 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
B757-200 pilot reported rejecting two successive takeoff attempts when the captain's airspeed failed to register because of pitot blockage.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1307189 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201510 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | FO |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B757-200 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Takeoff |
| Route In Use | None |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Pitot-Static System |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 91 Flight Crew Total 12768 Flight Crew Type 743 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical |
Narrative:
This event consisted of two rejected takeoffs. Each reject was for no airspeed on the captain's side. The aircraft was well below landing gross weight in both cases. The takeoff was rejected at 80 KIAS the first time; and initiated at 80 KIAS the second time however; the aircraft was closer to 95 KIAS when the reject was in place. Both cases were non-events in my opinion due to capturing the problem early on in the takeoff; and because the airplane was at such a light weight. The rejections were both procedurally correct. At no time did I see anything that would suggest that we were not following standard procedures. The second rejected takeoff could have been avoided if maintenance had thoroughly followed the pilots' suggestions that they thoroughly check the pitot tube for obstructions; however; this was not done. The captain's airspeed indicator was changed out and some mention of the central air data computer as well; but only minimum effort was put in to checking the pitot tube. Subsequently; after minimum crew rest we went back out to fly the same airplane. We were told the pitot tube was obstructed. I would highly suggest that pitot covers be installed when the airplane is going to be sitting for any length of time.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B757-200 pilot reported rejecting two successive takeoff attempts when the Captain's airspeed failed to register because of pitot blockage.
Narrative: This event consisted of two rejected takeoffs. Each reject was for no airspeed on the Captain's side. The aircraft was well below landing gross weight in both cases. The takeoff was rejected at 80 KIAS the first time; and initiated at 80 KIAS the second time however; the aircraft was closer to 95 KIAS when the reject was in place. Both cases were non-events in my opinion due to capturing the problem early on in the takeoff; and because the airplane was at such a light weight. The rejections were both procedurally correct. At no time did I see anything that would suggest that we were not following standard procedures. The second rejected takeoff could have been avoided if maintenance had thoroughly followed the pilots' suggestions that they thoroughly check the pitot tube for obstructions; however; this was not done. The Captain's airspeed indicator was changed out and some mention of the Central Air Data Computer as well; but only minimum effort was put in to checking the pitot tube. Subsequently; after minimum crew rest we went back out to fly the same airplane. We were told the pitot tube was obstructed. I would highly suggest that pitot covers be installed when the airplane is going to be sitting for any length of time.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.