elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Fog; Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Upon landing I encountered severe wind shear that took away directional control of the aircraft causing the runway excursion.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that windshear on landing resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rejected takeoff at approx. 85 KIAS. Immediately after making the '80 knots' callout; saw multiple EICAS alerts come on. RTO auto brakes and automatic speed brakes worked appropriately and I barely had time to get the reversers engaged before the brakes almost brought us to a complete stop on the runway. Saw the alerts were FLT DECK TEMP; AFT CABIN TEMP; and FWD CABIN TEMP. I think there was also an FMC MESSAGE; but that may have happened during the reject. Taxied off the runway and stopped on taxiway to assess the aircraft. Decided to taxi back to the ramp and allow maintenance to look at the aircraft. Reject conditions: 9 degrees C; winds calm (or very close); 191;000 lbs. T/O weight; approx. 85 kias.




Synopsis: When he noted multiple EICAS alerts as the aircraft approached 80K on the takeoff roll the Captain of a B757 rejected the takeoff.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After landing on 28L the Tower told us to expedite and exit the runway on Taxiway D. Taxi way D and T entrance is collocated. The First Officer was flying the plane and said that he saw the taxiway and turned towards the entrance at about a 45 deg. angle because of our speed trying to hurry off the runway. Approaching the entrance of the taxiway at night at an angle other than 90 deg. it is difficult to tell where you are at in the entrance. As we entered into the taxiway we realized that we needed to be further to the left; we were actually starting into taxiway T. I was instructed to call the tower by ground control.  explained how and why we ended up on T not D as instructed. The controller told me this happens at that intersection all the time. Signage and or lighting needs to be better at that intersection for night time operations.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the First Officer in the left seat was flying the aircraft which sat low on the runway. With traffic following closely behind; the crew was attempting to expedite clearing 28L; but because the D; T Taxiway letters are combined on a single sign and the lack of leading off lights for Taxiway D; the First Officer chose to exit on the more obvious Taxiway T. The aircraft on final was sent around and the reporter's aircraft was required to avoid an oncoming aircraft.The reporter believes the root cause was the lack of clearly acquired taxiway lights leading from the runway onto the taxiway. The existing taxiway lights begin some distance from the runway in the Taxiway throat and not easily detected. He cited some European airports have SMGCS type lighting which is contextual and light only along the cleared route.



Synopsis: A flight crew landed on SFO Runway 28L with a clearance to expedite via Taxiway D; but exited on Taxiway T because of confusing signage and lighting.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise; I plugged my iPhone charger into one of the back galley charging outlets at the R2 door. I saw a small spark emit from the outlet; and I promptly removed the charger. I looked at the outlet more closely; and saw that there seemed to be a loose wire hanging out of it. I called the pilots to inform them of what happened. There had been no arcing; smoke; flame; or any alarming events aside from the spark and the wire. The captain wrote up the event; and made arrangements for a mechanic to come onboard. When I went back to the front of the AC and informed the A what had happened; she was extremely shocked that I had plugged anything into that outlet. She said that when she had been hired 35 years ago; FAs were made known of what a safety hazard it was to do so. Not only was I under the impression that cleaners use those outlets on a daily basis; but I have also seen numerous flight attendants use those outlets onboard to charge their IMDs. At my last base; this was common practice. I was not aware that use of those outlets was a safety hazard; and I absolutely would never knowingly compromise the safety of myself; the AC; passengers; or other FAs. FAs need to be made aware that the use of power outlets (apparently aside from the ones at passenger seats) is a safety hazard; and they by using them; they could be unknowingly compromising the safety of the AC and its passengers. It may seem natural to want to use them as most of our planes are power planes; and that we now have IMDs which may lose required power during a trip or even midflight; but that in fact we are not to use them at all for safety reasons.




Synopsis: B737NG Flight Attendant reported that a spark emitted from one of the back galley charging outlets when she plugged in her phone charger. The outlet appeared to have a loose wire. The A Flight Attendant she was flying with said that she was advised early in her career not to use those outlets.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
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: Ramp
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While doing my walk around on arrival flight; I was approached by a member of [the cleaning crew] and asked what flight this was. I answered and continued my walk around. Almost immediately; I was approached by another person in a safety vest and asked the same question. I took my eyes off the aircraft and looked directly at her and said Flight XXX; then immediately looked back up. As soon as I did; the second lady announced herself as TSA and wanted to see my badge for not noticing she did not have hers on her outer most garment. I fully understand how important security is at Company; but I also know how important safety is to Company also. By her pulling me from my task simply to see if I noticed her not wearing a badge; then taking all of my information; I could very well have missed damage to the aircraft; that if not noticed on the departure walk around; could put passengers at risk. I think those kind of missions should not involve people who are in the middle of completing safety checks.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported a TSA agent caused distraction during the pre-flight process when the employee had not challenged the agent for not properly displaying identification badge.
Date: 201903
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: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ramp called confirmed HAZ DG in PIT4 nesting system. Advised to move the HAZ in PIT 5 OR 6.




Synopsis: Load Personnel reported Hazmat was loaded in wrong pit.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The pilots wrote up that the right throttle moved slightly out of detent when on climbout in the full power setting. It was inspected and the fault detected. The engine fuel control unit input rod was hooked up on the incorrect side of the cable attach lever. It was disassembled; inspected and reassembled per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual. The engine was run at full power with no faults found. It was returned to service and has been flying with no repeats. Factors that may have led to this were that no hangar space was available; the parts [were] delayed; which led to working at night; the weather became [cold] with heavy [rain] and wind gusts; there were airplanes taxiing in front of and behind our aircraft; and an APU exhaust was blowing at us with the associated heat and noise. We should have stopped working on the plane until it was properly hangared; away from the cold; rain; wind; noise and distractions of the busy ramp.


Second narrative: The discrepancy was R/H engine leaking oil. The aircraft flew the next day and returned to SFO. The crew wrote up the following squawk: 'Right throttle auto retarded 3/4 knob; apporximately 6 percent N1 when hand removed at V1.'


Synopsis: A Cessna Citation was released for service following engine work performed under less than ideal conditions. The flight crew later indicated that the right throttle would creep from the full power setting. Maintenance personnel then detected that they had inadvertently hooked the throttle input lever on the wrong side of a cable attach lever.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LVJ.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G LVJ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While inbound to the Houston area on a position flight from ZZZ the planes only comm radio died. A friend met me with his plane outside Houston and escorted me to our home base and said he would make radio calls for me in the pattern. As I got close to the airport; I could see one airplane departing and one in the run up area. As I turned base; I continued to survey the area and kept my pattern tight. On landing roll out I saw an aircraft overfly me at an estimated 150 feet. At the hangar as we were putting the aircraft up my friend stated that the other pilot was verbally angry on the CTAF and had to pull up and go-around. I am not sure how close we got but I know it had to be close. I later tried to track down the pilot of the other aircraft; but was unable to locate him.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC during approach and landing roll at LVJ airport.  The pilot stated the aircraft's radio was disabled which contributed to the event.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FSD.Airport, SD
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: TRACON FSD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending into Sioux Falls and had been told to descend to 6;000 feet. As we were descending through roughly 7;000 feet I looked ahead and noticed an airplane headed directly towards us. It was a yellow crop dusting aircraft. Right about the time I saw the airplane and prepared to respond to what I assumed to be an upcoming RA the cropduster began a climbing turn towards our right. The airplane passed off our right hand side probably within 500 feet. We never received any traffic advisory from ATC and never received either TCAS RA or TA. After the plane had passed we advised ATC of the aircraft and they told us they didn't show any primary targets anywhere near our position. We continued on and had a normal landing at FSD. Cropdusting aircraft most likely did not have a transponder and was not talking to ATC. I do not believe anything done by us could have prevented this from occurring.


Second narrative: On Approach into FSD and with approach control I was the pilot monitoring and the pilot flying first noticed the traffic but there was no RA received as we both concluded that the aircraft was non transponder equipped. We descended below the aircraft at approximately 500 feet separation. I advised approach control of the aircraft and to alert any other inbounds.


Synopsis: A flight crew reported an NMAC with a non-transponder equipped aircraft on descent into FSD.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPWS
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; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft on downwind vectors for ILS.  At approx. 3500 MSL Captain's radio alt began fluctuations/readings of 1000' AGL w/ +/- 1500 foot deviations up and down.  Intermittent GPWS 'Terrain' warnings began.  Even though it was an obvious malfunction indication; the flight was in IMC so the escape maneuver was initiated.  The warning stopped during escape almost immediately; followed by more RA fluctuations on CA PFD.  F/O side did not indicate any abnormality or RA issues throughout event.  Flight deviated from ATC clearance (assigned altitude) during maneuver; ATC was advised during climb.  After warnings stopped; altitudes were re-verified to be correct and safe; and approach vectors were continued.As a company we need to be more proactive in fixing GPWS/radar alt. faults; not just 'clearing' the malfunction(s).  This was a repeat write-up that was not troubleshot in any detail according to the maintenance log.  This can create two hazards: 1. False warnings leading to unnecessary go-arounds; etc.; as in this case; and 2. conditioning crews not to take GPWS warnings seriously; as many times the event is dismissed due to repeat write ups.It is necessary to always consider these warnings real during IMC and nights conditions; and I will continue to do so.  There is no time to examine and diagnose if the warning is real or not.  GPWS/radio alt. faults must be corrected more quickly so as to avoid these scenarios.  It is worth noting that as of my last involvement in this case with this airplane; Maintenance was planning to fly a new radio alt. box to [us] and install it there after only two write-ups.  If this came to pass; then 'great job' to Maintenance for fixing this quickly this time.  This is a safety-critical system and multiple 'can not duplicates' create more hazards.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported receiving erroneous GPWS warnings on an approach in IMC; resulting in deviation from assigned altitude. Reporter was critical of company Maintenance response to this ongoing equipment malfunction.
Date: 201707
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: MCP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [The] Flight Ops Brief gives guidance for Descend Via clearances. The brief instructs us to set the lowest altitude on an arrival based on what the ATIS is advertising as a landing runway and not what we have actually been assigned as a clearance limit by ATC.ATIS is not a clearance! Descending lower than the branch point altitude or what we have been assigned is dangerous; it breaks rules and could break equipment and people (at the least it's going to get someone violated). All of my training and experience tells me to only set the altitude that I have been assigned or that I have been otherwise limited to. Anything more creates too many openings for interpretation; confusion; and danger. ARTCC needs to give a descend via to a specific runway; or we only set the altitude window to the branch point altitude until and actual clearance for lower is received.Altitude window selection should be lowest assigned altitude.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported having issues with his Company's Flight Operations Bulletin instructing crews to set the lowest altitude on the arrival when issued a Descend Via clearance and ATIS advertises an arrival runway. The reporter believed this procedure is unsafe.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was executing the published missed approach. I noticed a VFR aircraft that appeared to be inbound to the airport from the opposite direction. I called Aircraft X when I first saw him on radar on his missed approach. On the second call I received a reply and immediately issued traffic. I issued traffic several times and said something to the effect of 'I can't turn you because you're below the Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) but...'. Aircraft X finally got the traffic in sight and stated he was turning. After climbing above the MIA I cleared the aircraft on to his destination.I've never encountered this situation. I'm filing [a report] because if it happened again I might take action below the MIA. The MIA in this case is 2;500 feet. With the potential collision at 2;200 feet I might turn the aircraft at 2;000 feet. I don't think I had time to ask if he could maintain his own terrain and obstruction avoidance. He was a student pilot and in my experience this question causes confusion. Next time I would probably ask if the pilot had ground contact and suggest a turn. This is an unusual situation because at most of our airports I wouldn't be able to talk to aircraft at this low an altitude. The sector transmitter is at [fix] so I was able to communicate early at this airport. I would have thought that the two involved aircraft would have known about each other through Unicom.I'm wondering if this should have been treated as an emergency and I should have had a 'deal' with the MIA and would have turned the aircraft while he was slightly below the MIA. I would have felt better if I had done this.




Synopsis: A Controller radar identified a departure and noticed they had converging VFR traffic. The IFR departure was below the Minimum IFR Altitude so the Controller could not vector the aircraft to avoid the traffic.