elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft had been in maintenance all day for a green hydraulic system problem. After it was released by Maintenance; it was pre-flighted and received clearance. Taxi out was normal and after takeoff; landing gear was selected up at approximately 100 FT and the chime sounded at about 600-700 FT with an ECAM message indicating low pump pressure on green hydraulic system pumps 1 and 2. The landing gear unlocked and doors opened but gear did not retract. ATC was advised of the problem and based on weather; fuel; runway; etc; a decision to return to land was made; but no emergency was declared yet. ATC provided vectors. 5;000 FT and 185 KTS was maintained with the takeoff flaps left at 15/15; and Company flight control was advised of the situation and an ARTR was issued for a divert back to land.All checklists were run; green hydraulic pumps 1 and 2 were off with the electric pump on; and brakes at alt/on for the landing. An emergency was declared for the landing; and emergency equipment was requested to be standing by. An uneventful approach and landing with flaps 30/40 was made. The aircraft was taxied off the runway to the parking spot on the ramp with flaps left down until ramp arrival/parking brake set so as to keep loads to a minimum on the green system electric pump. It does not appear that any deviations from FAR or FOM procedures occurred; so the event category is listed as flight control/dispatch as no other category appears to be applicable.


Second narrative: After liftoff at about 600-700 FT the master caution sounded and the ECAM indicated a failure of both green system pumps and low green pressure. The landing gear did not fully retract and indicated gear unsafe.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew experienced a hydraulic problem on take-off.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When informing the Captain of the racial verbal abuse from the passenger the Captain dismissed it and allowed the passenger to remain on board after I stressed my fears and concerns and advised me that [I] could take another flight if I like after bullying me to accept the passenger apologies and continuing on with the flight. Yes I felt fear like I never felt in my life and I ran for my life to the Captain for help because that's what I was told to do by my company and the Captain created a greater fear so I left the aircraft. Passengers need to be held accountable period. And know that you can't display acts of racism; violence or any disorderly conduct towards the flight crew. Pilots should be held at same standards of ethics as all other crew members and not be held superior and without prejudice.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported the Captain dismissed a request to remove a verbally abusive passenger.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While Name was taxing out of the ramp an aircraft Mechanic drove by in a truck. I honked my horn multiple times to get him to stop but he continued to proceed right into Name's taxi path. He was on the road to Name's right; in his blind spot and Name started to turn. Thankfully Name was able to stop but the Mechanic was within feet of hitting our plane. Name had all his lights on including the strobes and beacon. It is daylight out so the plane was clearly visible.Cause [was] Not being aware of surroundings by a Mechanic. Pay attention and yield to aircraft.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported a truck almost hitting an aircraft that was taxiing out of the ramp.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
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: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll on runway 34R out of SLC at approximately 140 KTS FO brought to my attention that the #1 engine ITT went red inverse video indicating that the max ITT had been exceeded. Per my recall of the QRH in training I slightly pulled back the #1 thrust lever so that the ITT returned to the normal operating range. I released pressure and the Auto Throttles advanced back in to the ITT Exceed range. Not wanting to have a high speed abort I chose to continue. After rotation I pulled #1 thrust lever so that the ITT returned to the normal operating range again and turned the auto throttle off as described in the QRH. At about 400 feet I reengaged the Auto Throttle and the ITT returned to the normal operating range. The FMS indicated UNABLE NEXT ALT for the crossing restriction RATTO at 8400 feet I am unsure of what altitude we crossed RATTO with everything else going on but the message went away shortly thereafter. We continued on the NSIGN3 RNAV departure and referenced the QRH after acceleration altitude. Seeing no more anomalies other than the #1 ITT running about 40 degrees hotter than the other engine; we decided to continue. The flight continued without incident.Upon landing we received an ENGINE EXCEEDENCE caution message. I wrote it up in the Maintenance log and contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control. Upon the post-flight walk around we noticed that the engine had a burnt rubber smell to it and a large black mark on the bottom interior of the engine cowling. There was also large marks on 3 of the fan blades. Upon further inspection the back of the turbine section of the engine had black lines radiating outward possibly indicating melted rubber.More frequent Runway FOD inspection at SLC


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported experiencing high ITT on number one engine on takeoff from SLC that may have been due to rubber FOD on the runway.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The following incident occurred while the sun was setting. The airport was on a XXL/R operation. A J-3 was issued left closed traffic for Runway XXL; while on the downwind at 1;000 FT. I had a C172 join the midfield downwind also at 1;500 FT. I then told the J-3 to continue downwind and I would call his base turn to follow traffic. After the C172 was established on downwind at 1;500 FT I noticed out the window that the C172 had out run the J-3. I then began to issue traffic for the J-3 to follow the C172. The J-3 responded that he had the C172 in sight. I then issued an instruction for the J-3 to follow the C172 and cleared for the option on Runway XXL. Once the J-3 was over what appeared to be the runway; I then realized he had lined up to land on Taxiway 'X' by the time I could issue a go around he had touched down on 'X' and swerved to the right then back left. As the sun was setting; it appeared that the aircraft was still floating down the runway before landing on the taxiway. I believe due to the height of the Tower and the setting of the sun; it gave an optical illusion that the aircraft was floating down the runway.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a taxiway landing event during the sunset time frame and landing to the West; the Controller indicating difficulty in recognizing the exact aircraft location.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was taxiing out for takeoff; monitoring CTAF on #2 radio at least three other planes were on ground; and we communicated our taxi positions and made way for each other. The field is heavily used for primary training. I arrived at the run up area for runway XX and called for IFR clearance on the #1 radio on 121.72. Receiving no response from ATC; I switched to CTAF 123.0 on #1 radio; announced my departure; glanced up at the arrival pathway for runway XX; and seeing and hearing no traffic; proceeded to take the runway and accelerate. About the time my wheels left the ground; I saw a DA 20 above me and to the right at 1 o'clock; about 500 feet above and 500 ft to the right of the runway. I realized I had taken the runway as another pilot was landing. I did not hear anything on #1 radio so I switched back to #2 radio CTAF as I continued the climb. I made a radio call and received two or three responses from other pilots. The aircraft landing took a turn to the right away from me and I continued climbing straight ahead. I apologized for not yielding right of way to the landing aircraft and he graciously acknowledged seeing me and avoiding me; and did a go-around. He acknowledged 'it happens' and expressed no hard feelings. After reaching safe altitude I tried to diagnose the #1 radio failure by pressing the radio into the panel to seat it securely; adjusting volume and squelch; and selecting overhead speaker; and #1 radio began to work normally again. I am not sure why it did not work on initial transmission; but I suspect the radio volume and/or my headset volume was too low. After climbing higher; I reached ATC and activated an IFR flight plan. Corrective actions include: verifying radios are receiving and transmitting prior to taking the runway; perform better visual scans; especially when looking into bright sunshine; and be yield to landing aircraft.




Synopsis: Cessna 206 pilot reported an NMAC departing when he had the volume set too low for CTAF communications.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had gotten a briefing and believe I was told an operations vehicle was at the far approach end of Runway 13/31. We where in a South configuration which makes Runway 13/31 inactive and only used for operational needs. Air Carrier X was assigned Runway 20C and requested Runway 1 for operations. I approved his requested and then coordinated with Local that I was taxing to a previously inactive runway. I did a quick scan of 13/31 and did not observe a vehicle at the time. We then activated the runway and Local gave take off clearance. A few minutes after takeoff; operations called me on ground and inquired about the departure. I then remembered operations had been doing some work. The runway is over 11;000 feet long; and where the vehicle was at; is actually the farthest point from the Tower on the field. I then used my binoculars to see where the vehicle was and because of the distance and terrain; I could barley see the top of the vehicle. At the time of departure Air Carrier X rotated with more than 5;000 feet remaining and the vehicle was just off the approach end of the runway which made it a none factor. I then advised operations to advise me when he was complete and clear. The vehicle had been doing his inspection for over an hour on the runway and because of where he was and not having spoken with him in quite some time my initial scan did not see him. It luckily was not a factor and will make sure to do a scan with the binoculars to see the far point of this runway. Because this was not conveyed to be such a thorough inspection I believe the runway should have been officially closed due to the amount of time. I also believe ZZZ would benefit tremendously with surface surveillance because of the terrain and distances from the Tower to some key points on the field. We have a more than normal amount of vehicle traffic due to such factors as bird activity and other wildlife on the field along with other multiple groups of vehicles crossings.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a likely runway separation event when forgetting that an airport vehicle was still on the runway end when departure traffic was cleared for takeoff; the reporter recommending vehicle procedures.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for a visual approach for Runway 17R at Denver. We were descending from 9;000 feet northeast of the airport on a heading to intercept the localizer. My Captain set 6;000 feet in the Alt Alert and continued down. I set 7;000 feet stating it was as low as we could go at Joules and it was 8;000 feet minimum outside where we would intercept. He said he was visual and wanted to intercept from below. As I tried to understand what he was going to accomplish he rolled out on Runway 17L and commented; 'Why no localizer?' I said it was the wrong runway [and we needed] to come right. Checked the frequency and inbound course. He made a radical turn back to the west. And by the time I caught up ATC questioned our altitude; [which was] 1;000 feet. I punched the Altitude Hold button and responded to the Controller that we would level. The Captain disconnected the autopilot and flew the visual approach without another problem. I think I should have insisted on the the 8;000 feet outside of Joules (the other way point one out from Joules); but became concerned with the lateral issue of intercepting the localizer. Another factor was that the Captain was getting a Line Check from a Check Airman on board and had not flown in 4 months. He had failed a simulator check prior to this flight; I believe. I had not flown in 4 months either and had only two or three flights total in the right seat. I am a downgraded Captain. It would have been better to pick a more seasoned; current First Officer. I also think that not flying into DEN in 8 years made it challenging.




Synopsis: A First Officer with little experience in type reported that the Captain descended to 6;000 feet before JOULES intersection and lined up for DEN 17L instead of 17R; but corrected to final as ATC questioned the aircraft's altitude.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: FSS ZZZ
Aircraft component: FAC (Flight Augmentation Computer)
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: FL360 ISA -54C; REC MAX ALT (recommended maximum altitude) 39.8. MCDU weight 132.8. Green dot speed 229 KIAS. Vls 220 [lowest selectable speed for autopilot]. Takeoff Data Performance derived green dot corrected one knot per 1;000 feet above FL200 equals an under FL200 green dot speed of 213. A 213 KIAS green dot from 3.5.4 of the Performance Manual is the speed for a 141 knot jet (8;200 pound difference). FAC1 (flight augmentation computer) and FAC2 averaged to 140 kts. Flaps full landing. Vls 128 KIAS. MCDU Vapp was 123 (5 knots into the hook). Out of an abundance of caution; we added 10 knots to get to Vls+5. Landed uneventfully and under max landing weight even if you added in the 8-9 kts (worst case scenario). Documented all in the aircraft logbook. For the committee; this is the second 319 that has presented a large difference in MCDU weight vs. calculated weight from FAC1/FAC2 (which generates Vapp and Vls on a basic jet). Either the jets EOW (empty operating weight) is wrong; the software is corrupted or the alpha vanes are out of calibration. I think safety and maintenance need to do a deep dive in to the FAC's and alpha vanes and any software changes of late. The only other explanation is an error in the EOW which is hard to envision. I would like a response directly from the committee about this and [another] aircraft which was previously accepted in to report system. I am concerned that given the increase in the number of pilots who are not flying regularly due to schedule reductions; this could result in an incident or mishap.




Synopsis: Flight Crew reported speed progamming issues and elected to manually fly computed higher speeds due to suspected equipment issues.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We arrived at ZZZ after receiving minimum rest due to weather delays the previous duty period. Normal preflight; startup and taxi to Runway XX intersection X1 for takeoff. At approximately 90 knots; airspeed stagnation was noted and then airspeed increased. On climbout; we received the IAS Disagree caution. The Captain advised ATC. We leveled initially at 4;000 feet and the Captain took over the Pilot Flying role. I became Pilot Monitoring and worked with the jumpseater; who was an experienced B757 Captain; to run the checklists. Once checklists were completed and power settings were calculated. We requested vectors to the ILS at ZZZ. Approach vectored us and a successful landing was made. Upon return to the ramp; it was discovered that all four pitot covers were still installed.




Synopsis: B757-200 First Officer reported IAS errors resulted in return to airport to find pitot covers still installed.