Narrative:

After takeoff power was applied; we got an ECAM message: ENG2 compressor vane. I initiated the abort at approximately 60-70 KTS. First officer notified the tower and upon my instruction; made a PA announcement for passenger and flight attendants to remain seated. We exited the runway to the left at taxiway F and stopped the aircraft. The tower advised us that there was no sign of smoke or fire. We shut down engine 2 as a precaution and returned to the gate. All calls and procedures were accomplished within SOP guidelines. Comment: upon contacting the dispatcher; he advised me that this was the second abort for the same ECAM that had been reported to him that day. I had this same ECAM a few months ago on landing and the maintenance controller I spoke to at that time said it was his fourth one that day. The line mechanic that came out to our aircraft last night called the ECAM 'a nuisance message.' this is unacceptable! This is a known 'glitch' with the airbus and it needs to be fixed. Even a low speed abort; such as this event; has risks. At the very least it is irresponsible to frighten people for a known 'glitch.' the flight attendants were so shaken up by the event they were unable to continue and the flight had to be recrewed. Several passenger were so terrified that they refused to get on the new aircraft. This all costs money; as will a lawsuit if this 'nuisance message' causes an accident.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that the flight attendant and passenger were upset by the braking action during the rejected takeoff. This air carrier's flight attendants are trained to evacuate on their own if they are not commanded by the flight crew to remain seated. The flight attendant in this event reported that they were braced for a ground collision because they did not hear or see anything wrong with the aircraft. The engine apparently did not have a classic compressor stall because there was no other engine indication; noise or aircraft response. The reporter stated that this was a rare occurrence but that it has occurred on his flts twice in the last 6 months; the last time on landing. After that event maintenance commented that four other compressor vane events had been reported that day. Likewise; dispatch stated that this current compressor vane event was the second of the day. The reporter has been on the aircraft three years and is hearing that compressor vane events are occurring more frequently and that maintenance is calling them 'nuisance' events. Additionally; the reporter fears that as maintenance tells flight crews that these events are 'nuisances;' flight crews may ignore the warning and may not respond to what could be a real event. The engine was a V2500.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A319'S ENG 2 COMPRESSOR VANE ECAM MSG ALERTED AT 60 KTS DURING TKOF. AN ABORT FOLLOWED AND THE ACFT RETURNED TO THE GATE.

Narrative: AFTER TAKEOFF POWER WAS APPLIED; WE GOT AN ECAM MESSAGE: ENG2 COMPRESSOR VANE. I INITIATED THE ABORT AT APPROX 60-70 KTS. FO NOTIFIED THE TOWER AND UPON MY INSTRUCTION; MADE A PA ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PAX AND FLT ATTENDANTS TO REMAIN SEATED. WE EXITED THE RWY TO THE L AT TXWY F AND STOPPED THE ACFT. THE TOWER ADVISED US THAT THERE WAS NO SIGN OF SMOKE OR FIRE. WE SHUT DOWN ENGINE 2 AS A PRECAUTION AND RETURNED TO THE GATE. ALL CALLS AND PROCS WERE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN SOP GUIDELINES. COMMENT: UPON CONTACTING THE DISPATCHER; HE ADVISED ME THAT THIS WAS THE SECOND ABORT FOR THE SAME ECAM THAT HAD BEEN RPTED TO HIM THAT DAY. I HAD THIS SAME ECAM A FEW MONTHS AGO ON LNDG AND THE MAINT CTLR I SPOKE TO AT THAT TIME SAID IT WAS HIS FOURTH ONE THAT DAY. THE LINE MECHANIC THAT CAME OUT TO OUR ACFT LAST NIGHT CALLED THE ECAM 'A NUISANCE MESSAGE.' THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! THIS IS A KNOWN 'GLITCH' WITH THE AIRBUS AND IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. EVEN A LOW SPEED ABORT; SUCH AS THIS EVENT; HAS RISKS. AT THE VERY LEAST IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO FRIGHTEN PEOPLE FOR A KNOWN 'GLITCH.' THE FLT ATTENDANTS WERE SO SHAKEN UP BY THE EVENT THEY WERE UNABLE TO CONTINUE AND THE FLT HAD TO BE RECREWED. SEVERAL PAX WERE SO TERRIFIED THAT THEY REFUSED TO GET ON THE NEW ACFT. THIS ALL COSTS MONEY; AS WILL A LAWSUIT IF THIS 'NUISANCE MESSAGE' CAUSES AN ACCIDENT.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT AND PAX WERE UPSET BY THE BRAKING ACTION DURING THE REJECTED TKOF. THIS ACR'S FLT ATTENDANTS ARE TRAINED TO EVACUATE ON THEIR OWN IF THEY ARE NOT COMMANDED BY THE FLT CREW TO REMAIN SEATED. THE FLT ATTENDANT IN THIS EVENT RPTED THAT THEY WERE BRACED FOR A GND COLLISION BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HEAR OR SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ACFT. THE ENG APPARENTLY DID NOT HAVE A CLASSIC COMPRESSOR STALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER ENG INDICATION; NOISE OR ACFT RESPONSE. THE RPTR STATED THAT THIS WAS A RARE OCCURRENCE BUT THAT IT HAS OCCURRED ON HIS FLTS TWICE IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS; THE LAST TIME ON LNDG. AFTER THAT EVENT MAINT COMMENTED THAT FOUR OTHER COMPRESSOR VANE EVENTS HAD BEEN RPTED THAT DAY. LIKEWISE; DISPATCH STATED THAT THIS CURRENT COMPRESSOR VANE EVENT WAS THE SECOND OF THE DAY. THE RPTR HAS BEEN ON THE ACFT THREE YEARS AND IS HEARING THAT COMPRESSOR VANE EVENTS ARE OCCURRING MORE FREQUENTLY AND THAT MAINT IS CALLING THEM 'NUISANCE' EVENTS. ADDITIONALLY; THE RPTR FEARS THAT AS MAINT TELLS FLT CREWS THAT THESE EVENTS ARE 'NUISANCES;' FLT CREWS MAY IGNORE THE WARNING AND MAY NOT RESPOND TO WHAT COULD BE A REAL EVENT. THE ENG WAS A V2500.

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