lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
I acknowledge that there is ample room for interpretation here. That said, I nevertheless take issue with the definition above, for two reasons.
All of these things certainly merit MESS reports.
- The first and second sentences contradict each other in the case of a nozzle blow-out. In my experience, both first and second hand, after the nozzle is blown, the propellant burns slower than planned, by quite a lot. Which should be expected, assuming the propellant's burn rate exponent is positive.
- I reject the final sentence, that an ejection failure is also a form of CATO, since that happens long after take-off.
I can't find a reference, but I have long "known" that the term has been around referring to instances of unplanned rapid (and usually pyrotechnic) disassembly, dating back to many of these guys; events on or barely off the pad:
I'm guessing that's why MESS (Malfunctioning Engine Statistical Survey) was used instead of CATO.
But with all due respect Joe, your getting way too picky here. Keep It Simple Silly, the term is slang, and in my mind it's interchangeable with Malfunctioning Engine Statistical Survey (MESS).
If the motor has an issue and the boundaries of it's containment fail, that's a CATO.
And if there's no ejection charge... that's a CATO also. Now... you have to prove the ejection charge scenario... might be a slippery slope.