elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was taking off with all parameters in green range and with all power available; when I had no more Runway available I retracted the gear around 200ft or less (it's my best approximation) when suddenly the engine went back to idle power whatever the position of the power lever; also all cockpit lights switched off and on 2 or 3 times when I lost the power. I extended the gear and flaps;[notified] Tower and landed on the grass/sand surface after the end of the runway. I didn't try to run a full engine failure check list because of the proximity with the ground; and the only one place I had in order to land the aircraft. There is no visible damage to the aircraft and everybody in the aircraft are perfectly fine.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported engine failure shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Whiny 1 RNAV arrival into DFW. Star was loaded and confirm by both pilots with emphasis on speed and altitudes especially being new stars. With autopilot engaged in LNAV and VNAV Path aircraft remained on path and sped up in speed even with full speed brakes deployed. VANCO intersection to BERMS. ATC was notified and asked for relief. No scratchpad messages and light winds less than 10 knots. ATC coordinator contacted on arrival.Redesign intersection to provide more distance to allow greater flexibility. Crossing 2000 feet in 4.4 at 250 knots is very tight in normal conditions.




Synopsis: A B737NG pilot reported difficulty complying with crossing restrictions on the WHINY RNAV STAR to DFW.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operator: Military
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wing Spar
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Technician; Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other IN the hanger
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The spar bumper; in the main wheel well; on the left side of Aircraft X fell off while the aircraft was in the hangar. The aircraft was delivered from the factory 2 years ago and this part was installed incorrectly. Textron considers this a grounding discrepancy because of the chance that the landing gear could hit the main spar in the event of a gear up landing. Other aircraft need to be looked at for proper factory installation.

Callback: Reporter stated this 2-year-old King Air 350 was not in maintenance at the time of the incident; it was sitting in the hangar when a technician heard the thump as the spar bumper hit the ground.  Aircraft has about 2300 hrs and 1250 cycles on the airframe in military service.  Reporter suspects improper adhesive was possibly used during manufacturing process.



Synopsis: Lead Technician reported a spar bumper fell out of the main wheel well while the aircraft was in the hangar.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: M03.TRACON, TN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier X; was on the Fincher1 arrival on a left downwind for Runway 36L. I had assigned Air Carrier X 2;000 FT and the assigned speed at that point on the arrival is 210 KTS. I also had Air Carrier Y; an inbound on the Tammi4 arrival. Air Carrier Y was on a left base for Runway 36R to stagger behind Air Carrier X. I noticed that Air Carrier X was slowing and asked if they were still doing 210 KTS; and they responded that they weren't. I asked why and they responded that they needed to land the aircraft. I mentioned that the assigned speed was 210 KTS and that they slowed without telling me; and that I now needed them to maintain 190 KTS until further advised. I then slowed Air Carrier Y to 210 KTS to keep my stagger. I turned Air Carrier X's base and then turned them to join the localizer and cleared them for the approach; assigning 190 KTS until further advised. Air Carrier X said they needed slower so I assigned them 170 KTS and told them that all they had to do was let me know. Air Carrier X did not like my attitude and asked for the phone number. I have become quite tired of Air Carrier X company pilots pulling this; so when I gave him the number; I told him it was for a possible pilot deviation. I turned Air Carrier Y to join the Runway 36R localizer and cleared them for the approach keeping my stagger with Air Carrier X. This is not the first time that an Air Carrier X company pilot has done this; but it is the first time that I have wanted them to call the facility. I am not proud of the attitude that I displayed; but I am just tired of dealing with this. All I ask is that the Air Carrier X pilots either fly the arrivals as published or they advise that they need to deviate from published procedures; especially in the final box. Air Carrier X pilots seem quite content to let their FMS fly the plane and not inform anyone of what they might be doing. This becomes critical when I am trying to set up a sequence and basing that sequence on arrival assigned speeds that these pilots then bust.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller experienced a conflict event when traffic assigned a STAR reduced speed below published requirements; the reporter noting this the subject company frequently reduces without notifying ATC.
Date: 201906
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 plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I went out to a plane with another Mechanic (new to the company) to defer a left thrust reverser and show him how to do it. While deactivating it; I disconnected the cannon plug for the left cowl anti-ice valve by mistake. This mistake wasn't found until the next day when the plane was written up for a left cowl anti ice caution message on taxi out; and another Mechanic went to replace the valve. An FAA Inspector was shadowing him at the time. It looks like the plane did not fly in between the deferral and the write-up the next day.The Mechanic I was with was new and had never deferred a thrust reverser before; and I was concentrating on showing him the system and how to deactivate it; and making sure he had something useful to do other than watch me disconnect plugs and insert locking pins. I was concerned with disconnecting all the cannon plugs so that the plane wouldn't come back with a TR (Thrust Reverser) caution message; it didn't cross my mind that the cowl anti-ice valve was on the same harness and is one of the only two cannon plugs under the cowl that shouldn't be disconnected for the MEL. I'm not completely comfortable with training people; and that anxiety probably contributed to my mistake. We did have the manuals pulled up on a tablet with us; but I evidently did not pay close enough attention when I reviewed it.Have trainers work with the new mechanics. Maybe add a step in the MEL to actually ops check the cowl anti-ice to verify that it works; since it's apparently easy to disconnect it by mistake. The deactivation procedure in the AMM (Airplane Maintenance Manual) could be simplified also.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 aircraft Technician reported disconnecting the cannon plug of the anti-ice valve by mistake during deferral of thrust reverser.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X landed Runway XX and control was transferred from Local Control to me on Ground Control. I gave aircraft X taxi instructions to the requested FBO. Fuel truck called me from the west ramp requesting to go to the north ramp. I told fuel truck to hold position for an aircraft taxiing on Bravo. Fuel truck read back; 'Proceed on Bravo.' I responded; 'Negative hold position; hold position.' Fuel truck proceeded onto Bravo in the direction of the oncoming C560. I then asked aircraft X to hold position. Aircraft X stopped and turned his lights off not to blind the fuel truck. I then verified the fuel truck was going to hold short of Runway XX. I coordinated with Local Control to cross Runway XX with the fuel truck; then had aircraft X continue his taxi to the FBO. The Supervisor was present in the Tower. He entered the information into the log. I would recommend that the vehicles listen to what ATC is telling them to do not just what they are used to hearing.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a ground conflict when a fuel truck failed to adhere to clearance instructions; resulting in a nose to nose stand off with an inbound aircraft.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fan Reverser
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Logbook Entry; MEL; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During taxi out; we received an ECAM message for thrust reverser 1&2. Maintenance deferred thrust reverser Number 1 prior to this flight. Maintenance accidentally deferred thrust reverser 1&2.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported on taxi out; ECAM message showed both thrust reversers inoperative.
Date: 202101
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: Other All
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Passenger was sold last seat in first class cabin at X6 this morning.  He had a large service animal.  X4 is still reserved for the X Flight Attendant (FA).   While I was in the back doing service the gentleman in X6 put his items all over my seat and was asleep when I returned.  During the flight we had continuous moderate turbulence for the last two and a half hours.  I ended up sitting in the forward jump seat. The few minutes that we were able to get up to prepare the cabin for arrival; the cabin quickly became moderately turbulent again and I returned to take my seat; only to find that he had placed his backpack on X4; my seat.   I again had to take the jump seat.  When the passenger was finally able to stow his luggage; I took the seat at X4 for landing and the passenger started talking my ear off. I tried to quietly tell him I had to concentrate but to no avail.  Could you please tell me why I had a passenger with a large emotional service animal next to what had been assigned to me as my seat; in the X position; when there were only XX passengers in the back?   Is this considered to be a 'social distance' block?    1.  Current assigned seat for the X Flight Attendant does not allow for safe distancing between passenger and Flight Attendant.2.  Current assigned seat for the Flight Attendant was not available during the flight when moderate/severe turbulence hit.  Took seat next to Y Flight Attendant - this did not allow for safe distance between both the Y and X flight attendants.3.  Having passenger in X6 is distracting when trying to silently review safely evacuating the plane.I learned that I cannot safely socially distance when someone is sitting next to me. I also do not have an assigned seat when turbulence hits unexpectedly; unless I quickly push all of the passenger's belongings to the floor.  It has also put me in an awkward position upon landing when I am supposed to be concentrating on my drills and safely evacuating the cabin when I have the distraction of a talkative passenger.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was seated in the company social distancing blocked seat.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: One passenger arrived early for our flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and asked to wait on the aircraft. I stayed with the passenger while the PIC (Pilot in Command) waited inside for the remaining passengers. The passengers arrived approximately XA30L. After they started boarding; I noticed a fuel smell. The lead passenger walked back down the steps for more luggage and said the steps were slippery. I wiped them off then noticed the rag had a fuel smell. I notified the PIC and we walked around the aircraft to make sure it was not leaking fuel. We went back in to talk to the passengers. They asked for wipes to clean the fuel smell off their dogs' feet. The PIC told the passengers we could try to find another aircraft or takeoff and see if the fuel smell was still bad. If so; we could land at an airport where the company could arrange an aircraft swap. At 18;000; I turned off the sign; pulled the acoustic curtain and asked the passengers if the smell was any better. The wife said it was still bad. I talked to the PIC and noted that ZZZ2 was 125 miles ahead and could be a good option to land and swap into a new aircraft. He said he would talk to the passengers first. He came back and said they wanted to continue. I said I didn't think it should be for the passengers to decide and; as the pilots; we are responsible for them and we are exposing them to HAZMAT [fumes]. He said it would be all right and they wanted to continue the flight and asked if I wanted to be the single person to cause the flight to be diverted. I acquiesced. We continued to ZZZ1 with no further events. In retrospect; I believe I should have been more vocal about my concerns. Infants; animals and the elderly tend to be more at risk to hazards that adults are unaffected by. We had an infant and 3 dogs on board.




Synopsis: CL-350 First Officer reported cabin fuel fumes which started during preflight and remained prevalent during cruise. With concurrence of passengers; flight continued to destination for an uneventful landing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CHO
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On a left base for the visual Runway 03 into CHO; we received one terrain EGWPS warning. We reacted in accordance with the FOM. Detection occurred with the aural announcement of terrain once and the caution on the PFD (Primary Flight Display).While on a right base for Runway 03; at 3;000 feet; and 8.5 NM final; the PF (Pilot Flying) started to turn us toward the final approach fix for the ILS Runway 03 in CHO. While in the right turn we started a shallow descent to 2600 feet for glideslope intercept. At approximately 2800 feet; we received the one Terrain call out from the EGPWS.When we received the EGPWS notification; I noticed the Pilot Flying automatically disengage the autopilot and begin a climb. Before I had any more time to react I noticed that the caution cleared and I announced that we were clear of the terrain. At that point we were back to approximately 3;000 feet which was the last assigned ATC altitude. Now at around 7.5 NM final; the PF (Pilot Flying) and myself quickly looked at the chart and determined that we were still at a safe altitude and the aircraft was still in a safe profile/configuration to continue the approach and landing.No suggestions at this time. The actual terrain that we passed over was briefed extensively due to its vicinity to tall towers adjacent to the approach and we purposefully set ourselves up at a long final to avoid said towers. As the Pilot Monitoring; I had terrain selected on my MFD (Multi-function Flight Display) for situational awareness. We reacted to [it with] our best in accordance with the FOM and due to the quickness of the event and the quick climb back to the safe altitude of the last assigned by ATC; we felt we were in a safe position to continue the flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a terrain warning during a visual approach to CHO airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: INT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower INT
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Holding short of Runway 15 at INT on Taxiway F cleared for back taxi for Runway 33 departure; after aligning on runway for back taxi Aircraft Y appeared over hump in runway on landing roll out followed by Tower Controller asking where he came from and stating he was not cleared for landing. We held position and the other aircraft came to a stop. Tower asked if we could taxi past each other on the runway. We could. Aircraft Y taxied clear and we continued our back taxi and departure.


Second narrative: After being given clearance to back taxi Runway 15 for a Runway 33 departure at INT we started to turn on runway; after lining up for back taxi Aircraft Y appeared over the crown on the runway apparently in a landing roll out; just after we saw the aircraft Tower asked where he came from and stated he did not have clearance to land. Apparently the other crew had become task saturated and didn't realize they hadn't communicated with INT Tower. We held position upon seeing the plane and hearing tower. They were able to taxi past us and go to parking and we continued our back taxi and departure without further incident.


Synopsis: Pilot at INT was issued back taxi instructions when taxiing an opposite direction arrival appears on the runway. Tower Controller never issued a landing clearance or knew abut the landing aircraft.