Narrative:

Flight was from elp-lrd (far 91)-mem-22G (with cargo, far 135)-yip (far 91). During first 2 takeoff's (with relatively high outside air temperatures (oats)), #2 engine was observed to reach 740 degrees F (maximum egt), slightly prior predicted takeoff EPR (approximately 0.01-0.02 prior), but well above what would have been allowed for reduced EPR, under DA20 aircraft manual procedures. A few seconds into takeoff roll (maybe 20-30 KTS), EPR was equal to predicted takeoff EPR. Past experience with this company's engines (G.east.C.F.-700-2-20's) and this company's policies, led me to conclude that this was acceptable. At mem and 22G, in lower oats, #2 engine reached predicted EPR without approaching 740 degree F egt. By the time we reached yip, I had been awake for 21 1/2 hours. (Trip started after I had been awake and 'on-call' for several hours, and there was a 7 hour freight delay at lrd). I wanted to advise our engine shop that #2 engine was getting close to being a problem, although I didn't consider it 'unsatisfactory' at this time. The logbook seemed the logical place to write this stuff, including altitudes, temperatures and location. However, my write-up wasn't precise enough, and it impressed all readers as a case of an unsafe engine, being flown for 4 flts. Recently, our far 135 certificate was joined with our sister company's far 121 certificate. I've been informed that, even though we're still under far 135, we aren't allowed to do reduced EPR takeoffs, because our new operation specifications don't specifically allow doing so. (I was under the impression that we could do anything in the aircraft manual, not specifically prohibited by operation specifications or FARS). Maintenance and a test flight confirmed that the #2 engine is running within acceptable parameters. However, my company is still ranting and raving at me, about impending doom: large fines from the FAA and god-knows- what else. I ran a good, safe trip, including delivery of a 5000 pound freight load into a less-than-5000 ft runway, at night, at my company's behest. I feel that everything that can possibly go wrong is 'the PIC's fault' and the FAA is part of the problem -- not part of the solution!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A DA20 USED REDUCED ENG PRESSURE RATIO (EPR) DURING TKOF ROLL IN ORDER TO NOT EXCEED THE MAX ALLOWABLE EXHAUST GAS TEMP (EGT) CAUSED BY HIGHER THAN NORMAL OUTSIDE TEMPS.

Narrative: FLT WAS FROM ELP-LRD (FAR 91)-MEM-22G (WITH CARGO, FAR 135)-YIP (FAR 91). DURING FIRST 2 TKOF'S (WITH RELATIVELY HIGH OUTSIDE AIR TEMPS (OATS)), #2 ENG WAS OBSERVED TO REACH 740 DEGS F (MAX EGT), SLIGHTLY PRIOR PREDICTED TKOF EPR (APPROX 0.01-0.02 PRIOR), BUT WELL ABOVE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR REDUCED EPR, UNDER DA20 ACFT MANUAL PROCS. A FEW SECONDS INTO TKOF ROLL (MAYBE 20-30 KTS), EPR WAS EQUAL TO PREDICTED TKOF EPR. PAST EXPERIENCE WITH THIS COMPANY'S ENGS (G.E.C.F.-700-2-20'S) AND THIS COMPANY'S POLICIES, LED ME TO CONCLUDE THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE. AT MEM AND 22G, IN LOWER OATS, #2 ENG REACHED PREDICTED EPR WITHOUT APCHING 740 DEG F EGT. BY THE TIME WE REACHED YIP, I HAD BEEN AWAKE FOR 21 1/2 HRS. (TRIP STARTED AFTER I HAD BEEN AWAKE AND 'ON-CALL' FOR SEVERAL HRS, AND THERE WAS A 7 HR FREIGHT DELAY AT LRD). I WANTED TO ADVISE OUR ENG SHOP THAT #2 ENG WAS GETTING CLOSE TO BEING A PROB, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T CONSIDER IT 'UNSATISFACTORY' AT THIS TIME. THE LOGBOOK SEEMED THE LOGICAL PLACE TO WRITE THIS STUFF, INCLUDING ALTS, TEMPS AND LOCATION. HOWEVER, MY WRITE-UP WASN'T PRECISE ENOUGH, AND IT IMPRESSED ALL READERS AS A CASE OF AN UNSAFE ENG, BEING FLOWN FOR 4 FLTS. RECENTLY, OUR FAR 135 CERTIFICATE WAS JOINED WITH OUR SISTER COMPANY'S FAR 121 CERTIFICATE. I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE STILL UNDER FAR 135, WE AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO REDUCED EPR TKOFS, BECAUSE OUR NEW OP SPECS DON'T SPECIFICALLY ALLOW DOING SO. (I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE COULD DO ANYTHING IN THE ACFT MANUAL, NOT SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY OP SPECS OR FARS). MAINT AND A TEST FLT CONFIRMED THAT THE #2 ENG IS RUNNING WITHIN ACCEPTABLE PARAMETERS. HOWEVER, MY COMPANY IS STILL RANTING AND RAVING AT ME, ABOUT IMPENDING DOOM: LARGE FINES FROM THE FAA AND GOD-KNOWS- WHAT ELSE. I RAN A GOOD, SAFE TRIP, INCLUDING DELIVERY OF A 5000 LB FREIGHT LOAD INTO A LESS-THAN-5000 FT RWY, AT NIGHT, AT MY COMPANY'S BEHEST. I FEEL THAT EVERYTHING THAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG IS 'THE PIC'S FAULT' AND THE FAA IS PART OF THE PROB -- NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION!

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.