Narrative:

Preflight, pushback, and taxi were all normal. Received tgt warning on ramp prior to starting of #1 engine. Engine indications remained normal. I elected to conduct a full- rated takeoff because of the temperature on the field. Takeoff roll on 18L proceeded normally through the first officer's soft V1 call at 127 KTS IAS. Upon hearing the call, I observed the IAS indicator continue to climb as high as 129 or 130 KTS (actual V1 was 132 KTS IAS). IAS then became momentarily stagnant, following which it began to decrease. As this occurred, I felt a loss of acceleration. Upon seeing the IAS go as low as 122 KTS, I determined that it would not be prudent to continue the takeoff. Therefore, I elected to abort the takeoff. The aircraft did not reach V1, vr, or V2. The aircraft did not rotate. Upon calling 'reject,' I applied maximum braking, closed the throttles and activated lift dumpers and speed brake. The first officer advised the tower we were aborting the takeoff. The aircraft braking system appeared to operate normally. The aircraft came to a rest at the approach end of 36R. The nose wheel and left main gear were situated off the pavement, in a grassy area. The right main gear remained on the pavement. I elected not to evacuate/evacuation the aircraft because of the absence of fire or any other imminent dangers, and the potential for injury should passenger begin to roam about the field. Instead, I advised both the tower and the company of our situation and requested assistance. The passenger remained on the aircraft until vans arrived to transport them back to the terminal. Supplemental information from acn 207461: my perceptions are thus: that the captain made the proper decision to abort the takeoff when it was apparent that acceleration to V1 and beyond was unlikely as the airspeed began to drop. We were legal for the takeoff on runway 18L according to current weight and balance and airport analysis. This leaves at least 400 ft remaining 'till runway's end on accelerate-stop distance charts if takeoff is aborted prior to V1 (132 KTS IAS for our weight). This did not happen, and I do not know why because the captain's reject procedure appeared both timely and flawless in execution. I have no thoughts or conjecture beyond this. No injuries were reported and the aircraft was undamaged. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the tgt warning on ramp was a normal anomaly with this aircraft and reporter first officer felt it had no bearing on event. Air carrier, alpa, and NTSB were involved in investigation. An engine static run was performed, with engines boroscoped. No problems. Upon questioning by FAA, crew stated they felt this was anything but an engine thrust problem. The agency wanted to find fault reference rejecting past V1, but upon pulling the flight recorder and verifying information reference airspds and aircraft performance, the issue was dropped. Aircraft is assumed to have reached about 137 KTS prior to abort attempt. 1 interesting aspect is the mention of the medium large transport landing on the crossing runway just prior to their takeoff roll. Reporter felt there may have been a deeper association with that than thought previously. Crew were off flight status for a time during the investigation and are now back on the line. No prime reason has been issued as main cause of aircraft incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ABORTED TKOF AFTER LOSS OF ACCELERATION. RWY EXCURSION.

Narrative: PREFLT, PUSHBACK, AND TAXI WERE ALL NORMAL. RECEIVED TGT WARNING ON RAMP PRIOR TO STARTING OF #1 ENG. ENG INDICATIONS REMAINED NORMAL. I ELECTED TO CONDUCT A FULL- RATED TKOF BECAUSE OF THE TEMP ON THE FIELD. TKOF ROLL ON 18L PROCEEDED NORMALLY THROUGH THE FO'S SOFT V1 CALL AT 127 KTS IAS. UPON HEARING THE CALL, I OBSERVED THE IAS INDICATOR CONTINUE TO CLB AS HIGH AS 129 OR 130 KTS (ACTUAL V1 WAS 132 KTS IAS). IAS THEN BECAME MOMENTARILY STAGNANT, FOLLOWING WHICH IT BEGAN TO DECREASE. AS THIS OCCURRED, I FELT A LOSS OF ACCELERATION. UPON SEEING THE IAS GO AS LOW AS 122 KTS, I DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT TO CONTINUE THE TKOF. THEREFORE, I ELECTED TO ABORT THE TKOF. THE ACFT DID NOT REACH V1, VR, OR V2. THE ACFT DID NOT ROTATE. UPON CALLING 'REJECT,' I APPLIED MAX BRAKING, CLOSED THE THROTTLES AND ACTIVATED LIFT DUMPERS AND SPD BRAKE. THE FO ADVISED THE TWR WE WERE ABORTING THE TKOF. THE ACFT BRAKING SYS APPEARED TO OPERATE NORMALLY. THE ACFT CAME TO A REST AT THE APCH END OF 36R. THE NOSE WHEEL AND L MAIN GEAR WERE SITUATED OFF THE PAVEMENT, IN A GRASSY AREA. THE R MAIN GEAR REMAINED ON THE PAVEMENT. I ELECTED NOT TO EVAC THE ACFT BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF FIRE OR ANY OTHER IMMINENT DANGERS, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY SHOULD PAX BEGIN TO ROAM ABOUT THE FIELD. INSTEAD, I ADVISED BOTH THE TWR AND THE COMPANY OF OUR SITUATION AND REQUESTED ASSISTANCE. THE PAX REMAINED ON THE ACFT UNTIL VANS ARRIVED TO TRANSPORT THEM BACK TO THE TERMINAL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 207461: MY PERCEPTIONS ARE THUS: THAT THE CAPT MADE THE PROPER DECISION TO ABORT THE TKOF WHEN IT WAS APPARENT THAT ACCELERATION TO V1 AND BEYOND WAS UNLIKELY AS THE AIRSPD BEGAN TO DROP. WE WERE LEGAL FOR THE TKOF ON RWY 18L ACCORDING TO CURRENT WT AND BAL AND ARPT ANALYSIS. THIS LEAVES AT LEAST 400 FT REMAINING 'TILL RWY'S END ON ACCELERATE-STOP DISTANCE CHARTS IF TKOF IS ABORTED PRIOR TO V1 (132 KTS IAS FOR OUR WT). THIS DID NOT HAPPEN, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHY BECAUSE THE CAPT'S REJECT PROC APPEARED BOTH TIMELY AND FLAWLESS IN EXECUTION. I HAVE NO THOUGHTS OR CONJECTURE BEYOND THIS. NO INJURIES WERE RPTED AND THE ACFT WAS UNDAMAGED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE TGT WARNING ON RAMP WAS A NORMAL ANOMALY WITH THIS ACFT AND RPTR FO FELT IT HAD NO BEARING ON EVENT. ACR, ALPA, AND NTSB WERE INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION. AN ENG STATIC RUN WAS PERFORMED, WITH ENGS BOROSCOPED. NO PROBLEMS. UPON QUESTIONING BY FAA, CREW STATED THEY FELT THIS WAS ANYTHING BUT AN ENG THRUST PROBLEM. THE AGENCY WANTED TO FIND FAULT REF REJECTING PAST V1, BUT UPON PULLING THE FLT RECORDER AND VERIFYING INFO REF AIRSPDS AND ACFT PERFORMANCE, THE ISSUE WAS DROPPED. ACFT IS ASSUMED TO HAVE REACHED ABOUT 137 KTS PRIOR TO ABORT ATTEMPT. 1 INTERESTING ASPECT IS THE MENTION OF THE MLG LNDG ON THE XING RWY JUST PRIOR TO THEIR TKOF ROLL. RPTR FELT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DEEPER ASSOCIATION WITH THAT THAN THOUGHT PREVIOUSLY. CREW WERE OFF FLT STATUS FOR A TIME DURING THE INVESTIGATION AND ARE NOW BACK ON THE LINE. NO PRIME REASON HAS BEEN ISSUED AS MAIN CAUSE OF ACFT INCIDENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.