elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain and I were ready to do a [test flight] for Aircraft X that just came out of maintenance. During the taxi out; the airplane felt fine and the flight controls check was successfully done. We were cleared for takeoff a few minutes later on Runway XXR. The Captain aligned the airplane to the runway centerline and we confirmed runway heading. On the initial addition of power; from idle position to halfway up to TOGA; the airplane veered left as if the nose wheel was not aligned with the centerline. Captain reduced the thrust to idle; re-centered the nose to the centerline; and added power again to halfway up; around 75% N2. As the airspeed increased; the airplane veered to the right. As the Captain tried correcting with left rudder; the airplane veered more to the right this time.Captain reduced the thrust levers and called out rejecting at around 30 kt. We did the necessary call-outs and communicated to ATC that we were rejecting and will be exiting the runway on the next right available; which was Taxiway XX. ATC queried our intentions. After analyzing and developing a plan; including the input from the Maintenance Representative in ZZZ who was in our jumpseat; we decided that the airplane was unsafe to fly and that we needed to go back to the hangar after running the appropriate checklists and complying with all SOPs. The taxi to the hangar was without issue.Unfortunately for the flight crew; the only way we could have found that error was when we did on take off roll; since the steering using the tiller was correct. Maintenance could have found it earlier while doing the heavy maintenance checks; but I am not sure.




Synopsis: CRJ700 First Officer reported that a loss of directional control during the takeoff roll led to a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Other takeoff roll
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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal operations until lining up [and] cleared for takeoff. As I was turning onto centerline I set throttles to 40%. An aircraft behind me called on Tower frequency and informed me there were flames coming out of back of left engine. I aborted takeoff at approximately 10 knots and taxied off [the runway] at first exit to right. We called emergency vehicles to meet us. Passengers were informed to stay seated. Vehicles arrived; noticed no abnormalities. No abnormal engine indications. We taxied back to gate.Additional comments:At no time were there any abnormal engine indications from either cockpit or from outside other than initial call from another aircraft that he saw flames in our exhaust. When asked we told Tower our Souls on Board and 2 hours of gas. I coordinated with emergency on radio 1 to observe our engines while we turned airplane around; and there were no abnormal visual indications. After discussion with maintenance; we decided to taxi back to gate by our own power. Wrote up in log book and interview two passengers who saw the event.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff when another aircraft reported seeing flames from the left engine.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing a 180 degrees. Turn to my first waypoint after departure from BLM I experienced spatial disorientation at approximately 900 FT MSL. Moderate to severe turbulence made it difficult to regain control of the aircraft for about 40 seconds. This incident caused me a great deal of stress. BLM was below minimums so I could not return to the airport and I had the plane under control so I elected to continue the flight. I was cleared to 5;000 FT and traveling on V229 enroute to JFK when ATC directed me to climb to 6;000 FT. After acknowledging; I began the climb. Still unnerved by the loss of control and reliving what happened; I climbed past my assigned altitude and was called by ATC as I broke through 6;700 FT. I was then instructed to remain at 7;000 FT. The rest of the flight to UUU was completed without incident and no aircraft had to be diverted because of my mistake. Losing control so close to the ground shook me up. It affected my ability to fly the plane properly. I should have told ATC what happened and asked for delaying vectors until I regained my calm. I am going up with a CII this week for an IFR proficiency check.




Synopsis: A BE-36 pilot on an IFR flight experienced spatial disorientation at low altitude as a result of an encounter with moderate or greater turbulence during his climbout in IMC. Shortly after; still distressed from the encounter; he failed to level at his cleared altitude of 6;000. ATC alerted him and cleared him to level at and maintain 7;000 as he was climbing through 6;700.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: DC-9 10
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While picking up cargo we noticed a discrepancy between the paperwork and actual weights. I contacted Customer Service but was unable to get a better number on the weights. Originally we were to pick up 9 racks at 15;750 LBS. The load was short shipped and only 6 racks arrived. The paperwork stated a weight of 6;424 LBS. We didn't fell this was accurate but felt confident it was under the 15;750. I made the decision to use a weight based on the original shipment. With nine racks the weight of each rack would be approximately 1;750 each; so six would be 10;500. Because even using the 15;750 number; no weight limitations or CG would be out of limits we went with the conservative figure of 10;500. Upon arriving; I had the racks reweighed and the new weight was 8;130. This had my calculated weight on the conservative side by 2;370 LBS while the shipper under estimated the weight by 1;706 LBS. There were no scales to reweigh at the departure airport. Customer Service was unable to get any better estimate from the shipper. In a perfect world the shipper would have exact weights for their products. In the future; it would be prudent to only use cargo loading facilities that had proper weighing equipment or having a calibrated/certified pallet jack with built in scale. While the on demand world does not lend itself to these things I would suggest making sure the shipper was held accountable for their weights.




Synopsis: DC9 Captain does not believe his cargo load has been weighed accurately and using some assumptions; increases the weight by 4;000 LBS. No accurate method of weighing the freight could be found and the estimate turns out to be conservative.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL390; we noticed an airframe/engine vibration. EGT on the number one engine increased 100 degrees higher than the number two. F/A (Flight Attendant) reported flames from the number one engine. Accomplished QRC Engine Fire Checklist; and shutdown the engine. Diverted and landed flaps 15. ARFF (Air Rescue Fire Fighting) reported no fire/smoke. Taxied to the gate; and shut down.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew experienced engine vibrations along with rising EGT at FL390. A Flight Attendant reported flames coming from the number one engine. The engine was shut down and the flight diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was departing ZZZ1 and going northwest toward ZZZ2 with a slight jog to the east to avoid the ZZZ3 Class B.  My plan departing uncontrolled ZZZ1 was to turn out to the south to climb above the ZZZ4 Class D and call TRACON for flight following and transition through the ZZZ Class C.  I have done this dozens of times and never had any trouble getting TRACON to respond.  However; I failed to consider that TRACON controllers are handling multiple sectors because of the pandemic.  Presumably because of this I did not get a response from TRACON; and I hadn't properly planned for this possibility; and I flew into ZZZ's Class C without ATC communication.  As [soon] as I realized that I had done so; I turned and descended to exit the Class [C] (while still avoiding the ZZZ3 Class B.  Once I was sure I was clear of the ZZZ Class C; I turned back on course; and was able to establish flight following with the ZZZ5 sector of TRACON.I was assuming that I would get a response from TRACON and thus be cleared through the Class C; because that is what has always happened before; but I failed to plan for the possibility of what actually happened.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported being unable to contact ATC due to possible Controller under staffing resulting in a Class C airspace violation.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying a filed IFR flight plan I experienced total electrical failure i.e. no instruments/no radios. Using my cell phone I got a hold of Flight Service and asked to relay to Approach that I was climbing to VFR conditions and reversing course. It was relayed to Approach. I had checked the fuses and found none popped and continued north at about 7;500 feet. I saw an opportunity to descend to clear skies and did so. When VFR and around 2;000 feet I was able to contact a family member and asked that person to notify Tower of my proposed landing; which was done. Tower gave me a green light as I prepped for landing but when close to touchdown they saw my gear was up. They switched to a red light that I didn't see but my emergency gear extension worked so my gear dropped just in time. Tower called me and told me of the late deployment of my landing gear and said to call the Supervisor at Approach which I did immediately. Supervisor told me they did get the call from Flight Service; saw the climb; turn; and descent; but that I should have landed at closest airport. I said I was in the clouds or above heavy broken I couldn't see the ground and thought it prudent to return to a familiar airport. The Supervisor told me that during my descent I was in Class B and since they couldn't read my altitude I could have caused approach problems for the 'Big Guys' but that they were glad I got down safely. I am still awaiting the avionics shop to diagnose the problem. It seems it might have been the detent on the master switch on a relay malfunction.




Synopsis: GA pilot on an IFR flight plan reported experiencing complete electrical failure and descended to VFR conditions into Class B airspace to return to the departure airport.
Date: 202001
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Observer
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: In 2019 52% of TCAS RA (Traffic Collision Avoidance System Resolution Advisory) events occurred within 25 miles of the Deschutes [DSD] VOR. Based on a total of 260;000 square miles of Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Centers Airspace. (According to data presented at Bend Municipal Airport).At a meeting; ATC expressed that they initiated the meeting as they have 'genuine concern over the unstructured air traffic' in Central Oregon. They stated 'We often have no idea what they are doing; no communication and no structure.'Commercial pilots were in attendance from: several airlines as they have a genuine concern with the number of TCAS events and aborted approaches due the unstructured volume.ATC recommended 'Avoid the DSD VOR if at all possible;' yet despite all of the above; the flight schools continue to circle the DSD VOR non- stop on a daily basis.Yes; the flight schools have a legal right to use the VOR. But at what cost? Does there need to be a catastrophic event?The FAA tag line at the end of every letter to concerned citizens: 'The FAA is continuing to manage the NAS in a safe and efficient manner while continuing to explore measures to reduce noise from aircraft in the future.' Is this a true goal or just a tag line?Many of us use the commercial carrier on a regular basis. We are very fortunate to have the fabulous commercial service out of RDM. But we are the same people; (along with our families; friends and colleagues) who are onboard the commercial carriers as these repeated TCAS events are occurring. The commercial traffic is not the issue.The FAA needs to move the training traffic off of the DSD VOR. We all deserve safe skies; not continuous near misses.




Synopsis: Reporter stated heavy training traffic over DSD VOR often results in TCAS RAs for air carrier aircraft. This is reportedly a known issue; but there is no solution yet.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting a practice approach under visual conditions; for the ILS Z RWY 16R approach into Reno/Tahoe Intl. I initially contacted NORCAL approach on 126.3 and asked for vectors to the approach. Approach asked for my intentions at the completion of the approach; and I told them that after I reached minimums I would make a low approach and proceed visually back to my departure airport. After vectors they cleared me for the approach; and told me to contact Reno Tower on 118.7 which I did. I established communications with the tower; and everything went fine on the practice approach. Upon reaching 200 feet minimums; I added power and proceeded to climb on runway heading. The tower then reprimanded me; telling me that next time I needed to tell them I was going to do a low approach - they apparently thought I was going to land. I replied and told them that I told approach control of my intentions; and I guessed they didn't pass that on to the tower. RNO tower had another VFR departure which they cleared for takeoff on a parallel runway; so I can understand their concern. My mistake was assuming tower knew my intentions; which they did not. I have been in other situations when I was unclear about which information is passed from approach control to the tower; and I am unsure as to how to know for sure. So in the future I will make sure to always inform the tower of my intentions even if I think they should already know.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported requesting a practice ILS from Approach Control to terminate in a go-around. The pilot's intentions were requested by Approach Control. At minimums the reporter went around and was admonished by the Tower for not informing them of the plan.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was an instrument training flight conducted in a Piper Arrow II; (PA28R) with one student and instructor.  During IFR training we heard a loud noise sounding like a very rough engine occurred without any additional vibration or visual signs. The instructor took control of the flight and told the student to remove his vision restriction device. After checking with the student to verify the sound was indeed present and appeared to be coming from the engine the instructor informed ATC and; being in VFR conditions; cancelled the IFR flight requesting return to [departure airport]. All engine gauges appeared normal. ATC asked if [it was an emergency] and the instructor stated 'not at this time.' The instructor then request frequency change to [the Tower] and was approved. Contact was established with the Tower. [ATC] requested 'souls on board' and 'fuel on board.' These requests were responded to with 'two' and 'four hours' respectively. [Tower] cleared [us] to land and it was completed without incident.The engine cowling was removed by the instructor and student after parking to determine if there was in fact any damage. Visual inspection of the engine showed that the right front cylinder exhaust stack had broken off of the engine and was at the bottom of the engine compartment. Also; damage to the inside of the cowling was observed; apparently caused by the direct impingement of the exhaust.  No other damage was noticed.




Synopsis: A PA28 pilot and instructor noticed a strange noise but noticed no abnormal engine indications. After a successful return to the departure airport; a broken exhaust stack was noted.