A321 flight crew reported a rejected takeoff after noticing a discrepancy in the First Officer's airspeed indicator. Post flight maintenance inspection revealed debris in the pitot static system was the cause of the malfunction.
Synopsis
A321 flight crew reported a rejected takeoff after noticing a discrepancy in the First Officer's airspeed indicator. Post flight maintenance inspection revealed debris in the pitot static system was the cause of the malfunction.
Narrative
Tower cleared Aircraft X for departure and to fly runway heading. The Captain and I started our normal takeoff profile and callouts. The Captain's airspeed indicator showed roughly 90 knots and he called out 'checked.' The Captain assumed I missed the '80' callout. I thought the callout was odd as my airspeed indicator showed 70 knots at the point. I looked over to the Captain's airspeed indicator and noticed it registered roughly 115/120 knots; looked back over to mine which was around 80/90 knots and I called out (REJECT; REJECT; REJECT). We transitioned to the Rejected takeoff profile. I started with the 80 knot callout and realized my airspeed wasn't slowing down at the rate I could feel the aircraft decelerating; sort of stagnated around 70/80 knots. Because my airspeed was erroneous I looked over to the Captain's airspeed indicator; saw roughly 60; and called out '60.' The Captain had a tough time getting the autobrakes to disengage and asked me to manually deselect them; so I did. At about this juncture; ATC queried us as they noticed we were rejecting the takeoff. I then proceeded with communicating to the tower controller. Concurrently; the Captain and myself decided we could clear the runway. We cleared the runway; turned the brake fans on; set the parking brake and evaluated there was no need for AARF to meet the aircraft. I referenced the QRH Index for rejected takeoff. Shortly after; we returned back to gate. There were no injuries to crew or passenger and the aircraft had no damage.Cause: The maintenance workers disassembled a part of the pitot system and brought part of the First Officer Pitot line up to the cabin. He showed us some type of debris well inside the pitot line that they believed to have caused the airspeed issue. Suggestions: There is nothing I can do to see the inside of the pitot lines. My walk around of the aircraft that morning was equally as thorough as any other day. The importance of following the rejected takeoff profile and training are what led to the successful outcome of this event.
Second reporter narrative
We entered [Runway] XXR for takeoff. Applied takeoff thrust. Normal callouts for power being set. Passing through 80 knots on my airspeed indicator I did not get the 80 knot call from the FO. At 90 knots on my airspeed indicator I said check"; as if he just forgot to say the callout. This created confusion; but not in a bad way. His airspeed indicator was still below 80 knots which is why there was no callout. The FO observed the increasing divergence on both airspeed indicators and called for a reject. When he said this; my airspeed was indicating around 120 knots and I glanced at his airspeed which was indicating about 85 to 90 knots. I agreed with his assessment of a reject and I brought the power to idle. Spoilers deployed. Max braking engaged. I did not use any reverse thrust as we had an abundance of runway left in front of us. During the declaration; approaching taxiing speed; I asked the FO to turnoff the MAX braking switch as I could not release the MAX braking using the brake pedals. About this time tower was calling us and asked if we needed assistance. We told them to standby then we said no. We never came to a complete stop on the runway. We taxied off the runway at 1 taxiway and came to a stop. At this time I asked the FO to turn on the brake fans. I called the Flight Attendants and told them we had an instrument failure and we would be returning to the gate. I asked them to walk through the cabin to check on the passengers. I then made a PA to the passengers about our the reason for discontinuing the takeoff and we would be returning to the gate. We accomplished the After Landing Checklist. The FO was busy with tower; ramp and calling ops. The highest brake temperature was around 430c and beginning to cool. I felt this was in a normal range and taxied to the gate. Passengers were deplaned. I made two logbook entries; one for the airspeed indicators and the other for the RTO. No aircraft damage and no injuries.Cause: After the RTO was initiated; a quick thought in the back of my mind was I knew this was not an emergency situation; it was our airspeed instruments failing on the ground. The passengers and crew were safe; we just needed to not takeoff. I decided not to stop on the runway because we just had an instrument problem and I just wanted get out of the way off the runway. There are no ECAMS; warning lights or bells to indicate a problem with unreliable airspeed on the takeoff roll. Just the 80 knot callout. Which in this case trapped the problem. Had we gotten airborne; then we would have had an emergency.Suggestions: Maintenance later found in the FOs pitot line some debris they thought was a Junebug or who knows what. A restriction none the less."
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.