Narrative:

While setting power and commencing takeoff roll; master caution came on and I aborted takeoff. First officer said he saw engine light come on momentarily and then go out. Upon leaving the runway; we attempted a 'recall' on the annunciator panel and no lights other than annunciator and master caution came on. No malfunction lights were on for any system anywhere in the cockpit. There seemed to be no reason for the master caution coming on. I called maintenance and they checked to see of the aircraft had any history on this type of issue. They found no history and suggested that it could have been a spurious indication. They suggested that I try the takeoff again. Brake cooling was not required since the reject happened at such a slow speed. I elected to try another takeoff which went without incident. We flew the aircraft one more additional leg and had no further problem. I notified dispatch and maintenance control of the incident by three-way phone call at destination. I asked maintenance control if they wanted me to put the incident in the logbook. They said to check the fom to see if there was any requirement to log the incident. If there was not; they did not have any requirement to log it. The fom does not require a logbook entry for a rejected takeoff other than one caused by an erroneous takeoff warning horn; so I did not log the incident. Upon further reflection; I believe a logbook entry should have been made even for a spurious indication. Maintenance should have investigated the cause of the master caution before we attempted a second takeoff. I believe I relied too much on verbal guidance from both maintenance and maintenance control. I allowed myself to regard this incident as a gray area since the malfunction did not behave like a 'true malfunction' (ie it was not cut and dried with an obvious problem that obviously required maintenance). Without a true malfunction; I was unsure if I needed to make a logbook entry; and maintenance's response to the issue supported the idea (in my mind) that there was not a clear need for a logbook entry or maintenance action. Henceforth I will not make a distinction between true malfunctions and spurious signals. I have no way of knowing the difference between the two and neither does anyone else unless maintenance is performed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 REJECTED A TKOF FOLLOWING A MOMENTARY MASTER CAUTION LIGHT. THE CREW DID NOT MAKE A LOG BOOK ENTRY AND DEPARTED AGAIN.

Narrative: WHILE SETTING PWR AND COMMENCING TKOF ROLL; MASTER CAUTION CAME ON AND I ABORTED TKOF. FO SAID HE SAW ENG LIGHT COME ON MOMENTARILY AND THEN GO OUT. UPON LEAVING THE RWY; WE ATTEMPTED A 'RECALL' ON THE ANNUNCIATOR PANEL AND NO LIGHTS OTHER THAN ANNUNCIATOR AND MASTER CAUTION CAME ON. NO MALFUNCTION LIGHTS WERE ON FOR ANY SYS ANYWHERE IN THE COCKPIT. THERE SEEMED TO BE NO REASON FOR THE MASTER CAUTION COMING ON. I CALLED MAINT AND THEY CHECKED TO SEE OF THE ACFT HAD ANY HISTORY ON THIS TYPE OF ISSUE. THEY FOUND NO HISTORY AND SUGGESTED THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A SPURIOUS INDICATION. THEY SUGGESTED THAT I TRY THE TAKEOFF AGAIN. BRAKE COOLING WAS NOT REQUIRED SINCE THE REJECT HAPPENED AT SUCH A SLOW SPEED. I ELECTED TO TRY ANOTHER TAKEOFF WHICH WENT WITHOUT INCIDENT. WE FLEW THE AIRCRAFT ONE MORE ADDITIONAL LEG AND HAD NO FURTHER PROBLEM. I NOTIFIED DISPATCH AND MAINTENANCE CONTROL OF THE INCIDENT BY THREE-WAY PHONE CALL AT DESTINATION. I ASKED MAINTENANCE CONTROL IF THEY WANTED ME TO PUT THE INCIDENT IN THE LOGBOOK. THEY SAID TO CHECK THE FOM TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY REQUIREMENT TO LOG THE INCIDENT. IF THERE WAS NOT; THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT TO LOG IT. THE FOM DOES NOT REQUIRE A LOGBOOK ENTRY FOR A REJECTED TAKEOFF OTHER THAN ONE CAUSED BY AN ERRONEOUS TAKEOFF WARNING HORN; SO I DID NOT LOG THE INCIDENT. UPON FURTHER REFLECTION; I BELIEVE A LOGBOOK ENTRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE EVEN FOR A SPURIOUS INDICATION. MAINTENANCE SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE CAUSE OF THE MASTER CAUTION BEFORE WE ATTEMPTED A SECOND TAKEOFF. I BELIEVE I RELIED TOO MUCH ON VERBAL GUIDANCE FROM BOTH MAINTENANCE AND MAINTENANCE CONTROL. I ALLOWED MYSELF TO REGARD THIS INCIDENT AS A GRAY AREA SINCE THE MALFUNCTION DID NOT BEHAVE LIKE A 'TRUE MALFUNCTION' (IE IT WAS NOT CUT AND DRIED WITH AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM THAT OBVIOUSLY REQUIRED MAINTENANCE). WITHOUT A TRUE MALFUNCTION; I WAS UNSURE IF I NEEDED TO MAKE A LOGBOOK ENTRY; AND MAINTENANCE'S RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE SUPPORTED THE IDEA (IN MY MIND) THAT THERE WAS NOT A CLEAR NEED FOR A LOGBOOK ENTRY OR MAINTENANCE ACTION. HENCEFORTH I WILL NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN TRUE MALFUNCTIONS AND SPURIOUS SIGNALS. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE UNLESS MAINTENANCE IS PERFORMED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.