Would you do this
 

Would you take off after an indication of an engine stall (RR Trent)?

Or would you get engineering to check for damage first?

When was the indication?

During start/low speed pert of the TO roll - probably not.
During latter (high speed) part of the takeoff, if no significant yaw (i.e. thrust loss) - yes.

It's covered by checklist on CFM povered A320. I find it weird that you have the option to continue on Trents :hmm:.

Where I fly, engine stall justifies abort up to V1. IIRC, bang that accompanies the stall at take-off power is so loud that there were a couple of instances where pilots believed that bomb went off and rejected take off past V1.

Follow the book, it has been written with these questions in mind.

It's a matter of knowning the machine and they do vary from model to model.

wasnt me doing it.

Occured on t/o during thrust application with strong crosswind.

The reason i bought it up is that significant damage can occur from what appears to be a benign stall.

Just wondering what others thought.

With the big Rollers, significant caution with the throttle needs to be exercised with large crosswinds, least expensive damage occurs.

I'd say it depends on how viscious the 'stall' was. If it occurred only in a 'strong' crosswind its likely to be a fan stall and that's fairly benign but a shift in parameters is something to consider. Anything else is a good case to abort. The Trent (800) especially, has a habit of throwing HP Stg 1 compressor blades.:suspect:

I sure hope not.

A single "benign" stall due to aerodynamic effects like cross winds, inlet distortions, or even internal clearance and or compressor deteriorations should not damage the engine to the point where it affects continued safe flight and landing.

However many engine stalls are associated with already existing damage and therfore should be considered an indicator that's it time to minimize the effects.

The manuals should be clear about this