elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ1; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff from ZZZ-ZZZ1 both flight deck and cabin crew members detected a mild smell of burning oil or engine exhaust. Smell lasted for approximately 3-4 minutes during climb; with the strongest smell in the aft galley area. There was no fire; smoke or mist present; only a strange smell of what I would classify as oil burning. The fumes did not increase and began to stabilize and finally decrease after a few minutes. The crew began the Smoke; Fire or Fumes checklist but the fumes decreased before the checklist could be completed. The cabin crew investigated all lavs; galleys; and PEDs for any source of fumes. Dispatch and Technical Support Maintenance Control were contacted via Commercial Radio and an ELB write up was made. Since the fumes ended and did not appear to emanate from within the cabin or flight deck; I opted to continue the flight to ZZZ1. The flight concluded uneventfully and a written Smoke/Fume Report was filed with ZZZ1 Maintenance. Subsequently; the Chief Pilot was verbally debriefed. The aircraft was removed from service upon arrival at ZZZ1.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a fumes event shortly after takeoff which dissipated after 3-4 minutes allowing flight to continue to its destination.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYYC.Airport, AB
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYYC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon our arrival into Calgary (CYYC); approach descended us to 5;500 MSL at least 15 miles out. They vectored us to a visual approach to Runway 16; and as we intercepted the LOC; we started a descent to 4;000 FT; believing that was the glide slope intercept altitude; which was; in fact; 4;800 FT. The visual cues from the wider than normal runway indicated we were possibly slightly low. We then got a 'too low; gear' warning and at approximately 600 FT RA; the gear was lowered and we intercepted the glide slope. The landing was normal and the weather conditions were VFR and clear. Approach descended us down far out and low. This; along with the wide runway; created visual cues that were non normal.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports getting low during a visual approach to CYYC due to an early descent by ATC and the visual perception of the wide runway. The EGPWS sounds a gear warning at 600 FT; the gear is extended and the approach continued to landing.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While executing the Teterboro Eight SID our aircraft lost separation with traffic operating to/from EWR. The loss of separation was reported to the crew after the fact by an FAA inspector. At the time of the incident there was no indication given by TCAS or ATC that there was a traffic conflict of any kind. Winds at 1;500 FT were in excess of 60 KTS and may have contributed to the loss of separation.


Second narrative: During takeoff on Runway 24 at TEB; and during the initial climb on the TEB 8 SID; Runway 24; we encountered strong winds at both the surface level and during climb; along with light to moderate chop. The surface winds were approximately 290 degrees at 20-25 KTS and low level windshear was being advised. During our initial turn on the TEB 8; we noticed while leveling at 1;500 FT the winds were 300 degrees at approximately 35-40 KTS. We initiated our turn to a 280 degree heading as per the SID at the appropriate time. Due to strong wind conditions I am concerned we encroached on the EWR final corridor. At no time was there instance of a TA; RA; or an ATC advisory or alert. We continued on the departure procedure and were given a climb and a northwesterly turn almost immediately upon check in with N90 TRACON. The initial clearance from TEB Clearance Delivery was the RUUDY SID; however we requested; and received; the TEB 8 SID.


Synopsis: HS125 crew is informed after the fact by an FAA inspector of a loss of separation incident departing TEB on the TEB 8 SID.  Low level windshear and strong surface winds added to the crews workload during takeoff phase.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Following a normal taxi and takeoff; the FO (PF) turned south and accelerated. He requested flaps up; then; upon passing slat retract speed; requested slats retract. As soon as the CA retracted the slats; we got the stick shaker and a Level 2 'Slats Disag' alert. The FO continued to fly the aircraft while the CA and I referred to the QRH Level 2 alert 'Slat Disag' checklist and then the 'Slats Disag' checklist. ATC had cleared us to 16;000 ft. We proceeded direct to the cleared waypoint and continued our climb to 16;000 ft; but we informed ATC that we had a problem and requested a final altitude of 16;000 ft with an entry into a holding pattern. We contacted Maintenance to discuss the problem; we contacted station Ops to let them know we would probably return. We also informed ATC that we would need to adjust our gross weight prior to landing. (We referred to the '28/RET Estimated Landing Distances - Slats Disag' chart in the 'Slats Disag' checklist to decide what gross weight to use for fuel dumping.) After completing the 'Slats Disag' checklist; and with permission from ATC; we referred to the Non-Alert 'Fuel Dump' checklist; and we reduced our gross weight to 460.0 lbs. After all checklists were complete; and after a thorough discussion of the approach and landing; we commenced our descent. The FO flew the approach and landing; using the 28/RET Approach Speeds with a configuration of 28/EXT. The approach was flown to a full stop; and we taxied to the ramp.




Synopsis: MD-11 SLAT DISAG alert was received during slat retraction after takeoff. The SLAT DISAG checklist was completed; fuel dumped; and the crew returned to the departure airport for an uneventful landing.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was practicing takeoff and landings in the pattern with a Student. Our fifth approach around the pattern was normal and the Student actually made a nice three point landing; but shortly after touching down the aircraft veered to the left when the left tire popped. The Student reacted by applying hard right rudder which then caused the aircraft to quickly and sharply veer to the right which resulted in a ground loop off the runway; ending up in the grass. It happened so fast that by the time I was able to react with left rudder inputs it was too late and we were committed to the imminent ground loop. The Student and I were unhurt; but the aircraft sustained some damage to the landing gear strut; wing tip and tail wheel; plus a cracked windshield. The tires appeared to be in good condition; tread was good; no dry rot noticed and inflations looked good. The Student did say the tire that popped was about ten years old.  I think tail draggers are risky for teaching in and things can get bad very fast. I'm sticking to tricycle gear aircraft.




Synopsis: An Instructor pilot and his Student lost control of their aircraft when the left tire blew out during the landing roll.  A ground loop followed when the Student pilot overreacted and the aircraft exited the runway suffering damage to a wingtip; landing gear; tail wheel and windshield.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Fire Extinguishing System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was asked to verify Serial/Part Numbers [S/N-P/N] of the Cargo Fire Bottle Squibs per Management request. Both serial and part numbers needing to be replaced were on the one fire bottle. My Lead told me to just change the whole fire bottle; therein replacing both fire bottle squibs in the process. I did all procedures for Repair and Replacement (R/R) in accordance with the AMM reference Chapter 26-25-01 and I did the Operational (Ops) Check of the Fire Bottle / Squib Test in accordance with AMM reference 26-25-00. All Ops Checks where good; when I performed them. However I was just informed by my Supervisor that [approximately] twenty days later; the [flight] crew reported the squibs failed their Preflight Check. Maintenance found both cannon plugs where off the squibs. Because I was the last documented person to work on the squibs/fire bottle; I want to say: As far as I can remember; I had all connections and Cannon plugs on and completely secured. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere along the way; but I cannot say with absolute certainty; as I cannot recall any mistakes that I made. As we are all human it is possible I missed a step; but I don't recall that; I am always very attentive to doing things the correctly. I was under pressure; I had one hour to complete this task prior to departure. I had never done this task before; and I don't think so; but I may have made a mistake under the pressure of getting the job done in time. Evening. Line Mechanic.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic was informed that cannon plugs to the squibs on a Cargo Fire Bottle were found not connected on a CRJ-200 aircraft approximately twenty days after he had installed the fire bottle. Flight crew had reported the Squibs Test had failed during their Pre-flight Check.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FTW.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: VMC; 10
Aircraft: Falcon 10/100
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FTW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on an IFR flight plan; on a visual approach to runway 34; on a wide left base to final. I was using the ILS as a backup to the visual approach. I inappropriately armed the approach mode instead of the localizer mode; and when the glide slope needle started descending; I followed the flight director commands to descend.My copilot protested that something was wrong; and that I should not be descending any lower considering we were now at 800 feet AGL while still 5 miles from the runway. Immediately thereafter the control tower called and asked about our altitude.I immediately climbed back up to 1;500 feet AGL.We did not receive a Traffic Alert Warning System (TAWS) alert.After landing we discussed that the flight director must have captured a false glide slope; and that I should not have armed the approach mode before being established on the localizer.I believe that a contributing factor was complacency due to the visual conditions.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: FA10 flight crew reported descending to 800 feet AGL on a visual approach to FTW when the pilot flying followed a false glideslope.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed on the runway and I heard the stall horn go off. I landed with the left main wheel first; then the right main wheel and then the front wheel. I applied brakes and lost control of the aircraft. I slid off the runway to a full stop. The right main wheel touched the grass; not sure about the other two wheels.




Synopsis: PA28 student pilot reported loss of directional control after landing that led to a runway excursion.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FXE.Tower, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FXE
ATC / advisory: Tower FXE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This is a series of events involving the coyote problem on the field. Coyote observed on runway; Med evac on approach was issued a go around by Local Control. Security was summoned to chase the coyote off the field. A pilot on the ramp reported a coyote; security vehicle was summoned to chase the animal off the field. FAA Vehicle eastbound on taxiway reported a coyote just north of the approach end of the runway. The vehicle chased the animal into the treeline. Aircraft Y landed and reported almost hitting a coyote on landing roll; the animal cut right in front of him on the runway. A coyote was spotted near a taxiway near the runway. Security was summoned to chase the animal off the field. A coyote was spotted west of a runway; security was summoned to chase the animal off the field.This has been going on since last summer or fall. The population of coyotes is growing as we often see them in pairs or small groups now. Airport operations does not seem to be able to achieve the appropriate permissions to handle the situation; e.g. trap or shot; from the state or local government. This problem is getting progressively worse and aircraft safety is at risk daily.  The above list is a typical day of dealing with the coyote problem on the airport here. Get the presiding authority; whomever that may be; to issue the order to handle this escalating safety problem and capture or kill these animals before there is an accident.




Synopsis: FXE Tower Controller reported a recurring problem with coyotes. An aircraft was issued a go-around due to a coyote on the runway. A landing aircraft reported almost hitting a coyote on the runway.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain [on flight XXX] called and said the ZZZ -ZZZ1 leg is delayed because ZZZ ramp unloaded some haz[Hazmat] meant for ZZZ1. When the ramp opened F1; it was full of freight not accounted for on the ZZZ2 -ZZZ [inbound flight] weight and balance. I contacted the Duty Officer; and she recommended the crew fill out a report and contact company. I confirmed that recovery was notified. Crew informed delay is so weight and balance can be fixed in ZZZ to account for the extra freight.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported the Captain notified Dispatch that a flight delay was required to correct a Weight & Balance discrepancy. During the correction process the Hazmat cargo had to be moved to complete the Weight & Balance adjustment.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This report applies to multiple [CRJ-200] aircraft. In the past approx year there has been a noticeable change to the Thrust Lever Quadrant on most of the CRJ-200 fleet. I do not know if this is a result of a change in maintenance or if the aircraft are simply getting old; but it is potentially a huge safety issue. The throttles are much tighter /harder to move than they should be. In most cases the friction lock will not even move; if it does; it doesn't loosen the throttles at all. Whenever I have throttles like this the thrust reversers are almost always even tighter. In a few instances the thrust [reverser] levers are so tight that the only way I would be able to physically deploy them would be to intentionally injure my wrist (due to the strength that would be required). As we do not test the thrust reversers; this problem is not found until the landing roll. The threat [is] finding out that the thrust levers cannot be pulled at a time when you are counting on them; i.e. on a short or contaminated runway. Other crews do not write them up; because while they might seem tight; they are still able to deploy them. It does not occur to them that some would most likely find the reversers difficult to impossible to deploy.Maintenance needs to change the way they are inspecting and/or maintaining the throttle quadrant. I have flown this airplane eight years now; only recently has this been an issue.




Synopsis: A First Officer reports about a noticeable change to the force required to move the thrust levers; almost to the point of injury; on multiple CRJ-200 aircraft. Throttles are much tighter-harder to move and the friction lock most times does not move. Thrust Reversers are even tighter and cannot be pulled at a time when you are counting on them; such as; on a short or contaminated runway.