Narrative:

During descent for a visual approach, the engines were brought to flight idle, and at this time the right engine flamed out. All indications were within normal parameters so a starter- assist air start was initiated and was successful. We landed without incident. The PIC decided, after discussing it with maintenance, that the trip should continue and the plane brought back to home base for troubleshooting and repairs. The rest of the trip continued without incident. I felt however that the plane should have been grounded after the flameout, and furthermore, should not have been relit in the air. Both decisions were made by the PIC without my input. I feel that this occurrence was a prelude to a possible future accident, and in hindsight, felt I should have taken more direct action in the grounding of the aircraft immediately. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states he was flying an MU300. They were on final approach and stabilized and very light and he saw no reason to create a distraction by trying a relight on the failed engine. He feels the captain did a good job but he would not have chosen to follow that procedure. A good amount of troubleshooting occurred once on the ground. They could not duplicate the flameout incident. That is when it was decided to continue on with the short flight to home base. Reporter said he would have felt better if they had found a problem but was fairly comfortable continuing. After much inspection the maintenance personnel replaced a fuel control unit as the only thing they could think of as being a problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MU300 FLC HAS A FLAMEOUT ON APCH. CAPT ELECTS TO RESTART FOR A SUCCESSFUL LNDG. UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE CONDITIONS ON THE GND.

Narrative: DURING DSCNT FOR A VISUAL APCH, THE ENGS WERE BROUGHT TO FLT IDLE, AND AT THIS TIME THE R ENG FLAMED OUT. ALL INDICATIONS WERE WITHIN NORMAL PARAMETERS SO A STARTER- ASSIST AIR START WAS INITIATED AND WAS SUCCESSFUL. WE LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE PIC DECIDED, AFTER DISCUSSING IT WITH MAINT, THAT THE TRIP SHOULD CONTINUE AND THE PLANE BROUGHT BACK TO HOME BASE FOR TROUBLESHOOTING AND REPAIRS. THE REST OF THE TRIP CONTINUED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I FELT HOWEVER THAT THE PLANE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GROUNDED AFTER THE FLAMEOUT, AND FURTHERMORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RELIT IN THE AIR. BOTH DECISIONS WERE MADE BY THE PIC WITHOUT MY INPUT. I FEEL THAT THIS OCCURRENCE WAS A PRELUDE TO A POSSIBLE FUTURE ACCIDENT, AND IN HINDSIGHT, FELT I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN MORE DIRECT ACTION IN THE GROUNDING OF THE ACFT IMMEDIATELY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HE WAS FLYING AN MU300. THEY WERE ON FINAL APCH AND STABILIZED AND VERY LIGHT AND HE SAW NO REASON TO CREATE A DISTR BY TRYING A RELIGHT ON THE FAILED ENG. HE FEELS THE CAPT DID A GOOD JOB BUT HE WOULD NOT HAVE CHOSEN TO FOLLOW THAT PROC. A GOOD AMOUNT OF TROUBLESHOOTING OCCURRED ONCE ON THE GND. THEY COULD NOT DUPLICATE THE FLAMEOUT INCIDENT. THAT IS WHEN IT WAS DECIDED TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE SHORT FLT TO HOME BASE. RPTR SAID HE WOULD HAVE FELT BETTER IF THEY HAD FOUND A PROB BUT WAS FAIRLY COMFORTABLE CONTINUING. AFTER MUCH INSPECTION THE MAINT PERSONNEL REPLACED A FUEL CTL UNIT AS THE ONLY THING THEY COULD THINK OF AS BEING A PROB.

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.