elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: Cessna 152
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were flying a C172 on the RNAV XY at ZZZ; planning to circle-to-land on Runway XX. We made radio calls on CTAF for 10 miles; 5 miles; 3 miles; and when starting to circle. We only heard calls from a plane on short final. During the circling procedure; before we were established on downwind; my iPad with ADS-B In (via Sentry) alerted that there was traffic 10 o'clock; less than a mile. Both my student and I observed the other aircraft; a C152; pass less than 200 feet above us and less than 500 feet horizontally away. I made another call on CTAF and the C152 finally made a radio call that they were performing a teardrop maneuver to the downwind. My student and I proceeded to do a touch-and-go and fly the missed approach procedure on the RNAV XY. We did not hear any more radio calls from the other plane.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor with a student flying a Cessna 172 reported a NMAC on final approach.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: FO was flying approach when at 400 feet AGL left engine thrust increased uncommanded to maximum thrust. Auto throttle was already disconnected when event occurred; engine remained at full power until shutdown; no control possible with power lever despite attempt. FO executed a missed approach; landing was not possible. Tower was informed of missed approach with reason why. Captain made decision at about 2500 feet to shut left engine down immediately; both pilots agreed that speed and altitude would be difficult; if not impossible to control. With power on right engine near idle; coordination was imperative. FO added power to right engine as left engine shut down; expertly handling aircraft; leveling at 3000 feet as instructed by ATC. Departure Control [was advised]. QRH engine shutdown checklist accomplished. Flight Attendants were briefed. No evacuation was planned. Passengers were briefed of situation by Captain. Flight landed with no further incident a short time later.


Second narrative: While on final approach; at approximately 500 feet the left engine accelerated to full power. After realizing the engine was not responding to power lever inputs; we agreed a go-around was the best course of action and initiated one between 200 and 300 feet AGL. During the go around maneuver; we elected to shut down the left engine; run the appropriate checklist; and [advised ATC]; as the aircraft would not perform as desired with one engine operating uncontrolled at full power. After running the appropriate checklist and briefing the flight attendants and passengers; the Captain resumed ATC and PM duties. We re-briefed the approach and landed without incident.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported an uncommanded engine acceleration while on final approach. A missed approach was initiated; the engine was shut down; and an uneventful single engine approach was accomplished.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
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: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Number 2 Engine Stall ECAM and loud bang happened at the same time. The First Officer was initially flying the aircraft. I took over soon after the event. He followed the immediate action of reducing power to idle on #2 Engine. EPR indication: 0. Other engine parameters normal. We elected to land at a nearby airport. We declared an emergency; and had the flight attendants prep the cabin for evacuation. We requested fire equipment to stand by. The landing was uneventful. We stopped on the runway; and had the firemen look us over. We then taxied to the gate.




Synopsis: An A319 ECAM alerted ENG 2 STALL concurrent with a loud bang at FL340; so power was reduced; an emergency declared and the flight diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On arrival into ZZZ. Passing through 9;000 feet; flight-deck crew smelled a strong musty/dirty smell that lasted throughout the landing. Maintenance was notified; a write-up made; and a fumes report filled out on iPad after gate arrival.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported strong 'musty/dirty' smell on approach and landing.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
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 Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending on the HAWKZ 4 arrival approaching PIKEZ intersection when we received a runway change from ATC to 16C. The first officer selected 16c in the FMS; which caused a disconnect on the legs page and took the autopilot out of LNAV just as the aircraft was just about to make the turn from PIKEZ to COFAY . I heading selected the aircraft to the right toward COFAY while the first officer fixed the disconnect in about 2 seconds. LNAV was reengaged. The aircraft was never off course and the ATC controller did not say anything. The point of this report is that this is a common occurrence with the FMC when a runway change is made during the middle of the arrival. The fixes seem to double up; in this case PIKEZ was at the top of the legs page followed by a disconnect and then below that PIKEZ intersection was there again below the disconnect. I don't know if it is a software problem or what but it occurs often with a runway change.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain describes the FMC's reaction to a runway change entered during an RNAV arrival. A route discontinuity is created and the autopilot reverts to heading hold.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RAP.Airport, SD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial fixed wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower RAP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There is construction taking place on the approach end of runway 14 at RAP. The runway is shortened 1550 feet. To utilize all of the available runway a back taxi is required due to a closed taxiway. We taxied out to runway 14 via taxiway T1 and taxiway Alpha. We were then cleared to back taxi runway 14.  There is a displaced threshold with the construction and it was closed for taxi operations. I turned around on the wrong side of the displaced threshold line. Tower informed us of that error and cleared us for takeoff.


Second narrative: We need a special airport page for this airport. If that portion of the runway is not for use they could bring the barricades up to the threshold line to help us see it's closed.


Synopsis: Forced by airport construction to back taxi on Runway 32 to utilize the full remaining length of 14 an air carrier flight crew taxied beyond the temporary displaced threshold prior to reversing course.  The Tower reminded them of their technical 'violation' and cleared them for takeoff.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On initial call to taxi-out from the ramp; Tampa Ground issued the following instructions: 'Air Carrier X; taxi via Alpha; Bravo 6; Whiskey.' We waited to hear if he was going to say anything else but he didn't. We asked him to clarify and he re-stated those taxi instructions exactly as before. I responded with: 'OK for Air Carrier X you want us to taxi via Alpha; Bravo 6; and Whiskey; then stop for further instructions?' The Controller replied with a raised voice; 'NO; I want you to taxi to Runway 18R!' I replied that he hadn't cleared us to taxi to that runway and hadn't even mentioned the runway in his clearance. His reply was something to the effect of; 'Well; the active runway is on the ATIS and you DID say you had the ATIS.' Tampa Ground Controller should be reminded of the importance of using standard phraseology when issuing taxi instructions. At no airport that I have flown to has the runway been omitted from the taxi instruction unless we have not been cleared to taxi to that runway. At no other airport have I been told that the runway to taxi to can be omitted because it is included in the ATIS.




Synopsis: Air Carrier taxiing for departure at TPA questioned ATC's lack of runway information contained in the taxi clearance. ATC responded that the runway information was contained on the ATIS and not required in the taxi clearance.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was relieving Clearance Delivery; the Supervisor was also being relieved. The ASDE-X went off for 27R and 35 converging. The Controller on Local East took no action. Both 27R (an E190) and 35 (a CRJ2) aircraft landed and a [Runaway] 35 departure was at the end of the runway. I don't know if this was legal; it was certainly the tightest 27R and 35 I have ever seen in many years at PHL; and this operation is our standard. I believe this to be very dangerous; even if the operation were legal. I think it is highly likely that the pilots may choose to go around on their own; and if both aircraft's pilots made that decision simultaneously it could be disastrous given that both would be a tie in the air with noses up and unable to see one another. I believe this has been reported as an issue in the past. There was to have been a work group to study this operation. I do not think it was ever formed. So far as I know; management at PHL has taken no action. I suggest this work group be formed. It has also generally been practice to send one aircraft [around]if the ASDE goes off with the converging when in this operation. I don't know if that is suggested practice; but if so; perhaps the facility should be reminded of it.




Synopsis: PHL Controller witnessed an ASDE-X conflict alert that was unheeded by the Local Controller. The reporter notes this type of no-action event is on-going and very dangerous.
Date: 202001
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Supervisor pulled a CSR (Customer Service Representative) to the gate from the lobby. [The CSR] expressed her concerns that she is not gate qualified to the Supervisor however [the CSR] still had to meet an arrival and work 2 flights. This is a possible violation with FAR laws as [the CSR] was not licensed to operate a jet bridge. [The CSR] was able to acquire the assistance of [another CSR]. Assigning [a CSR] to operate a jet bridge that [they have not] been trained on could have put in jeopardy the facility; aircraft and any adjacent at the moment of operation. In addition; [the CSR] felt overwhelmed and began to feel the effects of her rising blood pressure rising and anxiety.




Synopsis: Air Carrier personnel reported a Customer Service Representative was forced to operate a jet bridge without proper qualification.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Contacted by Supervisor
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I got a gate call for an overhead flap/slat position light (amber) taking a few seconds to go out before the others. I talked to the Captain and he told me the #3 Krueger flap light was slow to extinguish. I explained that I did not think there was any relief for a Krueger flap problem. I cleared the [area around the] airplane and set the flaps down. I visually inspected the flap; position sensors; targets; and a general visual to make sure there was no damage. I retracted the flaps and it took about 2-3 seconds longer for the light to go out. I called Maintenance Control and explained what I did and another Controller got on the phone and said he had the MEL ready to go. Apparently; unknown to me; the pilot called Maintenance Control and I am not sure what was discussed. Since Maintenance Control had a MEL ready; I assigned the MEL to the aircraft. The MEL was pulled up and I followed the MEL procedures. I assumed the MEL list must have changed since the MEL was being assigned for a Krueger Flap. I should have reviewed all the documents required to verify the job was done correctly; and speak directly to Maintenance Control to coordinate our understanding of the corrective action. Do not assume the procedures have changed and double check my work.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician applied the MEL called for by Maintenance Control without verifying that it was the proper reference.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Stratotanker 135
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Refueling
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was on the Radar Assist position and the person working the Radar was conducting a flight break up. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y completed their refueling mission and requested the break up from FL200B230. The Radar Controller had Aircraft Y come up on frequency and reported level at 22000 ft. Aircraft X also reported level at 22000 ft. The radar Controller radar identified Aircraft Y and instructed the aircraft to descend to 21000 ft. The loss of separation occurred since ATC instructed Aircraft Y to descend instead of the flight leader; Aircraft X. We all need to have a full understanding of the procedures when conducting a flight break-up/join. ATC cannot issue a control instruction if standard separation isn't first met. The controller must only relay instructions through the flight leader until standard separation is gained.




Synopsis: A Controller reported a loss of separation following a military formation flight break up.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cruising at 2;500 feet MSL on a cross-country flight; the instructor was writing down ATIS at ZZZ while the student continued straight and level eastbound. The instructor; once finished copying the ATIS; looked up and noticed movement in their right peripheral vision. The instructor started a scan at 3 o'clock moving towards 12 o'clock looking for the suspected traffic. When the instructor's scan got to 1 o'clock there was an ultra-light aircraft in a slight descending turn to the left towards the instructor's aircraft. The ultralight was almost head on with the aircraft in its left turn. The instructor took control and pulled up to increased separation between the aircraft and the ultralight to approximately 150 feet and flew directly over the ultralight. This traffic was noticed approximately 3-4 seconds before the aircraft converged.The Cessna 172 windshield/door post might have blocked the ultralight from being acquired earlier by the instructor and moving head left or right may have helped. More heads-up time by the instructor might have led to earlier acquisition of the traffic. The ultralight was flying almost directly westbound into the setting sun which might have made the instructors aircraft difficult or impossible to acquire. More time spent discussing visual scanning and avoidance with the pilot under instruction may have led to earlier acquisition.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 flight instructor reported a near mid air collision with an ultralight aircraft.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZZ.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ; Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach aircraft right engine rolled back with Engine Failure EICAS messages. Declared an emergency with Tower and requested CFR equipment. Began Right Engine Failure checklist; but engine restarted and remained normal throughout remainder of approach and landing. After landing; taxied to gate with emergency equipment following.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reports right engine rolling back with Engine Failure EICAS message during approach. An emergency is declared; but before the engine failure checklist can be accomplished the engine restarts and is normal for the remainder of the approach and landing.