Narrative:

Aborted takeoff when we got the takeoff autofeather warning. During the rollout I realized the eec (electronic engine control) was deferred and can cause this warning due to slow engine spool-up. I had briefed the first officer of three other considerations/limitations that we needed to keep in mind due to the deferral, but I forgot this one. The various issues are addressed in 3 separate locations in 2 books, and this warning is not written anywhere. It would be a good idea for the abnormal section of the pilot operating handbook to include a short list of considerations for each malfunction. It may still be necessary to refer to the other pubs, but it would be a good place to start the briefing to ensure all the bases are covered. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the three flight crew considerations for operations with the eec deferred (briefed by reporter before takeoff) were: flight altitude limitations, runway analysis, and abnormal procedures. Information about the altitude limitation is found in the limitations section of the pilot operations handbook, flight above FL250 is prohibited and flight above FL200 requires both bleeds to be open. A separate runway analysis manual could contain a weight penalty depending upon the outside air temperature. The pilot operations handbook abnormal section warns the pilot not to reduce power below 20 percent during descent and to anticipate little, if any, reverse thrust during landing deceleration. The autofeather warning was not something that the captain initially thought about. This warning is part of the takeoff warning system which checks brake release, flap setting, trim, and autofeather. One of the two parameters for this system did not meet minimum requirements. The throttle reached the 62 degree angle, but the engine torque had not made 62 percent power, thus causing the autofeather warning. The autofeather warning was simply a warning that the autofeather was not armed. This captain has now listed these considerations and limitations, and marked their location in his pilot operations handbook, but feels it would be helpful to others if this information was readily available so that others did not find themselves in the same situation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN E120 CAPT RPTS THAT TKOF WAS ABORTED NEEDLESSLY, AFTER HE RECEIVED AN AUTOFEATHER WARNING. THIS WARNING WAS NOT A RESULT OF AN AUTOFEATHER SYS MALFUNCTION, BUT DUE TO SLOWER ENG ACCELERATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE TKOF WARNING SYS. RPTR COMMENTS THAT THE FLC SHOULD HAVE A BETTER RESOURCE TO REF WHAT TO EXPECT WITH A DEFERRAL. FLC RESPONSE. TKOF ABORTED.

Narrative: ABORTED TKOF WHEN WE GOT THE TKOF AUTOFEATHER WARNING. DURING THE ROLLOUT I REALIZED THE EEC (ELECTRONIC ENG CTL) WAS DEFERRED AND CAN CAUSE THIS WARNING DUE TO SLOW ENG SPOOL-UP. I HAD BRIEFED THE FO OF THREE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS/LIMITATIONS THAT WE NEEDED TO KEEP IN MIND DUE TO THE DEFERRAL, BUT I FORGOT THIS ONE. THE VARIOUS ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED IN 3 SEPARATE LOCATIONS IN 2 BOOKS, AND THIS WARNING IS NOT WRITTEN ANYWHERE. IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THE ABNORMAL SECTION OF THE PLT OPERATING HANDBOOK TO INCLUDE A SHORT LIST OF CONSIDERATIONS FOR EACH MALFUNCTION. IT MAY STILL BE NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE OTHER PUBS, BUT IT WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START THE BRIEFING TO ENSURE ALL THE BASES ARE COVERED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE THREE FLC CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPS WITH THE EEC DEFERRED (BRIEFED BY RPTR BEFORE TKOF) WERE: FLT ALT LIMITATIONS, RWY ANALYSIS, AND ABNORMAL PROCS. INFO ABOUT THE ALT LIMITATION IS FOUND IN THE LIMITATIONS SECTION OF THE PLT OPS HANDBOOK, FLT ABOVE FL250 IS PROHIBITED AND FLT ABOVE FL200 REQUIRES BOTH BLEEDS TO BE OPEN. A SEPARATE RWY ANALYSIS MANUAL COULD CONTAIN A WT PENALTY DEPENDING UPON THE OUTSIDE AIR TEMP. THE PLT OPS HANDBOOK ABNORMAL SECTION WARNS THE PLT NOT TO REDUCE PWR BELOW 20 PERCENT DURING DSCNT AND TO ANTICIPATE LITTLE, IF ANY, REVERSE THRUST DURING LNDG DECELERATION. THE AUTOFEATHER WARNING WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CAPT INITIALLY THOUGHT ABOUT. THIS WARNING IS PART OF THE TKOF WARNING SYS WHICH CHKS BRAKE RELEASE, FLAP SETTING, TRIM, AND AUTOFEATHER. ONE OF THE TWO PARAMETERS FOR THIS SYS DID NOT MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. THE THROTTLE REACHED THE 62 DEG ANGLE, BUT THE ENG TORQUE HAD NOT MADE 62 PERCENT PWR, THUS CAUSING THE AUTOFEATHER WARNING. THE AUTOFEATHER WARNING WAS SIMPLY A WARNING THAT THE AUTOFEATHER WAS NOT ARMED. THIS CAPT HAS NOW LISTED THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND LIMITATIONS, AND MARKED THEIR LOCATION IN HIS PLT OPS HANDBOOK, BUT FEELS IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO OTHERS IF THIS INFO WAS READILY AVAILABLE SO THAT OTHERS DID NOT FIND THEMSELVES IN THE SAME SIT.

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.