If at First You Don't Succeed....Try, Try Again

[5degrees]

Is anyone aware of any other airline in the world that does this? if it is so important, I wonder if British Airways, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, or any American carrier do this?

Ours is more nuanced. Below 80 call Mayday if required. Above 80 it's a Mayday call because it's now in the highspeed regime according to Boeing. Also Cathay declared a Mayday for a rapid depres. with NY centre the other day and they came back with " Are you declaring an emergency? " Brutal.

[cdnavater]

This is incredibly important. I cannot talk to ATC in South America the way I talk to US and Canadian ATC.

Are you saying “rejecting take off” isn’t clear enough? I would think this is standard icao phraseology.

ICAO standards don't have to be adhered to. Here is an excerpt right out of the COM section of South America in one of our manuals.

"Especially in South America all ATC controllers should be dealt with carefully. ATC is not always according to ICAO standard."

I'm having trouble finding what ATC expects pilots to say if pilots are the ones initiating a rejected take-off as per any local or international procedures. But ICAO Doc 4444 has this to say under ATC phraseologies, subsection 1.7.3.2.4 Phraseologies for Use on and in the Vicinity of the Aerodrome.

.......to top a take-off after an aircraft has commenced take-off roll
ATC: STOP IMMIDIATELY TWA123 STOP IMMIDITELY
PILOT: STOPPING

That same ICAO document makes no reference to "rejected" or "rejecting" when it comes to aborting a take-off.

I understand some countries may have issues with the English language and admit I don’t have the relevant experience in aviation, so I can only go on Canada/U.S in which Jazz operates and the airline in question Encore operates.
They examined using May Day for aborting the take off with ATC initiated rejects, settled on “call sign, abort abort, call sign abort abort”
I recognize that ICAO is using the phraseology of “stop immediately” x 2 and recommend responding with “stopping” but no where does is say use May Day or Pan Pan except to advise of distress situation or urgent situation, obviously I would embrace the May Day being included if it were an actual May Day but this amounts to crying wolf.
To the poster talking about brake overheating, absolutely and again, this may or may not occur, -10 not likely, 45 Celsius very likely. To that point when I’m doing my take off briefing in PHX on a hot day I will state that if we reject the take off, request CFR, do not wait for me to ask for it.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... -001#s4_19

rejected landing
Other expression for: aborted landing

rejected takeoff
Other expression for: aborted takeoff

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandatio ... a1804.html

May 2019: NAV CANADA's response to Recommendation A18-04
NAV CANADA's ATS [air traffic service] Standards department conducted a hazard identification activity and industry stakeholder consultation in 2018 to assess retaining the Canadian phraseology used to issue an abort takeoff instruction “ABORT TAKEOFF” versus adopting the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] phraseology “STOP IMMEDIATELY” contained in Doc 4444.

Through the Canadian Aviation Best Practice Working Group forum, which includes many airlines and air traffic controllers, it was identified that “ABORT TAKEOFF” was more compelling to crews beginning their takeoff roll on a runway than “STOP”. Stakeholders viewed “STOP” as a common instruction used on taxiways. Pilots indicated that if they were on the takeoff roll and needed to abort immediately due to a hazard, “ABORT TAKEOFF” was clearly aimed at an aircraft having commenced take-off roll, whereas if “STOP” was heard on the frequency, the crew could possibly believe that it is intended for an aircraft on a taxiway and would possibly question whether the instruction was for them, wasting crucial time.

MATS [Manual of Air Traffic Services] Tower states that aborting a takeoff is an emergency procedure used when continuing would present a grave hazard to the aircraft. A controller-initiated aborted takeoff is an extreme measure used only where no clear alternative exists. Therefore, based on stakeholder feedback and the result of the hazard identification activity, in the interest of safety, NAV CANADA elected to maintain its current phraseology.

Although NAV CANADA considers that the current defense barriers, based on procedures and practices, are effective, the company is looking into aligning “ABORT” phraseology with “MAYDAY” by repeating the spoken words three times. From a human factors perspective, the repetition would orient the pilot to the transmission, thus compelling the pilot to the immediate action that is required. A safety assessment will need to be completed prior to performing any change.

We will keep you informed on our findings, following the safety assessment on the proposed adjustment to our procedures.

Update (July 2019)

On 02 July 2019, NAV CANADA issued a National Operation[s] Directive to amend the phraseology for cancelling a take-off clearance, effective immediately.

The new required phraseology described in the directive is “(aircraft id), ABORT TAKEOFF ABORT, (aircraft id), ABORT ABORT [ reason ]”.

[Tbayer2021]

Are you saying “rejecting take off” isn’t clear enough? I would think this is standard icao phraseology.

ICAO standards don't have to be adhered to. Here is an excerpt right out of the COM section of South America in one of our manuals.

"Especially in South America all ATC controllers should be dealt with carefully. ATC is not always according to ICAO standard."

I'm having trouble finding what ATC expects pilots to say if pilots are the ones initiating a rejected take-off as per any local or international procedures. But ICAO Doc 4444 has this to say under ATC phraseologies, subsection 1.7.3.2.4 Phraseologies for Use on and in the Vicinity of the Aerodrome.

.......to top a take-off after an aircraft has commenced take-off roll
ATC: STOP IMMIDIATELY TWA123 STOP IMMIDITELY
PILOT: STOPPING

That same ICAO document makes no reference to "rejected" or "rejecting" when it comes to aborting a take-off.

I understand some countries may have issues with the English language and admit I don’t have the relevant experience in aviation, so I can only go on Canada/U.S in which Jazz operates and the airline in question Encore operates.
They examined using May Day for aborting the take off with ATC initiated rejects, settled on “call sign, abort abort, call sign abort abort”
I recognize that ICAO is using the phraseology of “stop immediately” x 2 and recommend responding with “stopping” but no where does is say use May Day or Pan Pan except to advise of distress situation or urgent situation, obviously I would embrace the May Day being included if it were an actual May Day but this amounts to crying wolf.
To the poster talking about brake overheating, absolutely and again, this may or may not occur, -10 not likely, 45 Celsius very likely. To that point when I’m doing my take off briefing in PHX on a hot day I will state that if we reject the take off, request CFR, do not wait for me to ask for it.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... -001#s4_19

rejected landing
Other expression for: aborted landing

rejected takeoff
Other expression for: aborted takeoff

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandatio ... a1804.html

May 2019: NAV CANADA's response to Recommendation A18-04
NAV CANADA's ATS [air traffic service] Standards department conducted a hazard identification activity and industry stakeholder consultation in 2018 to assess retaining the Canadian phraseology used to issue an abort takeoff instruction “ABORT TAKEOFF” versus adopting the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] phraseology “STOP IMMEDIATELY” contained in Doc 4444.

Through the Canadian Aviation Best Practice Working Group forum, which includes many airlines and air traffic controllers, it was identified that “ABORT TAKEOFF” was more compelling to crews beginning their takeoff roll on a runway than “STOP”. Stakeholders viewed “STOP” as a common instruction used on taxiways. Pilots indicated that if they were on the takeoff roll and needed to abort immediately due to a hazard, “ABORT TAKEOFF” was clearly aimed at an aircraft having commenced take-off roll, whereas if “STOP” was heard on the frequency, the crew could possibly believe that it is intended for an aircraft on a taxiway and would possibly question whether the instruction was for them, wasting crucial time.

MATS [Manual of Air Traffic Services] Tower states that aborting a takeoff is an emergency procedure used when continuing would present a grave hazard to the aircraft. A controller-initiated aborted takeoff is an extreme measure used only where no clear alternative exists. Therefore, based on stakeholder feedback and the result of the hazard identification activity, in the interest of safety, NAV CANADA elected to maintain its current phraseology.

Although NAV CANADA considers that the current defense barriers, based on procedures and practices, are effective, the company is looking into aligning “ABORT” phraseology with “MAYDAY” by repeating the spoken words three times. From a human factors perspective, the repetition would orient the pilot to the transmission, thus compelling the pilot to the immediate action that is required. A safety assessment will need to be completed prior to performing any change.

We will keep you informed on our findings, following the safety assessment on the proposed adjustment to our procedures.

Update (July 2019)

On 02 July 2019, NAV CANADA issued a National Operation[s] Directive to amend the phraseology for cancelling a take-off clearance, effective immediately.

The new required phraseology described in the directive is “(aircraft id), ABORT TAKEOFF ABORT, (aircraft id), ABORT ABORT [ reason ]”.

We're getting side tracked now. I brought up the document to prove that "rejecting" is not ICAO standard and the word is nowhere to be found in it aside from the CPDLC section. There can be huge fundamental differences in why ATC tells an aircraft to stop the T/O roll vs why a crew decides to stop. While I can see the perspective that using Mayday under every circumstance can be a bit of an overkill. I would approach the problem from a good vs harm angle. Does it do more good than harm? Does it do any good? Does it do any harm? In this particular scenario I'd argue that it does more good than bad, if it does any bad at all. I don't think emergency resources would hindered in any capacity should they get a call 30 seconds later telling them to stand down.

P.S. Anyone know why avcanada sometimes logs me out after pressing the submit button?

[cdnavater]

ICAO standards don't have to be adhered to. Here is an excerpt right out of the COM section of South America in one of our manuals.

"Especially in South America all ATC controllers should be dealt with carefully. ATC is not always according to ICAO standard."

I'm having trouble finding what ATC expects pilots to say if pilots are the ones initiating a rejected take-off as per any local or international procedures. But ICAO Doc 4444 has this to say under ATC phraseologies, subsection 1.7.3.2.4 Phraseologies for Use on and in the Vicinity of the Aerodrome.

.......to top a take-off after an aircraft has commenced take-off roll
ATC: STOP IMMIDIATELY TWA123 STOP IMMIDITELY
PILOT: STOPPING

That same ICAO document makes no reference to "rejected" or "rejecting" when it comes to aborting a take-off.

I understand some countries may have issues with the English language and admit I don’t have the relevant experience in aviation, so I can only go on Canada/U.S in which Jazz operates and the airline in question Encore operates.
They examined using May Day for aborting the take off with ATC initiated rejects, settled on “call sign, abort abort, call sign abort abort”
I recognize that ICAO is using the phraseology of “stop immediately” x 2 and recommend responding with “stopping” but no where does is say use May Day or Pan Pan except to advise of distress situation or urgent situation, obviously I would embrace the May Day being included if it were an actual May Day but this amounts to crying wolf.
To the poster talking about brake overheating, absolutely and again, this may or may not occur, -10 not likely, 45 Celsius very likely. To that point when I’m doing my take off briefing in PHX on a hot day I will state that if we reject the take off, request CFR, do not wait for me to ask for it.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... -001#s4_19

rejected landing
Other expression for: aborted landing

rejected takeoff
Other expression for: aborted takeoff

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandatio ... a1804.html

May 2019: NAV CANADA's response to Recommendation A18-04
NAV CANADA's ATS [air traffic service] Standards department conducted a hazard identification activity and industry stakeholder consultation in 2018 to assess retaining the Canadian phraseology used to issue an abort takeoff instruction “ABORT TAKEOFF” versus adopting the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] phraseology “STOP IMMEDIATELY” contained in Doc 4444.

Through the Canadian Aviation Best Practice Working Group forum, which includes many airlines and air traffic controllers, it was identified that “ABORT TAKEOFF” was more compelling to crews beginning their takeoff roll on a runway than “STOP”. Stakeholders viewed “STOP” as a common instruction used on taxiways. Pilots indicated that if they were on the takeoff roll and needed to abort immediately due to a hazard, “ABORT TAKEOFF” was clearly aimed at an aircraft having commenced take-off roll, whereas if “STOP” was heard on the frequency, the crew could possibly believe that it is intended for an aircraft on a taxiway and would possibly question whether the instruction was for them, wasting crucial time.

MATS [Manual of Air Traffic Services] Tower states that aborting a takeoff is an emergency procedure used when continuing would present a grave hazard to the aircraft. A controller-initiated aborted takeoff is an extreme measure used only where no clear alternative exists. Therefore, based on stakeholder feedback and the result of the hazard identification activity, in the interest of safety, NAV CANADA elected to maintain its current phraseology.

Although NAV CANADA considers that the current defense barriers, based on procedures and practices, are effective, the company is looking into aligning “ABORT” phraseology with “MAYDAY” by repeating the spoken words three times. From a human factors perspective, the repetition would orient the pilot to the transmission, thus compelling the pilot to the immediate action that is required. A safety assessment will need to be completed prior to performing any change.

We will keep you informed on our findings, following the safety assessment on the proposed adjustment to our procedures.

Update (July 2019)

On 02 July 2019, NAV CANADA issued a National Operation[s] Directive to amend the phraseology for cancelling a take-off clearance, effective immediately.

The new required phraseology described in the directive is “(aircraft id), ABORT TAKEOFF ABORT, (aircraft id), ABORT ABORT [ reason ]”.

We're getting side tracked now. I brought up the document to prove that "rejecting" is not ICAO standard and the word is nowhere to be found in it aside from the CPDLC section. There can be huge fundamental differences in why ATC tells an aircraft to stop the T/O roll vs why a crew decides to stop. While I can see the perspective that using Mayday under every circumstance can be a bit of an overkill. I would approach the problem from a good vs harm angle. Does it do more good than harm? Does it do any good? Does it do any harm? In this particular scenario I'd argue that it does more good than bad, if it does any bad at all. I don't think emergency resources would hindered in any capacity should they get a call 30 seconds later telling them to stand down.

P.S. Anyone know why avcanada sometimes logs me out after pressing the submit button?

I believe the log out is related to when you log in you should select keep me logged in.

As to the other, I feel like human factor wise, it diminishes the meaning of May Day

[Canoehead]

Regarding a second takeoff attempt, I suspect that maintenance probably had them carry out a CB reset on the ADC first, and that specific part of the event didn't make it into the CADORS.

[Tbayer2021]

I understand some countries may have issues with the English language and admit I don’t have the relevant experience in aviation, so I can only go on Canada/U.S in which Jazz operates and the airline in question Encore operates.
They examined using May Day for aborting the take off with ATC initiated rejects, settled on “call sign, abort abort, call sign abort abort”
I recognize that ICAO is using the phraseology of “stop immediately” x 2 and recommend responding with “stopping” but no where does is say use May Day or Pan Pan except to advise of distress situation or urgent situation, obviously I would embrace the May Day being included if it were an actual May Day but this amounts to crying wolf.
To the poster talking about brake overheating, absolutely and again, this may or may not occur, -10 not likely, 45 Celsius very likely. To that point when I’m doing my take off briefing in PHX on a hot day I will state that if we reject the take off, request CFR, do not wait for me to ask for it.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/refere ... -001#s4_19

rejected landing
Other expression for: aborted landing

rejected takeoff
Other expression for: aborted takeoff

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandatio ... a1804.html

May 2019: NAV CANADA's response to Recommendation A18-04
NAV CANADA's ATS [air traffic service] Standards department conducted a hazard identification activity and industry stakeholder consultation in 2018 to assess retaining the Canadian phraseology used to issue an abort takeoff instruction “ABORT TAKEOFF” versus adopting the ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization] phraseology “STOP IMMEDIATELY” contained in Doc 4444.

Through the Canadian Aviation Best Practice Working Group forum, which includes many airlines and air traffic controllers, it was identified that “ABORT TAKEOFF” was more compelling to crews beginning their takeoff roll on a runway than “STOP”. Stakeholders viewed “STOP” as a common instruction used on taxiways. Pilots indicated that if they were on the takeoff roll and needed to abort immediately due to a hazard, “ABORT TAKEOFF” was clearly aimed at an aircraft having commenced take-off roll, whereas if “STOP” was heard on the frequency, the crew could possibly believe that it is intended for an aircraft on a taxiway and would possibly question whether the instruction was for them, wasting crucial time.

MATS [Manual of Air Traffic Services] Tower states that aborting a takeoff is an emergency procedure used when continuing would present a grave hazard to the aircraft. A controller-initiated aborted takeoff is an extreme measure used only where no clear alternative exists. Therefore, based on stakeholder feedback and the result of the hazard identification activity, in the interest of safety, NAV CANADA elected to maintain its current phraseology.

Although NAV CANADA considers that the current defense barriers, based on procedures and practices, are effective, the company is looking into aligning “ABORT” phraseology with “MAYDAY” by repeating the spoken words three times. From a human factors perspective, the repetition would orient the pilot to the transmission, thus compelling the pilot to the immediate action that is required. A safety assessment will need to be completed prior to performing any change.

We will keep you informed on our findings, following the safety assessment on the proposed adjustment to our procedures.

Update (July 2019)

On 02 July 2019, NAV CANADA issued a National Operation[s] Directive to amend the phraseology for cancelling a take-off clearance, effective immediately.

The new required phraseology described in the directive is “(aircraft id), ABORT TAKEOFF ABORT, (aircraft id), ABORT ABORT [ reason ]”.

We're getting side tracked now. I brought up the document to prove that "rejecting" is not ICAO standard and the word is nowhere to be found in it aside from the CPDLC section. There can be huge fundamental differences in why ATC tells an aircraft to stop the T/O roll vs why a crew decides to stop. While I can see the perspective that using Mayday under every circumstance can be a bit of an overkill. I would approach the problem from a good vs harm angle. Does it do more good than harm? Does it do any good? Does it do any harm? In this particular scenario I'd argue that it does more good than bad, if it does any bad at all. I don't think emergency resources would hindered in any capacity should they get a call 30 seconds later telling them to stand down.

P.S. Anyone know why avcanada sometimes logs me out after pressing the submit button?

I believe the log out is related to when you log in you should select keep me logged in.

As to the other, I feel like human factor wise, it diminishes the meaning of May Day

I really struggle to see that. Its not like Maydays are getting called so often that their credibility is starting to be questioned.

[cdnavater]

We're getting side tracked now. I brought up the document to prove that "rejecting" is not ICAO standard and the word is nowhere to be found in it aside from the CPDLC section. There can be huge fundamental differences in why ATC tells an aircraft to stop the T/O roll vs why a crew decides to stop. While I can see the perspective that using Mayday under every circumstance can be a bit of an overkill. I would approach the problem from a good vs harm angle. Does it do more good than harm? Does it do any good? Does it do any harm? In this particular scenario I'd argue that it does more good than bad, if it does any bad at all. I don't think emergency resources would hindered in any capacity should they get a call 30 seconds later telling them to stand down.

P.S. Anyone know why avcanada sometimes logs me out after pressing the submit button?

I believe the log out is related to when you log in you should select keep me logged in.

As to the other, I feel like human factor wise, it diminishes the meaning of May Day

I really struggle to see that. Its not like Maydays are getting called so often that their credibility is starting to be questioned.

I suppose I see your point, however we are talking about twice for the same issue, second one being expected and still calling a May Day.
That being said, the maintenance guys should be facing some questions, an airspeed anomaly typically needs to be ground tested with equipment,

[digits_]

I feel like human factor wise, it diminishes the meaning of May Day

This! And once the importance is gone, you won't get it back.

Don't abuse emergency systems.

[JeppsOnFire]

Turn the corner, line up, thrust levers just reaching the detent, then:

PFD suddenly went black - MAYDAY!
or
Configuration warning - MAYDAY!
or
Coyote crossing couple hundred feet down the runway - MAYDAY!
or
Shit I left my wallet in the terminal - MAYDAY!

Seems pretty dumb to call a Mayday for EVERY abort, no?
After 80 knot call - sure, I could go along with that.

[goingnowherefast]

It's 2 crew. The FO calls a reject. Captain has no idea why. Do we have a conversation about it? Or do we say Mayday, start the trucks on their way. If the FO left his wallet in the terminal, cancel the Mayday. If the engine exploded, then good thing the trucks are already on their way already.

In my experience, the FOs seem reasonably intelligent. AFX doesn't arm. "Reject....autofeather". No Mayday call. We exit the runway and deal with it. Did we follow SOP to the dot? No. Should the FO have called the Mayday? Yeah probably, that's what the SOP says, and I'm sure as poop not going to fault the FO for it.

[digits_]

It's 2 crew. The FO calls a reject. Captain has no idea why. Do we have a conversation about it?

Not necessarily a conversation, but a decision, yes. Are you going to blow the fire bottles at every reject? Are you evacuating the plane on every reject? Those situations require a decision. If you can manage that, I'm sure you can manage calling a mayday only when there's an actual emergency...

[cdnavater]

It's 2 crew. The FO calls a reject. Captain has no idea why. Do we have a conversation about it? Or do we say Mayday, start the trucks on their way. If the FO left his wallet in the terminal, cancel the Mayday. If the engine exploded, then good thing the trucks are already on their way already.

In my experience, the FOs seem reasonably intelligent. AFX doesn't arm. "Reject....autofeather". No Mayday call. We exit the runway and deal with it. Did we follow SOP to the dot? No. Should the FO have called the Mayday? Yeah probably, that's what the SOP says, and I'm sure as poop not going to fault the FO for it.

First of all, your SOPs allow the FO to call reject?
At Jazz on the RJ the decision to go or reject is the Captain’s regardless of who is PF or PM, if the FO is PM then they will identify the problem and the Captain will say either reject or continue.
To have a blanket May Day call for all rejected take offs is in my opinion, just dumbing it down to the lowest common denominator!
We have some of those things at Jazz too, so don’t get excited, I’m just saying the caliber some of the pilots these days can’t make those decisions on the fly so the company has decided to take away your autonomy!

[northernpilot2]

Ok. Source?

Dont need any.

[northernpilot2]

Call the MAYDAY, get ATC attention, that is the purpose of the call. I cant believe some of you are still having a debate about this. You can always CANCEL the mayday after if you no longer need it.

Since I'm still going at it, when ATC gives you a heading and then subsequently clears you to a waypoint, tell the PF that LNAV IS AVAILABLE!! Hopefully you're not flying with "digits_", he/she will start asking you for a "source" about where does it say we have to call that.

[JeppsOnFire]

It's 2 crew. The FO calls a reject. Captain has no idea why. Do we have a conversation about it? Or do we say Mayday, start the trucks on their way. If the FO left his wallet in the terminal, cancel the Mayday. If the engine exploded, then good thing the trucks are already on their way already.

In my experience, the FOs seem reasonably intelligent. AFX doesn't arm. "Reject....autofeather". No Mayday call. We exit the runway and deal with it. Did we follow SOP to the dot? No. Should the FO have called the Mayday? Yeah probably, that's what the SOP says, and I'm sure as poop not going to fault the FO for it.

No, definitely don't have any sort of communication about it. Don't confirm anything. Keep your mouth shut except for MAYDAY!

[yowflyer23]

Is anyone aware of any other airline in the world that does this? if it is so important, I wonder if British Airways, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, or any American carrier do this?

Ours is more nuanced. Below 80 call Mayday if required. Above 80 it's a Mayday call because it's now in the highspeed regime according to Boeing.

This is how we do it on the Embraer at Jazz as well. Below 80kts it's discretionary. Above 80 kts, it's a mayday.

[cdnavater]

Is anyone aware of any other airline in the world that does this? if it is so important, I wonder if British Airways, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, or any American carrier do this?

Ours is more nuanced. Below 80 call Mayday if required. Above 80 it's a Mayday call because it's now in the highspeed regime according to Boeing.

This is how we do it on the Embraer at Jazz as well. Below 80kts it's discretionary. Above 80 kts, it's a mayday.

I’ll need to look into this, I guess that is the difference between CPs, perhaps this is a carryover from Sky Regional!

[Canoehead]

This is how we do it on the Embraer at Jazz as well. Below 80kts it's discretionary. Above 80 kts, it's a mayday.

I’ll need to look into this, I guess that is the difference between CPs, perhaps this is a carryover from Sky Regional!

The EMJ Mayday call did come with the SKR operation. The CRJ and Dash do not have procedure on using Mayday or Pan calls with an RTO.

Obviously, as with any aircraft or airline, pilots must follow the procedures in the AOM/SOP/COM/FOM. In the absence of a published procedure directing a pilot what to say on the radio during an abnormal or emergency situation, the use of standard R/T communication is best practise. At the end of the day, use common sense and SA. In many cases we dumb things down and take the decision making away from the pilot (and to a degree this is understandable), but if you're one of the lucky pilots who actually gets to use their brain and (gasp) airmanship, make an appropriate call.

Encore procedure says to call a Mayday with an RTO (blanket statement I assume). So if I was an Encore pilot, I'd call a Mayday with a loss of an ASI. Would I do that at Jazz where I have no direction to do so? No probably not. The term Mayday is pretty clear that it implies a life threatening emergency; imminent danger. I might consider a Pan Pan call (urgent, but non-life threatening). Depends also on where I am. If I'm in EWR, JFK, YYZ or YVR, and especially in Low Viz ops, that's when I would definitely use the terminology. YQR, GTF, YTS in VMC... I take pride in my air picture so I'd use common sense myself.

As well, this crew wouldn't have been told to just attempt another takeoff. Maint certainly had them do a CB reset and then after that was successful, attempted another takeoff. It happens.

[Inverted2]

Anyone who calls mayday for a rejected takeoff at 40kt for autofeather not arming probably calls 911 when they stub their toe on the nightstand.

[pelmet]

Anyone who calls mayday for a rejected takeoff at 40kt for autofeather not arming probably calls 911 when they stub their toe on the nightstand.

What about a pitch trim issue?

"C-GLWJ, a Westjet Encore De Havilland Aircraft of Canada DHC-8-402 was departing Kelowna
International Airport (CYLW), BC, operating as flight WEN3750 under instrument flight rules to the
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (KSEA), WA, USA. After applying takeoff power, the flight
crew received a PITCH TRIM caution light. The flight crew performed a low speed rejected takeoff
and declared a MAYDAY. After approximately 2 seconds, the caution light extinguished without
any inputs. The flight crew cancelled the MAYDAY and taxied the aircraft off the runway to consult
the aircraft quick reference handbook (QRH).

After reviewing the QRH the flight crew verified that the pitch trim was operative and was set within
the takeoff range. The maintenance department was consulted, and it was determined that the
aircraft was safe to continue operations. The subsequent takeoff was normal, and the flight
continued without issue."

....from TSB.

[FishermanIvan]

You don't need to call mayday to occupy a runway. If you know what caused the abort and it is non life threatening, then it is abusing an emergency system by calling mayday. It's also a very lousy SOP to require this. Transport and other similar organizations should not accept SOPs like that.

Does any other airline in Canada have this procedure?

I think the big 705s require it via their SOPs. 703 and 704 generally doesn't seem to. You always can if necessary though.

We don’t call Mayday on the ATR at 5T for a reject unless we’re on fire.

Doesn’t matter anyways, there’s only one airport I fly from that would even have the capacity to respond lol.