37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1010299 |
Time | |
Date | 201205 |
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 | SF 340B |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Takeoff |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning |
Person 1 | |
Function | Pilot Not Flying Captain |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Person 2 | |
Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
Qualification | Flight Crew Commercial |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Maintenance |
Narrative:
We had a tail pipe hot warning on takeoff and we executed a rejected takeoff with very little braking and exited the runway. I contacted dispatch and gave them all the relevant information and they transferred me to maintenance control. I explained to them what happened and that I knew that with moderate rain a tail pipe hot can be a false positive. They agreed and asked me how long the light (tail pipe hot) was on. I told them it was on for about five seconds. They told me that I could make another takeoff attempt. I asked them if there was anything else I needed to do before departing; and they said no. So we departed and flew to destination without incident. When we landed; dispatch called me and transferred me to maintenance control. I was told by them that there was an airworthiness directive for the tail pipe hot warning that we had and that the plane could not go anywhere until maintenance looked at it. So I wrote up what happened in the aircraft logbook. This event occurred because there was a tail pipe hot warning during takeoff; and we followed standard operating procedures by aborting the takeoff. We were told by maintenance control that it was ok to attempt another takeoff; and that no further action was required.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: SF340 flight crew reports rejecting a takeoff for a tail pipe hot warning at 100 KTS. The warning ceases before any crew action and Maintenance Control is contacted for advise. Maintenance advises to attempt another takeoff; which is successful. Upon landing the crew is advised that an Airworthiness Directive is involved and maintenance action is required.
Narrative: We had a tail pipe hot warning on takeoff and we executed a rejected takeoff with very little braking and exited the runway. I contacted Dispatch and gave them all the relevant information and they transferred me to Maintenance Control. I explained to them what happened and that I knew that with moderate rain a tail pipe hot can be a false positive. They agreed and asked me how long the light (tail pipe hot) was on. I told them it was on for about five seconds. They told me that I could make another takeoff attempt. I asked them if there was anything else I needed to do before departing; and they said no. So we departed and flew to destination without incident. When we landed; Dispatch called me and transferred me to Maintenance Control. I was told by them that there was an airworthiness directive for the tail pipe hot warning that we had and that the plane could not go anywhere until Maintenance looked at it. So I wrote up what happened in the aircraft logbook. This event occurred because there was a tail pipe hot warning during takeoff; and we followed standard operating procedures by aborting the takeoff. We were told by Maintenance Control that it was ok to attempt another takeoff; and that no further action was required.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.