elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon reaching rotation speed; PM called for rotate. At rotate; the flight control (elevator) felt unresponsive. Both pilots noted the unresponsiveness. There was never a positive rate of climb. The airplane remained airborne for a very short period of time; and started to sink as I was still trying to pull for a climb. It appeared like a loss of lift. As the airplane continued to descend towards the runway; I informed the PM that 'it is not going'; meaning; it would not want to climb. The aircraft felt unsafe and unable to fly; and the decision was made to land the airplane back on the runway. Max breaking action was not needed to stop the aircraft with a safe margin of runway still ahead. Upon stopping; communication with the passengers and cabin crew was established; as well as with the Tower. All passengers and crew members were safe; and no one panicked. Tower needed an explanation/reason for the rejected takeoff. Later we called tower and everything was fine. They were concerned about injuries; which did not happen. We returned to the gate; and upon deplaning the passengers; they seemed calm and praised the crew reaction to the situation. Dispatch was notified and Maintenance was called in to inspect the aircraft.Good Crew Resource Management (CRM) is paramount for the safe operation of an aircraft on all phases of flight. Training; focus; attention to detail; and quick reaction are all fundamental during times of abnormal circumstances. Pilots should not become complacent; since most flights are non-eventful. Though not a procedure that is trained/performed/demonstrated during simulator training; it could be suggested to be implemented for situations like this. Overall; good aeronautical decision making; experience; and a safety mindset is crucial to the safety of passengers; crew; and aircraft.




Synopsis: Captain reported no positive rate of climb at lift off and elected to set the aircraft back down on the runway and reject the takeoff.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter Textron Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower RDU
Second aircraft: Socata (Aerospatiale); Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on the ground holding on Taxiway Charlie [short of] Foxtrot for landing traffic. The landing TBM then exited Runway 23R at Charlie; and we were now facing one another [in opposite directions on Foxtrot].The Controller had told me that the TBM would then make a right turn on Foxtrot; that I was cleared for takeoff and to cross 23R and avoid the TBM. However; the TBM; in fact; made a left turn on Foxtrot. I lifted off; rotated 30 degrees to the right; pulled power and started to move forward. As I was watching the Torque meter I glanced off to the left and saw the TBM was turning towards me [instead of away from me] on Foxtrot. I quickly applied more power to exit the area.The Controller mixed up the instructions by saying that the TBM was going to make a RIGHT turn onto Foxtrot; which made sense as all the General Aviation terminals are located to the Northeast off of Foxtrot.




Synopsis: An ATC miscommunication as to the landing traffic's direction of taxi after landing resulted in a conflict with a departing helicopter piloting expecting the landing aircraft to turn away rather than toward his direction of takeoff.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Super King Air 300
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was released out of ZZZ airport. Aircraft Y was in the run down list at ZZZ1. When Aircraft X was abeam the departure end of Runway XX at ZZZ; Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff without a release. Aircraft Y called me out of 1;800 feet and I turned him right to a 270 degree heading to avoid Aircraft X. The 270 at 2;000 feet put Aircraft Y into a 2;300 feet MVA. After coordinating with ZZZ1 and calling for a Supervisor; I climbed Aircraft Y out of the MVA. I could not turn Aircraft X because there was a 3;500 feet MVA just to the left of him. The two aircraft were 1.2 miles apart at the same altitude. If proper procedure would have been followed this would not have happened.




Synopsis: D10 Controller reported IFR traffic departed without a release; resulting in a traffic conflict.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Climbing out of BOS we encountered a brief RA error from possible 5G interference. I did report the event to ATC as well as company via ACARS however neglected to fill out a logbook report. I was under the mistaken impression that since the 5G NOTAM did not take effect until XC00Z; and the event happened at roughly XA00Z that the logbook entry was not required. I have since been counseled and corrected and am clear on the reporting requirements.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported noting a brief RA error climbing out of BOS; citing 5G interference as the possible cause of the event.
Date: 202112
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival into PHX we were placed onto a base vector for Runway 08. We were on speed and on altitude; on track for the approach. Our final vector put us on a 70 degree intercept (LEFT BASE) to join Runway 8 final approach course. I noticed that this heading would cause us to intercept inside the FAF (WAZUP); on a 6 mile final. I disengaged the Autopilot to attempt to make smooth intercept. However; due to the combination of dusk; parallax (from sitting in the right seat); and the tailwind from the winds aloft; I began to overshoot final. I wanted to do my best to stay on the north side of the airport to avoid the parallel runways of on the south side.While I reached 30 degrees Angle of Bank; in my attempt to correct back to the Runway 8 final; I over banked and that is when a 'Bank Angle' GPWS was triggered. In the turn I lost approximately 150- 200 ft.; while I corrected back to course. We were able to correct back to the final and the rest of the approach was uneventful. There was no traffic landing Runway 7L at the time of the overshoot to final and there were no TCAS TA or RA during the deviations.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a 30 degree bank angle while turning final to PHX airport and also received a GPWS alarm.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Other NA
Flight phase: Other NA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Other / Unknown; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other pre dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: Our ability in Dispatch to verify RAIM [Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitor] validation was unavailable due to the feed from the FAA having technical difficulties.  According to the FOM; XX.XX.X of the FOM the plane performs a RAIM validation when any RNAV approaches are attempted.  The flight crew will get alert if satellite reception is compromised.  The FOM also state if no satellites are scheduled to be out of service; the aircraft can depart without further action.  The Dispatchers Manual provides different methods of verifying GPS reception but does not provide a method if reception can not be checked or of the service is not available.  If dispatch can not provide verified outage information or length of information is there or should there be a procedure to change flight strips to NON-RNAV flights ?   Clarify procedures when GPS RAIM verification is not available or not functioning.  Do we need to file Non-RNAV flight plans.  Can we rely on Aircraft FMS to provide enough feedback to crews on GPS reception ?




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an event when the RAIM [Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitor] validation from the FAA source line was unavailable. The Dispatcher stated there are various methods published to verify GPS reception; but none published for the event of service not available. The Dispatcher questioned if the flights should be reclassified to Non RNAV in the procedures manual.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Narrative: Noted after informing the flight deck of final passenger count that a guest had a mask with direct vent. Approached guest and apologized noting our policy requires a mask without a vent and offered to get one from stock on board. Guest switched it out no issues. Did station miss this? How is this communicated to guests if [they have] the wrong mask?Ensure during boarding guests have proper masks.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger boarded the aircraft with a non compliant type of face mask. Flight Attendant questioned how customer service missed the passenger wearing the non compliant face mask.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LPPO.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center LPPO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At approximately the 5+00 hour point in cruise at FL390; a Flight Attendant advised several passengers and a Flight Attendant could smell an odor near row 14 left. They said it smelled 'electrical'. We sent an 'on break' First Officer to that location who reported he could not smell or detect any odor. To our knowledge no one else could now smell the odor. No abnormality was witnessed or detected in the cabin. Passenger in that area had been noticed using lap tops and Bose headset equipment. No further odor was reported for the remainder of the flight.About 6+30 hours into the flight I went to the cabin myself during a break. I walked past row 14 twice plus saw and talked to numerous flight attendants. No odors were present and everyone seemed very content. Approximately 30 minutes later; while well into our descent; we were contacted again and told flight attendants were experiencing headaches and nausea but no odors were present in the cabin. I believe we were told they had been working the left side of the aisle in coach. We selected high flow for better ventilation. Shortly after that; one of the three flight attendants was feeling worse and felt the need to sit down and asked for oxygen. We again asked about odors but none were reported from any location in the cabin. We asked if the distressed flight attendant wanted to be met by paramedics. We were told she said yes and we made the request. We were told she was sitting up; conversing; and appeared normal but perhaps a little pale. Remote medical assistance was not contacted directly as only 30-45 minutes of flight remained. An emergency was not declared. We were allowed to keep speed up and ATC got us right in and paramedics were in position awaiting us. After gate arrival I got no updates regarding the three distressed flight attendants. Thinking someone would come up front or call; I became involved with maintenance; paper work and completed the cabin fume; odor; and smoke form for Maintenance. By the time my IOE Captain and I were able to move aft everyone had already left the aircraft.




Synopsis: Faint odors detected by passengers and flight attendants aboard an A330 may have caused nausea and headaches for three flight attendants as the flight approached its destination.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arriving at ZZZ on Thanksgiving evening on a clear night; Approach asked if I would like the visual or ILS to Runway X at ZZZ. I requested the visual approach and was handed off to the Tower. I was at 2;000 feet flying west. Tower asked if I had the airport and a landing Learjet on final in sight and I replied 'Yes.' I was cleared for the visual approach to Runway X and asked to follow the Learjet. I was then cleared to land on Runway X. I made a left base to final turn and was lined up to land at about 800 feet when the Tower said 'Aircraft X; Ahh. Ahh. Ahh.' I replied 'Tower I didn't get that; Aircraft X' and Tower came back and said 'Aircraft X go missed there is a truck on the runway.' I executed a VFR Go-Around and climbed to 1;000 feet runway heading. I called Tower and asked what he want me do. Tower replied 'I need you to cancel IFR at this time and squawk 1200.' I agreed and squawked 1200. Tower then gave me a right pattern and cleared me to land again. I flew a right pattern and landed without incident.What I'm confused about is why Tower had me change my squawk code to VFR; particularly in the middle of a Go-Around. There was also a TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) in effect at the time though there is a small cutout in the 30 mile ring around ZZZ. I had been cleared for a visual approach and was therefore not required to execute the ILS X missed procedure; which includes a left turn into the TFR and back to the west. I executed the visual missed approach and should have been able to keep my IFR squawk code since I wasn't flying the ILS X approach.




Synopsis: Phenom 300 pilot reported receiving an unusual clearance during a go-around that resulted in confusion.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UAO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the RNAV 17 missed approach procedure to the hold. ATC advised us that we were supposed to be flying to GLARA intersection for the missed approach on LOC DME 17. The mis-communications between us and ATC put us south of UAO and TRACON told us were we supposed to be East of UAO. The confusion between the two missed approach procedures (LOC DME 17 and RNAV 17) for Aurora could possibly cause some disastrous situations. We continued to GLARA without further incident.

Callback: Reporter stated that they had requested the RNAV RWY 17 approach and were conducting that approach. Upon initiating the missed approach procedure; ATC queried the pilot asking where they were going. When the pilot replied that they were doing the RNAV 17 missed approach; ATC said they should be flying the LOC DME RWY 17 missed approach. Reporter said they were not aware that ATC had issued them the LOC DME RWY 17 approach until that point. Reporter noted that the final approach course numbers for the two approaches are identical; however the RNAV missed approach course continues south; while the LOC DME missed approach course turns eastbound.



Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that while executing the RNAV 17 missed approach procedure to UAO; ATC informed them they had been cleared for a different approach to the same runway.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had an electrical failure causing no flaps and NORDO. I did my best to sequence safely into traffic pattern; looked for light signals; and did not see any. I landed safely and finally saw light signals after landing.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported electrical failure resulting in no flaps and having no radio communications.  The pilot was able to safely land and saw light signals after landing.