Narrative:

We had been cleared for takeoff on runway 19 at sdf. The WX was reported as measured 800' overcast, 2 mi visibility with fog, temperature 31 degrees, dew point 28 degrees, wind 030 degrees at 6 KTS, altimeter 30.50. At approximately 100-110 KTS on our takeoff roll, the tower issued an 'abort your takeoff' clearance. A successful abort was conducted. The tower was asked the reason for the abort. The reply was that they didn't know as departure control had requested the tower abort our takeoff. A few mins later we were advised that an aircraft being vectored by departure control had turned the wrong direction creating a traffic conflict, and the tower has issued the abort to avert the conflict. A later check with the sdf tower supervisor by our company director of operations support services determined the following: the preceding departure, a turbo propeller, had departed runway 19. This turbo propeller was incorrectly issued a southwest heading, then issued a southeast heading across the extended centerline by departure control. The abort was issued by the tower to avert a possible ATC error by loss of minimum sep after becoming airborne. It is my understanding that an abort clearance is to be issued by the tower only when a known emergency condition exists, and then only if no other course of action is available. In this case, I do not believe an emergency condition existed. We could have been turned immediately after takeoff, issued an altitude restriction, or both, if necessary. This would have provided the required sep west/O the danger associated with an aborted takeoff, which should always be a maneuver of last resort.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AT 100-110 KTS TWR TOLD ACR MLG TO ABORT TKOF. ABORT COMPLETED AND WHEN QUESTIONED ATCT LCL CTLR SAID IT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF A DEP CTLR'S REQUEST.

Narrative: WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 19 AT SDF. THE WX WAS RPTED AS MEASURED 800' OVCST, 2 MI VISIBILITY WITH FOG, TEMP 31 DEGS, DEW POINT 28 DEGS, WIND 030 DEGS AT 6 KTS, ALTIMETER 30.50. AT APPROX 100-110 KTS ON OUR TKOF ROLL, THE TWR ISSUED AN 'ABORT YOUR TKOF' CLRNC. A SUCCESSFUL ABORT WAS CONDUCTED. THE TWR WAS ASKED THE REASON FOR THE ABORT. THE REPLY WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW AS DEP CTL HAD REQUESTED THE TWR ABORT OUR TKOF. A FEW MINS LATER WE WERE ADVISED THAT AN ACFT BEING VECTORED BY DEP CTL HAD TURNED THE WRONG DIRECTION CREATING A TFC CONFLICT, AND THE TWR HAS ISSUED THE ABORT TO AVERT THE CONFLICT. A LATER CHK WITH THE SDF TWR SUPVR BY OUR COMPANY DIRECTOR OF OPS SUPPORT SVCS DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING: THE PRECEDING DEP, A TURBO PROP, HAD DEPARTED RWY 19. THIS TURBO PROP WAS INCORRECTLY ISSUED A SW HDG, THEN ISSUED A SE HDG ACROSS THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE BY DEP CTL. THE ABORT WAS ISSUED BY THE TWR TO AVERT A POSSIBLE ATC ERROR BY LOSS OF MINIMUM SEP AFTER BECOMING AIRBORNE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN ABORT CLRNC IS TO BE ISSUED BY THE TWR ONLY WHEN A KNOWN EMER CONDITION EXISTS, AND THEN ONLY IF NO OTHER COURSE OF ACTION IS AVAILABLE. IN THIS CASE, I DO NOT BELIEVE AN EMER CONDITION EXISTED. WE COULD HAVE BEEN TURNED IMMEDIATELY AFTER TKOF, ISSUED AN ALT RESTRICTION, OR BOTH, IF NECESSARY. THIS WOULD HAVE PROVIDED THE REQUIRED SEP W/O THE DANGER ASSOCIATED WITH AN ABORTED TKOF, WHICH SHOULD ALWAYS BE A MANEUVER OF LAST RESORT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.