Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During Takeoff Roll on ZZZ; First Officer called '80 Knots'- Captain saw '50 Knots'- a 30 Knot Difference. At '100 Knots on First Officer's Airspeed Indicator; Captain's Airspeed read '70 Knots'. We performed a Rejected Takeoff Procedure due to the Unreliable Airspeed which was considered a 'Safety of Flight' item. We complied all items in our Quick Reference Handbook; all After Landing checklists and returned to a Company assigned gate for Maintenance analysis and trouble shooting. Upon further maintenance investigation; a Pitot Leak was discovered with a seal in the Captain's Pitot drain system.This aircraft just came out of the hanger after an unsuccessful (attempted) repair for a inoperative APU. The onboard ARD was dated and was expired for the last 5-6 days. The temperature in the cockpit upon arrival was 96f with a heat index in the cockpit of well over 100f. There was NO cooling attempted or in place in either the flight deck or the avionics bay area on the aircraft. Let me cut to the chase here: It was UNBEARABLY hot in the aircraft flight deck for both Flight crew and associated critical avionics equipment. I reached out via phone to the Senior Flight Duty Officer about this concern and was offered minimal assistance. The 'maintenance readiness' of this particular Airbus aircraft was questionable at best. We had multiple additional issues including additional MEL's added to the aircraft prior to departure. It's unfortunate that more of a concentrated 'team effort' was NOT provided by Maintenance to make this aircraft suitable; safe and ready for flight. This situation certainly made things much more difficult for an aircrew to perform their required duties during an early morning critical period launch. I feel my recent recurrent training 3 weeks ago provided a great refresher in safely handling a 100 knot critical rejected takeoff of an unsafe aircraft just as the sun was beginning to rise. My First Officer was sharp; professional; alert and knowledgeable. He provided me outstanding assistance in dealing with our Rejected Takeoff and subsequent procedures- I certainly appreciated his help!


Second narrative: On takeoff roll at 80 kts. on my PFD; I called; '80 knots.' The Captain's airspeed on his PFD indicated 50 kts.; and at 100 kts. on my PFD; his indicated 70 kts. The Captain announced and performed a rejected takeoff; and he stopped the aircraft on centerline with plenty of runway remaining. I announced the rejected takeoff to ZZZ Tower; and we completed the QRH procedures for a rejected takeoff. We exited the runway in coordination with ZZZ Tower; and we completed the After Landing Checklist. We coordinated with ZZZ Ground and Ramp Tower to return to a gate for maintenance troubleshooting. Subsequent maintenance investigation revealed a leak in a line in the Captain's Pitot-Static System.Flight Instrumentation System MalfunctionThere were several maintenance/admin issues associated with this aircraft that led to an extended pre-flight and late block-out; and during the early morning hours; this could have easily caused fatigue to adversely affect an aircrew's response to a time-critical malfunction on the runway. However; the Captain recognized the malfunction and performed a flawless rejected takeoff. He attributes his successful performance of the procedure to recently completing recurrent training. Since this type of event can happen when it is least expected; it highlights the importance of realistic and pertinent aircrew recurrent training.


Synopsis: A300 Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to unreliable airspeed indications with a 30 kt. difference between pilot's and first officer's airspeed.