AN ATR72 EXPERIENCED A CATASTROPHIC ENG FAILURE AND FIRE INDICATION ON TKOF. EMER DECLARED; FIRE EXTINGUISHED; AND FLT RETURNED TO LAND. THE FAILED ENG'S COMPONENTS WERE NOT PROPERLY INSPECTED PRIOR TO REINSTALLATION.

Narrative

ON FLT; DURING INITIAL CLBOUT; A LOUD BANG WAS EXPERIENCED ABOUT 2000 FT MSL. THE FO AND MYSELF NOTICED THE #2 ENG INSTS WAS ROLLING BACK BEFORE THE ENG SHUTDOWN PROC COULD BE EXECUTED WE EXPERIENCED A FIRE WARNING ON THE #2 ENG. ABOUT 3 SECONDS AFTER INDICATION; THE FLT ATTENDANT CALLED TO INFORM US OF SMOKE AND FUMES IN THE CABIN; WE PROCEEDED WITH THE EMER SHUTDOWN PROC AND FIRED THE #2 BOTTLE; FIRE LIGHT EXTINGUISHED. WE HAD ALREADY DECLARED AN EMER AND WERE ON VECTORS BACK TO ZZZZ. WE RAN THE EMER AND SINGLE ENG OP CHKLIST; CONTACTED THE FLT ATTENDANTS. I DID A BRIEF PA AND CONTACTED OPS; INFORMED THEM OF THE SITUATION AND RETURNED TO ZZZZ. AFTER VISUAL INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND NO INDICATION OF SMOKE OR FIRE WAS NOTED; WE TAXIED ACFT TO THE GATE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 698355: EMER LNDG AT ZZZZ ARPT. AFTER HEARING A LOUD BANG COMING FROM THE R ENG AND SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF PWR; ENG WAS SHUT DOWN AND EMER PROCS FOLLOWED. ALSO; THE R ENG T-HANDLE WAS PULLED AND THE FIRE EXTINGUISHING AGENT RELEASED; THE FIRE LIGHT WAS EXTINGUISHED. AN ENG CHANGE HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THIS INCIDENT. BUT THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT WANTS TO REUSE THE OLD COMPONENTS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT AT ANY COST; BYPASSING COMPANY GUIDELINES AND FARS. THE DIRECTOR WAS UPSET THAT THESE PROCS WERE QUESTIONED; AND THIS DELAYED THE ACFT MAINT DUE HE IS UNDER PRESSURE BY VICE PRESIDENT OF MAINT TO PRODUCE ACFT AT ALL COSTS. THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT INDICATED THAT THIS [ENG FAILURE] WAS NOTHING. HE WANTED PARTS PULLED FROM ENG. DAMAGED COMPONENTS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NEW ENG -- FAST DUE TO CHARTER FLTS. HE IS UNDER PRESSURE BY THE VICE PRESIDENT AND AT ALL COST; THE GPM GUIDELINES WOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THIS INSTANCE. BECAUSE I QUESTIONED THE PROC TO ENSURE COMPONENTS FOLLOW GPM GUIDELINES; AND ENSURE THEY ARE SVCABLE; I WAS TOLD I WOULD BE FIRED; AS INSTRUCTED TO HIM BY THE VICE PRESIDENT; BECAUSE HE IS HERE ON A MISSION TO CHANGE THIS; AND HE IS THE BOSS. MY JOB IS TO ENSURE THE COMPANY; AND THE PAX SAFETY IS FIRST; REGARDLESS OF ANY INTIMIDATION BY THESE 2 MGRS; DIRECTOR OF MAINT; AND VICE PRESIDENT OF MAINT. THE REASONS FOR THESE ACTIONS ARE HAVING NO CANCELLATIONS AND ECONOMICS OF THE COMPANY; WITHOUT TAKING SAFETY IN CONSIDERATION. I UNDERSTAND THE PRESSURE IS ON; STILL SAFETY IS THE UTMOST. IN ORDER TO PREVENT RECURRENCE A MEETING OF ALL THE MINDS SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE; IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS INCIDENT AND SPECIFICS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO ALL SHIFTS AFFECTED BY THIS INCIDENT. THE INFO PROVIDED SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED IF THE COMPONENTS AFFECTED BY THIS BLOWN ENG SHOULD HAVE BEEN REUSED OR PLACED IN A QUARANTINED ENVIRONMENT WITH CTLS SUCH AS LOCKS UNTIL A SPECIFIC DISPOSITION FOR THESE COMPONENTS WERE DECIDED ON. BUT ARGUABLY; IN THIS CASE THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT ABUSED HIS AUTH AND EXPECTED ALL AFFECTED PARTIES TO DEVIATE FROM ALL PUBLISHED COMPANY MANUALS IN ORDER TO GAIN AN ECONOMIC RETURN FOR THE COMPANY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HIS ACR DID IN FACT DIRECT THE REMOVAL OF 26 OF THE FAILED ENG'S COMPONENTS AND REINSTALLED THEM ON OTHER ENGS. A VISUAL INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED BUT THE PROCS FOR EITHER AN ENG FAILURE OF FIRE WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. RPTR IS CONCERNED ABOUT A REDUCED SERVICE LIFE ON THE FAILED ENG'S REMOVED COMPONENTS.