflted by both myself and the first officer. We noticed approaching the aircraft that the #1 plug was not installed and the #2 plug was laying on the ground. Our manual states that, if contamination or a sign of contamination is present, or appeared to have been present, an inspection of the inlet area must be done from an elevated position into the inlet area. Since there had been no precipitation and the aircraft and surrounding area was clean a normal walkaround was completed. Visual inspection of the inlets from the ground at about 10-15 ft from the inlet area gave no signs of this inlet laying within the nacelle area. We proceeded to start the aircraft and continue with our flight to lga. The run-up was completed normally with no indication of performance reduction. Both engines were at normal and close parameters on takeoff. After passing V1 vr a noticeable power reduction was apparent with the #1 engine. We attempted to restore power, however we were only able to produce 75 percent torque with the itt reaching its maximum limits. We continued to pattern altitude or approximately 3000 ft MSL and made left traffic back for landing without further problems. It is my belief that this would never have occurred if the plugs were of the design made by dehaviland. Also, if all plugs were to have securing straps as to secure them to the propeller tie or a tie-down point as not to have the chance of having the plug fall into the intake and out of sight completely. I believe safety is the primary concern when dealing with anything especially aircraft and I don't think that some sort of home made product when used in conjunction with a 10 million dollar aircraft along with fact that a human life is priceless.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN MDT RETURNED TO LAND AFTER 1 ENG LOST PWR AND REACHED A HIGH TEMP.

Narrative: PROB AROSE BY THE ENG INLET PLUG, WHICH WAS MADE TO LOWER STANDARDS THAN THOSE ISSUED BY THE ACFT MANUFACTURER, BECAME LODGED IN THE ACFT'S #1 ENG. THUS REDUCING AVAILABLE AIRFLOW, THUS REDUCED TORQUE, HIGHER ITT. AFTER 3 RUN-UPS BACK AT THE GATE, THE MECH DISCOVERED THE PLUG AND WAS DISGUSTED TO SEE THAT IT WAS ONE OF THE (HOME MADE) DESIGN. (SOFT FOAM RUBBER WITH DIAMOND PLATE RUBBER FLOORING MATERIAL GLUED TO IT.) THE PLUGS DO NOT FIT PROPERLY INTO THE COWL INLET AND HAVE FREQUENTLY CAUSED PROBS WITH MANY CO-WORKERS AND MYSELF TO PROPERLY SEAT THEM INTO THE COWL. TO COVER THE TOTAL EVENT, MYSELF AND MY FO FOUND THE ACFT IN SYRACUSE CLEAN OF ANY PRECIPITATION (WET OR FROZEN). THE RAMP AREA WAS ALSO CLEAN. THE ACFT WAS PREFLTED BY BOTH MYSELF AND THE FO. WE NOTICED APCHING THE ACFT THAT THE #1 PLUG WAS NOT INSTALLED AND THE #2 PLUG WAS LAYING ON THE GND. OUR MANUAL STATES THAT, IF CONTAMINATION OR A SIGN OF CONTAMINATION IS PRESENT, OR APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN PRESENT, AN INSPECTION OF THE INLET AREA MUST BE DONE FROM AN ELEVATED POS INTO THE INLET AREA. SINCE THERE HAD BEEN NO PRECIPITATION AND THE ACFT AND SURROUNDING AREA WAS CLEAN A NORMAL WALKAROUND WAS COMPLETED. VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE INLETS FROM THE GND AT ABOUT 10-15 FT FROM THE INLET AREA GAVE NO SIGNS OF THIS INLET LAYING WITHIN THE NACELLE AREA. WE PROCEEDED TO START THE ACFT AND CONTINUE WITH OUR FLT TO LGA. THE RUN-UP WAS COMPLETED NORMALLY WITH NO INDICATION OF PERFORMANCE REDUCTION. BOTH ENGS WERE AT NORMAL AND CLOSE PARAMETERS ON TKOF. AFTER PASSING V1 VR A NOTICEABLE PWR REDUCTION WAS APPARENT WITH THE #1 ENG. WE ATTEMPTED TO RESTORE PWR, HOWEVER WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO PRODUCE 75 PERCENT TORQUE WITH THE ITT REACHING ITS MAX LIMITS. WE CONTINUED TO PATTERN ALT OR APPROX 3000 FT MSL AND MADE L TFC BACK FOR LNDG WITHOUT FURTHER PROBS. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED IF THE PLUGS WERE OF THE DESIGN MADE BY DEHAVILAND. ALSO, IF ALL PLUGS WERE TO HAVE SECURING STRAPS AS TO SECURE THEM TO THE PROP TIE OR A TIE-DOWN POINT AS NOT TO HAVE THE CHANCE OF HAVING THE PLUG FALL INTO THE INTAKE AND OUT OF SIGHT COMPLETELY. I BELIEVE SAFETY IS THE PRIMARY CONCERN WHEN DEALING WITH ANYTHING ESPECIALLY ACFT AND I DON'T THINK THAT SOME SORT OF HOME MADE PRODUCT WHEN USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 10 MILLION DOLLAR ACFT ALONG WITH FACT THAT A HUMAN LIFE IS PRICELESS.

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.