Narrative:

During a flight of a DA20 aircraft under an experimental type certificate for rvsm testing and proving. The flight crew was at FL375 (ATC clearance of FL370 block FL390) cruising and doing a 15 min altitude hold. The left engine failed. The crew declared an emergency and requested lower with ZMP and was cleared to FL240. The engine was relit at FL290, all engine parameters were normal. The crew discussed the failure and decided since the aircraft was certificated under the experimental certificate and was above the altitude that the company flies at, we opted to climb to a lower altitude and continue testing. After landing and debriefing, the crew investigated the experimental certification and now feels that we should have terminated testing and returned to the airport. Contributing factors to this were the flight crew's unfamiliarity with aircraft in the experimental category. We feel that a corrective action to this would be to treat the flying of experimental aircraft the same as we would a 135 or part 91 aircraft. Another possible solution would be for the crew to do a preflight-non routine flight operations briefing and thoroughly discuss the problems that might arise and what our solution or course of action would be. After bringing the aircraft to the airport, maintenance discovered some foreign object damage to some stators and a couple of compressor blades. They also discovered some remnants of a bird.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FA20 CREW HAD AN ENG FAILURE AT FL375. THE ENG WAS RELIT AT FL290. THE CREW IGNORED THE ENG FAILURE AND CONTINUED THE TEST FLT.

Narrative: DURING A FLT OF A DA20 ACFT UNDER AN EXPERIMENTAL TYPE CERTIFICATE FOR RVSM TESTING AND PROVING. THE FLT CREW WAS AT FL375 (ATC CLRNC OF FL370 BLOCK FL390) CRUISING AND DOING A 15 MIN ALT HOLD. THE L ENG FAILED. THE CREW DECLARED AN EMER AND REQUESTED LOWER WITH ZMP AND WAS CLRED TO FL240. THE ENG WAS RELIT AT FL290, ALL ENG PARAMETERS WERE NORMAL. THE CREW DISCUSSED THE FAILURE AND DECIDED SINCE THE ACFT WAS CERTIFICATED UNDER THE EXPERIMENTAL CERTIFICATE AND WAS ABOVE THE ALT THAT THE COMPANY FLIES AT, WE OPTED TO CLB TO A LOWER ALT AND CONTINUE TESTING. AFTER LNDG AND DEBRIEFING, THE CREW INVESTIGATED THE EXPERIMENTAL CERTIFICATION AND NOW FEELS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE TERMINATED TESTING AND RETURNED TO THE ARPT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS WERE THE FLT CREW'S UNFAMILIARITY WITH ACFT IN THE EXPERIMENTAL CATEGORY. WE FEEL THAT A CORRECTIVE ACTION TO THIS WOULD BE TO TREAT THE FLYING OF EXPERIMENTAL ACFT THE SAME AS WE WOULD A 135 OR PART 91 ACFT. ANOTHER POSSIBLE SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR THE CREW TO DO A PREFLT-NON ROUTINE FLT OPS BRIEFING AND THOROUGHLY DISCUSS THE PROBS THAT MIGHT ARISE AND WHAT OUR SOLUTION OR COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE. AFTER BRINGING THE ACFT TO THE ARPT, MAINT DISCOVERED SOME FOREIGN OBJECT DAMAGE TO SOME STATORS AND A COUPLE OF COMPRESSOR BLADES. THEY ALSO DISCOVERED SOME REMNANTS OF A BIRD.

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.