 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A319 first officer laments the requirement to file a written report after a low speed rejected takeoff.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1022606 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201207 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | A319 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Takeoff |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Turbine Engine |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | First Officer Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical |
Narrative:
Aborted takeoff due to negative engine spool up. Actually; I find it very depressing that the FAA now defines a rejected takeoff as a pilot deviation. It has always been my impression that the safety reporting program was designed to improve safety. How is it that we; as crew members/pilots; did exactly what we were trained to do but we are now required to fill out a safety report. In my opinion; this isn't why the program was developed. I find it insulting that the FAA has gone to these levels. More paperwork doesn't make our or any other airline safer; addressing the real issues that are safety related will. Just one pilot's opinion; maybe I don't 'get it' because I don't have the 'big picture.' what I am afraid of is that some pilots will take the approach that they might not abort a takeoff due to the fact that they do not want to have to deal with the consequences. As sad as that is; I'm afraid it could become reality. In some cases; a low speed abort may be required; however a crew might try to 'troubleshoot' or determine if its an 'indication' problem and continue the takeoff. Just food for thought.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A319 First Officer laments the requirement to file a written report after a low speed rejected takeoff.
Narrative: Aborted takeoff due to negative engine spool up. Actually; I find it very depressing that the FAA now defines a rejected takeoff as a pilot deviation. It has always been my impression that the safety reporting program was designed to improve safety. How is it that we; as crew members/pilots; did exactly what we were trained to do but we are now required to fill out a safety report. In my opinion; this isn't why the program was developed. I find it insulting that the FAA has gone to these levels. More paperwork doesn't make our or any other airline safer; addressing the real issues that are safety related will. Just one pilot's opinion; maybe I don't 'get it' because I don't have the 'big picture.' What I am afraid of is that some pilots will take the approach that they might not abort a takeoff due to the fact that they do not want to have to deal with the consequences. As sad as that is; I'm afraid it could become reality. In some cases; a low speed abort may be required; however a crew might try to 'troubleshoot' or determine if its an 'indication' problem and continue the takeoff. Just food for thought.
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.