Narrative:

I have a concern with the replacement of a power quadrant on may/xa/01 in ZZZ. I was assigned flight zza to ZZZ. During the first flight of the day, I ran the test and it failed on the #2 engine. When the test failed, I shut down the #2 engine. I contacted maintenance in zza and explained what had happened during the test, under the direction of maintenance in zza. I ws told to restart #2 engine and try to test again. I did what was explained to me and the test was successful. I contacted maintenance in zza and told them the test was successful and I did not have a write-up. Maintenance in zza said 'ok, you are good to go' and I did not have a problem with that. I flew the aircraft to ZZZ. When I reached ZZZ, I contacted maintenance in ZZZ with 1 write-up. The write-up was the radar stabilization was inoperative. Maintenance said avionics would be right over to talk to me. When I climbed out of the aircraft, I met maintenance and they said they were 'here to replace the power quadrant.' I asked them why, because I did not have a write-up that would justify putting in a new power quadrant. After talking with the mechanics, they told me this aircraft had a history of failed tests and they think this was the cause of the problem. I was in total disbelief and immediately went to talk to the maintenance supervisor on duty in ZZZ. He explained to me that anytime there is a problem with an engine, it has to be discussed with engineering. After I left zza, there was an e-mail sent to ZZZ maintenance from engineering stating 'we recommend for economic reasons we replace the power quadrant in aircraft.' it is more cost effective to replace a power quadrant than having to replace an engine because of a recurring failed test which could destroy an engine. The maintenance supervisor explain to me that I did everything the way I should have and that they were just following a recommendation from engineering. I then contacted the chief pilot in zzb. The question I ask myself is, 'why was I even given this aircraft to fly if it had a history of failed tests?' I do not know the complete history of the aircraft. As far as I'm concerned, I did the test the second time after talking to maintenance and it passed. The test did what it was supposed to do. I believe someone knew about this problem and should have fixed the problem before putting it out on line. I believe maintenance should be accountable for this problem. Maintenance gave me bad advice about the problem. If I would have known more that this was a recurring problem, I would have written up the problem and would not have flown to ZZZ.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SF340 PIC TAKES EXCEPTION TO HIS AIRLINE'S MAINT POLICY PROC IN CHANGING AN APPARENTLY OPERATIVE PWR QUADRANT UPON ARR AT ZZZ, US.

Narrative: I HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF A PWR QUADRANT ON MAY/XA/01 IN ZZZ. I WAS ASSIGNED FLT ZZA TO ZZZ. DURING THE FIRST FLT OF THE DAY, I RAN THE TEST AND IT FAILED ON THE #2 ENG. WHEN THE TEST FAILED, I SHUT DOWN THE #2 ENG. I CONTACTED MAINT IN ZZA AND EXPLAINED WHAT HAD HAPPENED DURING THE TEST, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MAINT IN ZZA. I WS TOLD TO RESTART #2 ENG AND TRY TO TEST AGAIN. I DID WHAT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME AND THE TEST WAS SUCCESSFUL. I CONTACTED MAINT IN ZZA AND TOLD THEM THE TEST WAS SUCCESSFUL AND I DID NOT HAVE A WRITE-UP. MAINT IN ZZA SAID 'OK, YOU ARE GOOD TO GO' AND I DID NOT HAVE A PROB WITH THAT. I FLEW THE ACFT TO ZZZ. WHEN I REACHED ZZZ, I CONTACTED MAINT IN ZZZ WITH 1 WRITE-UP. THE WRITE-UP WAS THE RADAR STABILIZATION WAS INOP. MAINT SAID AVIONICS WOULD BE RIGHT OVER TO TALK TO ME. WHEN I CLBED OUT OF THE ACFT, I MET MAINT AND THEY SAID THEY WERE 'HERE TO REPLACE THE PWR QUADRANT.' I ASKED THEM WHY, BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE A WRITE-UP THAT WOULD JUSTIFY PUTTING IN A NEW PWR QUADRANT. AFTER TALKING WITH THE MECHS, THEY TOLD ME THIS ACFT HAD A HISTORY OF FAILED TESTS AND THEY THINK THIS WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PROB. I WAS IN TOTAL DISBELIEF AND IMMEDIATELY WENT TO TALK TO THE MAINT SUPVR ON DUTY IN ZZZ. HE EXPLAINED TO ME THAT ANYTIME THERE IS A PROB WITH AN ENG, IT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH ENGINEERING. AFTER I LEFT ZZA, THERE WAS AN E-MAIL SENT TO ZZZ MAINT FROM ENGINEERING STATING 'WE RECOMMEND FOR ECONOMIC REASONS WE REPLACE THE PWR QUADRANT IN ACFT.' IT IS MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO REPLACE A PWR QUADRANT THAN HAVING TO REPLACE AN ENG BECAUSE OF A RECURRING FAILED TEST WHICH COULD DESTROY AN ENG. THE MAINT SUPVR EXPLAIN TO ME THAT I DID EVERYTHING THE WAY I SHOULD HAVE AND THAT THEY WERE JUST FOLLOWING A RECOMMENDATION FROM ENGINEERING. I THEN CONTACTED THE CHIEF PLT IN ZZB. THE QUESTION I ASK MYSELF IS, 'WHY WAS I EVEN GIVEN THIS ACFT TO FLY IF IT HAD A HISTORY OF FAILED TESTS?' I DO NOT KNOW THE COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE ACFT. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I DID THE TEST THE SECOND TIME AFTER TALKING TO MAINT AND IT PASSED. THE TEST DID WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. I BELIEVE SOMEONE KNEW ABOUT THIS PROB AND SHOULD HAVE FIXED THE PROB BEFORE PUTTING IT OUT ON LINE. I BELIEVE MAINT SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS PROB. MAINT GAVE ME BAD ADVICE ABOUT THE PROB. IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN MORE THAT THIS WAS A RECURRING PROB, I WOULD HAVE WRITTEN UP THE PROB AND WOULD NOT HAVE FLOWN TO ZZZ.

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.