Narrative:

Problem: captain's lack of airspeed indications without any warnings or failure indications. Rejected takeoff low speed. Same event different WX conditions. Same crew as on flight before minus the 'a' flight attendant. Lack of airspeed indication on captain's airspeed indicator during takeoff roll. Rejected takeoff around 80 KTS. Returned to the gate. Captain executed the reject; first officer handled ATC; flight attendants; company communication. I don't know what to say. Never have I; nor the rest of my crew; experienced 1 air abort and 2 rejected takeoffs; inside of a 24 hour period; with the same aircraft. But I feel that this one was completely avoidable if maintenance had done due diligence in troubleshooting the entire pitot/static system the first time around. This time when we met maintenance at the gate; the mechanic on duty said that they had found evidence of a wasp nest in one of the probes. It was still night conditions when they made this determination using a flashlight! I challenged the mechanic that a logbook signoff had indicated that a functional check on the system that included the replacement of an air data computer had been made that indicated to me that the system was now airworthy and working. I also challenged the mechanic as to why the most obvious places to check for a blockage; ie; static ports and pitot probes were not inspected as they should have been by the previous maintenance crew; particularly since after the first rejected takeoff; a mechanic mentioned that the most probable cause was a blockage caused by a lack of water unable to drain out. The excuses I received were that a functional check may or may not determine a blockage and that the maintenance team were a 'little thin;' referring to the number of maintenance personnel available per shift assigned.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS A321 FLIGHT CREW EXPERIENCED ONE AIR TURN BACK AND TWO REJECTED TAKEOFFS WITH THE SAME ACFT WITHIN A 24-HOUR PERIOD.

Narrative: PROB: CAPT'S LACK OF AIRSPD INDICATIONS WITHOUT ANY WARNINGS OR FAILURE INDICATIONS. REJECTED TKOF LOW SPD. SAME EVENT DIFFERENT WX CONDITIONS. SAME CREW AS ON FLT BEFORE MINUS THE 'A' FLT ATTENDANT. LACK OF AIRSPD INDICATION ON CAPT'S AIRSPD INDICATOR DURING TKOF ROLL. REJECTED TKOF AROUND 80 KTS. RETURNED TO THE GATE. CAPT EXECUTED THE REJECT; FO HANDLED ATC; FLT ATTENDANTS; COMPANY COM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY. NEVER HAVE I; NOR THE REST OF MY CREW; EXPERIENCED 1 AIR ABORT AND 2 REJECTED TKOFS; INSIDE OF A 24 HR PERIOD; WITH THE SAME ACFT. BUT I FEEL THAT THIS ONE WAS COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE IF MAINT HAD DONE DUE DILIGENCE IN TROUBLESHOOTING THE ENTIRE PITOT/STATIC SYS THE FIRST TIME AROUND. THIS TIME WHEN WE MET MAINT AT THE GATE; THE MECH ON DUTY SAID THAT THEY HAD FOUND EVIDENCE OF A WASP NEST IN ONE OF THE PROBES. IT WAS STILL NIGHT CONDITIONS WHEN THEY MADE THIS DETERMINATION USING A FLASHLIGHT! I CHALLENGED THE MECH THAT A LOGBOOK SIGNOFF HAD INDICATED THAT A FUNCTIONAL CHK ON THE SYS THAT INCLUDED THE REPLACEMENT OF AN AIR DATA COMPUTER HAD BEEN MADE THAT INDICATED TO ME THAT THE SYS WAS NOW AIRWORTHY AND WORKING. I ALSO CHALLENGED THE MECH AS TO WHY THE MOST OBVIOUS PLACES TO CHK FOR A BLOCKAGE; IE; STATIC PORTS AND PITOT PROBES WERE NOT INSPECTED AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY THE PREVIOUS MAINT CREW; PARTICULARLY SINCE AFTER THE FIRST REJECTED TKOF; A MECH MENTIONED THAT THE MOST PROBABLE CAUSE WAS A BLOCKAGE CAUSED BY A LACK OF WATER UNABLE TO DRAIN OUT. THE EXCUSES I RECEIVED WERE THAT A FUNCTIONAL CHK MAY OR MAY NOT DETERMINE A BLOCKAGE AND THAT THE MAINT TEAM WERE A 'LITTLE THIN;' REFERRING TO THE NUMBER OF MAINT PERSONNEL AVAILABLE PER SHIFT ASSIGNED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.