Narrative:

First officer was PF. During takeoff; at 80 kt call; no airspeed was noted on the first officer's airspeed indicator. We preformed the rejected to procedure and taxied back to the gate. The issue was written up in the logbook; and maintenance found debris in the first officer's pitot tube. Mx cleared the debris and apparently blew into the pitot tube to verify the blockage was removed. While I'm not an a&P; it does not seem like that would be an approved method to verify the pitot tube was cleared. However the mechanic was in contact with maintenance control. The aircraft was subsequently signed off.we taxied back out for the next takeoff. The first officer was PF again; and during the takeoff roll; all indications seemed normal. During the brief; we assigned the pilot in the first observer's seat the task of comparing the standby airspeed to the first officer's airspeed. All indications were normal during the takeoff roll. As soon as we were airborne; the first officer's airspeed dropped by approximately 15 knots and created an 'IAS disagree' 'aileron lockout' and 'rudder ratio' message. After completing the unreliable airspeed QRH; and subsequent QRH checklists; then returned to the field uneventfully.when an aircraft returns to the gate with a substantial fault in the air data system; the company should probably take that return more seriously from a maintenance standpoint than a 'could not duplicate' signoff. The lackadaisical approach to such a serious malfunction should seriously erode the confidence in our maintenance organization following approved policies; procedures and best practices to maintain a high level of safety. There should be a strict protocol developed and followed for flight critical and ETOPS critical systems.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 Captain reported an aborted takeoff due to an airspeed anomaly. After Maintenance addressed the issue; a subsequent takeoff was successful; however the problem returned once airborne and the flight returned to the departure airport.

Narrative: FO was PF. During takeoff; at 80 kt call; no airspeed was noted on the FO's airspeed indicator. We preformed the rejected TO procedure and taxied back to the gate. The issue was written up in the logbook; and maintenance found debris in the FO's pitot tube. MX cleared the debris and apparently blew into the pitot tube to verify the blockage was removed. While I'm not an A&P; it does not seem like that would be an approved method to verify the pitot tube was cleared. However the mechanic was in contact with Maintenance Control. The aircraft was subsequently signed off.We taxied back out for the next takeoff. The FO was PF again; and during the takeoff roll; all indications seemed normal. During the brief; we assigned the Pilot in the First Observer's seat the task of comparing the standby Airspeed to the FO's airspeed. All indications were normal during the takeoff roll. As soon as we were airborne; the FO's airspeed dropped by approximately 15 knots and created an 'IAS DISAGREE' 'AILERON LOCKOUT' and 'RUDDER RATIO' message. After completing the Unreliable Airspeed QRH; and subsequent QRH checklists; then returned to the field uneventfully.When an aircraft returns to the gate with a substantial fault in the air data system; the company should probably take that return more seriously from a Maintenance standpoint than a 'Could not duplicate' signoff. The lackadaisical approach to such a serious malfunction should seriously erode the confidence in our maintenance organization following approved policies; procedures and best practices to maintain a high level of safety. There should be a strict protocol developed and followed for flight critical and ETOPS critical systems.

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.