elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BDR.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This reporter is a student pilot training at BDR. I was doing solo pilot training. On my second solo landing I intended to do a full stop and taxi back. Upon landing I was given instructions to exit the runway. The given taxiway was on my right. I applied brakes to position the aircraft onto the taxiway however it felt like my shoes slipped off the brake and the airplane rolled onto the grassy area. The aircraft didn't strike anything and there was no damage. Several airport staff members arrived and pushed the aircraft onto the taxiway where I restarted the aircraft and finished taxing. I learned two things from this incident. First; my taxiing speed was slightly faster than normal. I should have radioed ATC that I would exit off the next taxiway; and second; the shoes I wore had a flat underside that felt like it slipped on the brake; which if I had been wearing sneakers like I usually do it wouldn't have been an issue.




Synopsis: GA student pilot reported they completed a safe landing and was turning off the runway when control was lost and the aircraft departed the paved surface. There was no damage to the aircraft and no injuries to the pilot.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after departing we got an IDG 1 low oil pressure ECAM. After disconnecting IDG1; since we had a long over water flight; we decided to return and exchange our aircraft for a more capable aircraft to fly over water. We performed a very soft overweight landing at 138;600 LBS and quickly received a new fully functional aircraft. We left less than 2 hours late with a full plane of satisfied customers and crew.




Synopsis: A319 Captain experiences an IDG 1 low oil pressure ECAM shortly after takeoff and; after disconnecting the IDG; elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: During a recently planned flight to Shelbyville (SYI) my copilot and I saw that the runway had a NOTAM for closure after we had departed and were enroute towards SYI. As we again discussed our arrival we found the NOTAM on our initial descent. Our flight ended up going to Nashville anyway so it was not an issue; however the reason NOTAM was over looked was due to the way the NOTAM was presented. NOTAM was presented as follows e.g. BNA (NOTAM #) SYI (NOTAM Detail) on fltplan.com. Many times or at many airports NOTAMs are presented as the airport identifier e.g. SYI (NOTAM #) (NOTAM Detail) and do not have a different airport in front of the affected airport. Perhaps this is the way that airport normally identifies NOTAMs. This would have been avoided had the NOTAM been presented as SYI (NOTAM #) (NOTAM Detail) only and not preceded by BNA




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported that the published NOTAM was ambiguous using two airports rather than one.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff the landing gear retracted normally; then a few minutes after retraction; during a normal climb at 160kts; the nose gear began to repeatedly cycle by itself and could be heard and felt cycling uncontrollably. The amber nose gear advisory light and red unsafe nose gear lights illuminated on/off for several minutes. I continued the climb and reduced speed to 140 kts due to the nose gear door opening. Once at a safe altitude and called for the non-normal checklist for the associated gear lights; at which point the gear cycling had stopped and remained up. Due to to the multiple gear lights; an alternate gear extension was warranted. I was unsure whether the nose gear was jammed or whether it would extend properly for landing. I exchanged flight controls with the FO and called dispatch/maintenance to coordinate a plan. Since ZZZ1 has longer runways than ZZZ; was our destination; and the aircraft was stable for continued flight w/ gear retracted and the cycling had stopped; I felt it was safe to continue to ZZZ1. I [advised ATC]; got direct routing; and briefed the FA and passengers for an landing with no brace required. If the nose gear would not extend then I planned on holding to devise a new plan and new instructions for the FA. The FO and I briefed our procedures and I resumed controls. The FO performed a successful alternate gear extension and we landed and stopped on runway while AARF [aircraft rescue and firefighting] inspected our nosewheel. I did not have nosewheel steering due to the alternate extension but had adequate steering control via differential power / braking to safely return to the gate. The passengers deplaned normally after the gear locking pins were installed. No crew or passenger injuries were sustained.The alternate gear extension training in the simulator was invaluable to today's event. My FO and I felt very prepared for this procedure. I do not believe there was anything the flight crew could do to prevent this mechanical issue.




Synopsis: Bombardier Dash 8 Captain reported the nose gear repeatedly cycled by itself during climb.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: M41.Airport, MS
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E M41
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was on final approach segment of GPS36 at M41.  Conditions were hazy with scattered clouds at 3000 ft MSL (2500 ft AGL).   Subject aircraft was VMC prior to FAF and had cancelled IFR and switched to CTAF.  At two miles from touchdown end of Runway 36; with aircraft at approx 1000 ft AGL; pilot not flying (PNF) called traffic off right wing.  PF noted rapidly approaching target and banked left.  Both PF and PNF noted a large UAV (drone) pass within 1/4 mile of right wing.  PF switched to Memphis approach frequency and reported near miss.  A missed approach was not required and PF was able to recover to stabilized approach and land without further incident.  Subject aircraft had ADS-B in/out capability (L-3 Lynx NGT-9000 transponder).  The UAV did not show on display (Traffic Information Services).Operating a drone on final approach course to airport; in MVFR conditions is extremely careless and reckless.  Due to haze conditions; the unlighted drone was difficult to spot and subject aircraft was fortunate to have rated pilot in right seat watching for traffic.  Due to conditions; PF was focused on maintaining stabilized approach in marginal VFR conditions.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot was flying GPS approach to an non-towered airport when they had an airborne conflict with a UAS.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
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)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Boarding
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During boarding; at approximately XA20; the cabin filled with smoke and fumes which rendered it difficult to breathe. The Captain ordered everyone off. I; personally; experienced extreme difficulty breathing hoarseness and burning in my throat and pressure in my chest. I also experienced tingling in my hands; feet and legs; along with ringing in my ears. The Company requested we give the aircraft until XC30 to air out after maintenance said there was a problem with one of the packs. When the aircraft was checked at XB38; it was still unbreathable air and our eyes started burning. The Captain decided we were not putting anyone at any further risk; and we went to hotels until the Company brought a new aircraft to ZZZZ the following day.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported cabin smoke and fumes during boarding. Captain ordered passengers to deplane; assigned plane to maintenance; and flight canceled.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAI.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FAI
ATC / advisory: Tower FAI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Descending into FAI. Cleared for Visual Approach Runway 20R. Night. We had an underlayed ILS approach; tuned ILS frequencies; plus the runway in the descent page for the vertical bearing. [We were] commencing the visual approximately twenty miles northwest of FAI; gear down; speed 230 KTS. I noticed we were getting toward the optimum three degree approach path. Flaps were deployed on schedule. The air was very still and very cold - conducive to a high descent. In a snap of a finger we were low. I stated to the First Officer we were low. At that moment we got a 'Caution Terrain' alert from the EGPWS and I noted at the same instant a portion of the Terrain Display; where were we at; went to a solid amber color. At the moment we got the aural alert the First Officer aggressively applied power and climbed; stabilized; then made a normal landing. The cause was not monitoring the vertical descent in reference to terrain and the runway. Despite the fact I had a tuned ILS; FMC Guidance; it still happened.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew on approach to FAI Runway 20 at night in cold weather; got an EGPWS Terrain Warning; aggressively added power; returned to the glideslope and completed a normal landing.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing out to DFW [Runway] 17C; Ground Control advised that a full reroute had been issued and that we needed to contact Clearance. Due to enroute weather we had opted to try and make this as quick as possible to avoid any lengthy delays. The Captain monitored Ground and continued taxiing and I took the clearance while the Captain monitored. When the route was read back and confirmed correct; I loaded the new flight plan into the FMS and waited for a stopping point during taxi for the Captain to confirm and execute it.[We were cleared to climb via the SOLDO SID; SQS Transition]. The waypoints were confirmed with the chart waypoints [but we] misinterpreted the [at or above] 5;000 FT crossing restriction [at TREXX] with the climb and maintain alt of 10;000 FT. This confusion was due to quickly looking at the SID and viewing the 5;000 FT in bold for the specific runway and misunderstanding the text. Taking the time to slowly read the text would have helped prevent this error. I would also like to point out that some standard[ization] in the commercially provided chart [format] would be a huge factor in preventing these type of errors. Sometimes there are crossing restriction and maintain the initial altitude in the text of the specific [INITIAL CLIMB] runway text. Other times it is in bold large print at the top of all the specific runway instructions; and other times it is printed on the side. In this case; the initial alt was printed on the bottom under routing rather than bold altitude. Refer to the MSP JFK DTW and the DFW SID to understand this confusion.




Synopsis: When a CRJ-900 flight crew received a complete reroute during taxi-out; including the assignment of the SOLDO RNAV SID; the flight crew misinterpreted the 'at or above 5;000 FT' crossing at TREXX as a 'maintain'. The reporter advised a contributing factor was the inconsistent placement of the altitude to which cleared via the SID on the commercially provided aero charts.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just after liftoff we experienced an apparent compressor stall as was noted only by a very loud noise. It was so loud that Tower commented that they even heard it. The right wing dropped and we got 'bank angle'. I was applying some left rudder just as we heard 'bank angle' although I don't really remember much yaw at all. It just felt like an engine failure that happens in the sim. The warning stopped after only one 'bank angle'. After I felt the plane was flying correctly; I looked at the engine instruments to confirm engine failure; but everything appeared normal except the right engine EPR was lagging the left side a little bit. And then it was normal again. This was followed (or occurring at the same time) by the gear not retracting. We had loud/unusual noise and vibrations coming from nose gear as well as red gear unsafe light. The number one flight attendant also heard the loud gear noise and vibrations.  As we were trying to figure out what happened; fly the plane and talk to ATC; the gear finally retracted. We [advised ATC] as we thought maybe the nose tire failed and the engine ingested some of the rubber. We did a fly-by the tower. They did not see anything unusual. We came back around and the Captain took the plane to perform a successful overweight landing. We did perform an overweight landing checklist before the landing.




Synopsis: An MD-80 flight crew experienced a compressor stall combined with a gear retraction issue on climbout. The flight then returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This incident occurred during the approach phase of the second leg of the flight.  I was the pilot flying from the right seat.  We were instructed by ATC to hold 10;000 feet and I had selected 265 knots for the speed.  When ATC gave us a lower altitude; I selected the lower altitude on the MCP and set the speed to 250 knots.  As my attention was directed to the speed window on the MCP; the Pilot Monitoring alerted me that we were descending below 10;000 feet with the speed greater than 250 knots.  I immediately selected ALT HLD and allowed the speed to slow to 250 knots before continuing the descent.  Our altitude was no lower than 9;800 above 250 knots and the speed was less than 265; but above 250 knots between 9;800 and 10;000 feet.I should have slowed the aircraft prior to the descent.  One of the contributing factors was I had been on reserve duty during the previous month and had operated only one flight during the entire month and the only other flight prior to this one was in a different variant of the aircraft. Nevertheless; I should have mitigated the lack of recency of experience in the seat by having slowed the aircraft to 250 knots while we were level at 10;000 feet as I was expecting ATC clearance for a lower altitude.  Or I should have mentally prepared to slow the aircraft prior to descending.


Second narrative: I was the PM for this flight. We were in the descent to ZZZ1; level flight at 10;000 feet at approximately 270 KIAS. We were given a lower altitude of 7;000 feet (I think). We did not slow the aircraft before descending. The PF put in the correct lower altitude and then selected FLCH. I immediately asked for ALT HOLD. The aircraft held level at approximately 9;800 feet to allow for slowing to 250 KIAS.I think 'get-there-itis' may have been a factor in this incident. Flying at 10;000 feet at 270 KIAS vs. 250 KIAS; when you know that a lower altitude is mere seconds away does not add much overall value to the flight. Better situational awareness to anticipate known ATC structure can add safety and professionalism to my operating climate I foster as a Captain.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported going over 250 knots below 10;000 feet. Pilot flying made reference to lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 16;000 ft.; smoke [was] observed in cruise flight. Did memory items and smoke removal checklist since we did not know the source of the smoke. [We advised ATC] and continued to ZZZ as it was nearest suitable airport. Flight Attendant notified and no cause of evacuation noted as smoke was not in the cabin and no more additional smoke was in the cockpit after checklist completion. Fire trucks requested to follow to the gate. Nothing noticed outside of normal when walk around completed. The cause was unknown to the flight crew.




Synopsis: An Embraer ERJ-140 pilot reported observing smoke in the cockpit which dissipated after the smoke removal checklist was completed.