elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was informed today by my company that I may want to file an ASAP report for this flight. Up until this moment I did not see any reason for the report; but I am filing one at the suggestion of company management. The issue is operating my flight with a broken slat cable. I landed and was notified while heading to the hotel by the FO that there was a cable hanging from the right slat that he noticed on preflight; but didn't tell me about.He told me a long story about how he was told by flight management that his preflights were too thorough and were finding things 'out of the scope' of his walkarounds. He said that he was told (and showed me a letter verifying the fact) that if he wrote anything up that was not in the prescribed walk around procedure that he would be fired. I was upset that he did not tell me about the cable; but after hearing his story I can see why he might not want to bring problems to the captain's attention. He told me he let maintenance know about the problem so they could write it up before the next flight. This was something I did not see on my outside safety check and was in my normal scan for preflight safety checks.If I am to believe what the first officer told me; this event was caused by pressure from my company not to write up know deficiencies with the aircraft. If true; this is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. First Officer later showed me many photos of the poor condition of many of the company aircraft whose problems were overlooked to keep the flights going. Please investigate this problem. Encourage pilots not to look the other way when problems with the aircraft are noticed. Pilots should be encouraged to help keep the aircraft safe.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain was informed by his First Officer after the flight that there was a cable hanging from the right slat that he noticed during preflight; but didn't tell him about. The First Officer told the Captain that he had been admonished by the company because his preflights were 'too through' and that if he wrote anything up that was not in the prescribed walkaround procedure he would be fired.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: NORCAL Departure advised us of traffic at 12 o'clock maintaining 3500 ft. We were on the CNDEL 3 RNAV departure. We crossed LEJAY below 2000 ft as instructed on the SID. Just after passing CNDEL waypoint we had the traffic advisory; we had the traffic in sight; and just before turning to the next waypoint PORTE; we had the resolution advisory 'climb; increase climb'. NORCAL instructed immediately to turn to a heading of 180. After that the system said 'clear of conflict'.


Second narrative: [A C182] was circling over downtown San Francisco VFR at 4;500 ft. An A320 departed OAK on the CNDEL departure. I issued traffic to [the C182] and he called the A320 in sight with five miles in between them. [The A320] also called [the C182] in sight. I instructed [the C182] to maintain visual separation from [the A320] and that I was going to have the A320 fly straight out until he got above him. [The C182] said he would maintain visual and then flew right into the A320's flight path. I let [the A320] start his SW bound turn on the CNDEL instead of flying straight ahead in order to get away from [the C182]. I then turned [the A320] even more to a 180 heading. [The A320] received a TCAS RA.


Synopsis: A320 Captain and the NCT Controller reported on an airborne conflict that occurred when the A320 departed OAK and a C182 flew into his departure path.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi into the ramp area the tiller went dead; the Captain and First Officer steering disconnects went dead; and we were unable to steer the aircraft with the rudder pedals. The threat was that there was absolutely no indication on the EICAS or chime that the steering was inoperative. This was unlike any uncommanded swerving event I have experienced in the simulator.My training and experience with this aircraft prevented a bad situation from happening. We were able to get the aircraft towed to the gate safely. However; I do not believe that Maintenance is taking this situation seriously and there is a lot of operational pressure right now to take the aircraft as is with a 'cleared logbook'. This is classic pencil whipping at its best; which is the reason for this report.




Synopsis: An EMB145 steering completely failed during taxi into the gate without any malfunction indications; so the crew stopped and had the aircraft towed to the gate.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower AFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was on a 6 mile approach to RY16L when another aircraft flew 200 feet directly underneath. The targets merged momentarily.Extend AFW class D northward to protect aircraft on approach to AFW airport.




Synopsis: AFW Tower Controller reported a near midair collision of two aircraft one of which was on a 6 mile approach and the other crossed the approach corridor.
Date: 201504
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Smell source unknown.  Smell was confirmed by all crewmembers and passengers to be a mild but persistent electrical or plastic smell and not like anything else such as fuel; deice fluid; oil; etc..About 2 minutes after departing at about 5;000 feet; mild but persistent burning electrical or plastic smell noted in cabin and cockpit that did not dissipate. Intent was to get the aircraft on the ground As Soon As Possible (ASAP).  Was turned by ATC to a right downwind from 5;000 feet on departure and was descended for an immediate visual right pattern.  As captain flying; momentarily lost direct visual contact with the airfield in a right descending turn from downwind to base.  First Officer (FO) kept airport in sight.  Leveled off on base at about 1;000 AGL after reacquiring the runway and determining ATC had put us on wider than perceived downwind and that the descent initiated for a normal landing below 1;500 AGL was premature.  Turned to final at about 4 miles; configured; and landed normally with flaps 45 without further incident. Burning smell dissipated prior to landing.  Airfield fire crew inspected the aircraft on the Charlie Pad and all parties determined it was safe to taxi to the gate with airfield fire crew following the aircraft.  Deplaned without further incident.Recommend crews do more hand flying for proficiency and that in [training] once every other cycle do an entire visual pattern from takeoff to landing to highlight visual miscues that occur at night that can cause crews to inadvertently descend into darker rural and suburban terrain while focusing on brighter areas; lights; and airport environment at night.




Synopsis: An EMB145 Captain and flight attendants report smelling electrical fumes in the cabin on departure. They return to land and upon the night visual approach the Captain allows the aircraft to go below 1;000 feet AGL before turning final.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 900
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were being vectored north of Dallas for our arrival into DAL. We had originally been cleared on the JFRYE2 but had been vectored off by Fort Worth Center. When we were approximately 20-25NM northeast of the GREGS intersection we were cleared directly to GREGS and cleared to descend via the JFRYE2 arrival. Due to our position and the location of the subsequent fix; MNKEE; the FMS calculated a smart turn north and east of GREGS. As we flew closer to GREGS; we discovered that the smart turn would be greater than 4NM when abeam GREGS. The controller asked us to verify the last clearance; which we did; and we explained the situation. I used the heading mode to manually steer the aircraft closer to GREGS using the moving map display. The course to MNKEE was recaptured; and the rest of the arrival was flown without incident.This scenario is a known issue with the Honeywell Epic platform. The manufacturer has instructed operators to reset the LNAV Bank Factor from 7 to 15 to prevent FMS early smart turns. It appears that this setting resets to 7 after base software has been installed because 3 of the company aircraft I checked had 7 in the LNAV Bank Factor. This is not an item that is called out to be checked in the expanded POWER ON checks.




Synopsis: Falcon 900 Captain reported a track deviation occurred when the FMS commanded an early 'smart turn.'
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gust Lock
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During takeoff I realized that I had forgotten to remove the gust lock. Had to abort the takeoff and exceeded the paved runway. The aircraft stopped just past the overrun area after going over a 3-4 foot embankment at about two miles per hour. The aircraft sustained a prop strike and damage to the leading edge of the right wing when the aircraft settled; as well as damage to the fiberglass nose gear covering. The aircraft was towed back to the hangar.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C-182 rejected his takeoff when he realized he had forgotten to remove the gust lock prior to taxi out and takeoff. He was unable to stop on the runway and careened over an embankment at low speed suffering a prop strike; damage to the wing leading edge and to the nose gear wheel pant.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through 20;000 FT we received a left duct overheat warning message. Aircraft performed as expected and shut down bleed system. Aircraft started a slow depressurization. We descended to 8;000 FT and told ATC we needed to return.  Performed non-normal checklists and landed and deplaned at the gate. Cabin and flight crew performed as expected.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain experiences a duct overheat warning climbing through FL200. The bleed system is shut down and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local one and two combined. Runway 17R departure windshear alerts off and on. Air Carrier Z waited in position for windshear with Aircraft X on final. Windshear no longer indicated with Aircraft X on a 10 mile final. Air Carrier Z and Air Carrier W depart. Air Carrier Y was given takeoff clearance with Aircraft X on a 4 mile final. Then a Runway 17R departure windshear alert goes off and Air Carrier Y refuses takeoff. I try to get Air Carrier Y off the runway and I messed up the call sign. I again try to get Air Carrier Y and ultimately have to send Aircraft X around.Recommendations to prevent reoccurrence would be to not use a runway with windshear for mixed operations. I would like to use this space on the form to write a narrative for contributing factors. I have witnessed numerous wind shear alerts in the Tower cab that pilots do not concur with more often then not. I have notified numerous supervisors and they have made phone calls about it and nothing has happened. A common phrase in the Tower cab is Runway 26 windshear alert 25 knot gain 2 mile final previous 15 arrivals did not experience it. Or Runway 17R departure windshear alert 20 knot gain on the runway the airbus on climb out did not experience it. While the event with Aircraft X could have been handled a lot better; I would like to take this opportunity to report this equipment's problems to someone outside of the facility so we will not continue business as usual; and with the equipment contributing to a go around with an air carrier on the runway hopefully it becomes a priority. In the hour on position not one pilot encountered the report on the LLWAS.




Synopsis: DEN Tower Controller described a go around event resulting from a departure delaying takeoff due to a windsheer alert. The reporter recommended limited use of 'mixed operations' when windshears are active.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAW.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Not stated
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Runway at LAW to be temporarily relocated onto approximately parallel taxiway beginning at the end of Month or early Month. Ten days will be used to re-mark existing taxiway (including lighting) as a runway. Then for fifty days it will be activated while the main runway is closed and unusable.There will be no simultaneous activation - the alternative runways will be designated as 17-35 - the same as the parallel runway.For pilots who miss the NOTAM; it sure would be nice if the FAA would designate the new parallel runway as 17L-35R.A pilot making a forced landing en route and being cleared to unway 17L or runway 35R would be much less confused about the sight picture of two parallel runways.As a pilot; I want to call this proposed name re-use (duplication) a safety issue that can be mitigated by adding the proper L/R suffix to the temporary runway's designation.'A runway landing designator marking consists of a number comprising one or two digits. When parallel runways exist; the number is further supplemented with a letter.'-- AC No: 150/5340-1M.The existing runway is being closed for 50 days. The runway exists. Therefore; parallel runways exist. From a safety standpoint; it is wrong to have parallel runways with the same designator. Using 'LEFT' and 'RiGHT' during the time that the temporary runway is in use will serve to remind all pilots to land on the taxiway and enhance operational safety.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that a taxiway at LAW airport will be used temporarily as a runway during runway closure. Pilot recommended that the taxiway; which is parallel to the closure runway; be identified using appropriate Runway left and right designations.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff; at approximately 35 kts; we observed a 'F/CTL FLAPS LOCKED' Level 2 ECAM. I rejected the takeoff; exited the runway and received permission from tower to delay while I conferred with Maintenance and Dispatch. Maintenance was also aware of the ECAM; and asked me to cycle the flaps. They were unresponsive and he recommended that we return to the maintenance hangar. I made an AML write up; discussed the occurrence with AMTs and left the aircraft with them. They confirmed the next day that the Wing Tip Brakes had received information from sensors that needed replacement.




Synopsis: Captain reported a rejected take off after an ECAM message showed trailing edge flaps locked.