 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A first officer and captain report noticing during takeoff and other phases of flight; the EPR and minimum N-1 displayed values at all times to be slightly less than what would normally be expected and less than the numbers published in their quick reference handbook (QRH). The md-83 thrust rating panel (trp) indicated -217 engines were installed; not the expected -219 series engines.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 878707 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201003 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | MD-83 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Takeoff |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 240 Flight Crew Total 6000 Flight Crew Type 1500 |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 240 Flight Crew Total 10000 Flight Crew Type 3500 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
Problem first noticed on preflight. We fly so many different equipment variations and types that it is difficult to keep things straight. On preflight; the captain verbalized to me that the thrust rating panel (trp) tested properly for a -217 MD80 engine; rather than a -219 (and EPR limit value of 2.04 vs. 2.08 during the test). His conclusion was that this MD80 must have the -217 engine. During the subsequent takeoff roll on a short wet runway; I noticed the EPR limit value was slightly low and the N1 value for one engine was slightly below the prescribed minimum value for the takeoff. I made a quick decision that if I were to verbalize what I saw; in the time it took for us to make a decision about the slightly low thrust values; we would have already accelerated through the minimum speed we had established for a rejected takeoff (rejected takeoff); during my takeoff briefing. Additionally; the runway was very wet; making a rejected takeoff additionally hazardous. The takeoff was made normally and at an appropriate time during the climb; I asked the captain if he had noticed the low N1 and EPR values that I had seen during the takeoff. He then remembered what he had said about the trp test. The captain then recalled where to check the engine type for the aircraft in the FMS computer. We could then see that the actual engines equipped should be the -219s. For the remainder of the flight; we monitored the EPR limit value being displayed and compared it to values published in the quick reference handbook (QRH) for the appropriate phase of flight. We found the displayed values at all times to be slightly less than what would normally be expected and less than the numbers published in the QRH. After arrival in ZZZ; the captain called company maintenance to question the problem and had the trp deferred. It was his opinion that the incorrect thrust rating panel had been installed on the aircraft.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A First Officer and Captain report noticing during Takeoff and other phases of flight; the EPR and Minimum N-1 displayed values at all times to be slightly less than what would normally be expected and less than the numbers published in their Quick Reference Handbook (QRH). The MD-83 Thrust Rating Panel (TRP) indicated -217 engines were installed; not the expected -219 series engines.
Narrative: Problem first noticed on preflight. We fly so many different equipment variations and types that it is difficult to keep things straight. On preflight; the Captain verbalized to me that the Thrust Rating Panel (TRP) tested properly for a -217 MD80 engine; rather than a -219 (and EPR Limit value of 2.04 vs. 2.08 during the test). His conclusion was that this MD80 must have the -217 engine. During the subsequent Takeoff roll on a short wet runway; I noticed the EPR Limit value was slightly low and the N1 value for one engine was slightly below the prescribed minimum value for the takeoff. I made a quick decision that if I were to verbalize what I saw; in the time it took for us to make a decision about the slightly low thrust values; we would have already accelerated through the minimum speed we had established for a Rejected Takeoff (RTO); during my takeoff briefing. Additionally; the runway was very wet; making a Rejected Takeoff additionally hazardous. The Takeoff was made normally and at an appropriate time during the climb; I asked the Captain if he had noticed the low N1 and EPR values that I had seen during the Takeoff. He then remembered what he had said about the TRP test. The Captain then recalled where to check the engine type for the aircraft in the FMS Computer. We could then see that the actual engines equipped should be the -219s. For the remainder of the flight; we monitored the EPR Limit value being displayed and compared it to values published in the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) for the appropriate phase of flight. We found the displayed values at all times to be slightly less than what would normally be expected and less than the numbers published in the QRH. After arrival in ZZZ; the Captain called company Maintenance to question the problem and had the TRP deferred. It was his opinion that the incorrect Thrust Rating Panel had been installed on the aircraft.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.