elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Undercast; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft lost power soon after reaching cruise altitude of FL250. There was an undercast that was lighter and more broken towards the south. I executed a glide towards ZZZ where it looked like I could divert without needing to fly an instrument approach. I notified ATC and determined that the ceiling in ZZZ was 8;000 ft. I maintained best glide until I was in the immediate vicinity of ZZZ and could start seeing landmarks through the undercast. I descended in VMC conditions and executed a visual approach into ZZZ without incident.A local repair station determined that an induction hose has wiggled loose of the connection at the left intercooler which would result in loss of turbocharging and erratic induction air pressures that would lead to a loss of power at altitude. They reconnected the hose and ground tested the aircraft before returning it to service. I retrieved the aircraft after an extended runup test and flew it back to base uneventfully. The induction hose is located in an area of the engine compartment that would not be visible in the preflight.




Synopsis: Pilot flying PA46 aircraft reported engine failure in cruise.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot flying as SIC on the arrival. There were a series of published altitudes and speeds plus a NOTAM changing some of those speeds. Approach gave me a descent to 8;000 FT; which I understood to mean unrestricted except for the speeds and I was achieving this using Vertical Speed (VS) mode with the autopilot engaged. I was descending through about 9;500 FT and slowing from 250 to 220 KTS when the Captain began to argue that I should use VNAV instead of VS; despite the fact that I was meeting the speed and altitude restrictions another way. I suggested we could talk about technique and automation on the ground. Suddenly the speed began to increase above 250 KTS and I realized that the Captain had engaged the VNAV without my consent and the Flight Director was commanding a speed of 340 KTS. By the time I recognized this; gone back to VS and deployed speed brakes we had crossed the next fix and exceeded the speed limit of 220 by about 20 KTS. The plane was back on speed shortly after and the remainder of the approach was without incident. This Captain always wanted things done his way; and was particularly fond of using the Vertical Navigation - even when it was inappropriate. I think this situation could have been avoided if the Captain had either: a) left me to continue to meet all clearances and restrictions in the way I was doing; or b) taken the controls and met those same restrictions his way. I suggest that no one should interfere with the flight controls unless there is some breach of safety; not because of differences of technique and certainly not merely to achieve their own way.




Synopsis: CE-750 First Officer; pilot flying an arrival using VS to meet published altitude and speed restrictions; is confronted by the Captain regarding the use of VNAV instead of VS. Captain engaged the VNAV mode without informing the First Officer. First Officer re-engaged VS and landed without further incident.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training on the X Scope and traffic volume was fairly high compared to the previous several weeks.  ZZZ was landing Runway X and ZZZ1 Runway Y Right; making for a complex approach pattern.  Aircraft Y was NW bound toward ZZZZZ; the South fix for RNAV X approach at ZZZ level at 030.  Aircraft X was on the Localizer Y Right approach at ZZZ1 east of ZZZZZ1; descending out of 030 for 020; not cleared for the approach.  The close proximity was recognized as Aircraft X (now at 025; still descending) was established on the localizer and Aircraft Y (still level at 030) was approximately 1 NM away from ZZZZZ; the situation was recognized just as 3 mile separation was lost.  I turned Aircraft X to a 180 HDG as they were out of 022 for 020 to avoid a further loss of separation.Aircraft X was slow to descend and I did not recognize the altitude in sufficient time.  Training has been intermittent for a long time due to the COVID situation.  Also; unusually frequent storms and bad weather had kept traffic volume low for the past few weeks; keeping training complexity low as well.  Today presented lots of training and volume; I was getting tired due to not being conditioned for constant traffic and lost focus.  I would [recommend that I] recognize my own fatigue and ask for training or to work a slower or less complex position for a mid day break or to change things up.




Synopsis: TRACON Developmental reported a loss of separation and cited lack of training in high traffic volume as a contributing factor.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing [Runway] XXL; winds 280/12G19. Rolling takeoff. Slight difficulty setting throttles for takeoff; as #2 did not want to go above 95%. At 80 knots; received Engine Fail light on glareshield. RTO (Rejected Takeoff) at approx 90 knots with #2 engine at 95% and decreasing.  Cleared runway. Complied with QRH. Block turn back. Returned to different gate for transload and relaunch.  Debriefed Maintenance.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported an engine failure on takeoff roll.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal takeoff; level off at 10;000 feet. Clearance to 17;000 feet; at 10;500 feet Right Engine Flameout caution message. Reference QRH; two items. Thrust lever confirm and idle and engine instruments monitor auto relight. The caution message did go away although N2 was below 40%. After approximately 45 seconds I advanced the thrust levers slightly to monitor auto relight. While all this was going on the flight attendant called the flight deck; I did answer and told her we were returning to ZZZ. Also talking to ATC and getting vectors and a decent. The First Officer did a great job; after running the checklist and setting up the cockpit for the return; I also had him call OPS; and let the folks know we were returning. I did fail to mention to test the flight attendants. Normal landing and taxi in.


Second narrative: Around 10;500 feet we had a Right Engine Flame Out with auto relight. Performed checklists and returned back to the field.


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported an engine flameout resulting in an Air Turn Back and a precautionary landing.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff noted dirty sock smell during takeoff roll when takeoff thrust was set. Lasted approximately 3-5 minutes after takeoff then dissipated. Maintenance logbook entry was made. Upon meeting local Maintenance; when I inquired about a fume form to be filled out. The Maintenance Technician said 'don't worry about it we will take care of it.' Maintenance seemed more concerned with getting the aircraft out. We headed to the hotel; and had a day sleep. When I returned to the airport to [operate a flight]; we had the same aircraft. When I looked up the corrective action to my write up I found 'Spoke with CA (Captain); and FO (First Officer); CA said he smelled only slightly but FO didn't smell anything.' The Technician in no way shape or form spoke to me or my FO. I never once stated that I only smelled it slightly; and my FO never stated that she did not smell it. This is an egregious act of disregarding my write up; but falsifying statements on the corrective action to get the aircraft back in service. This is something that needs to be addressed due to the safety ramifications that it can have if something more serious occurred on the subsequent flight.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a temporary fume event on takeoff that was entered in the logbook at destination. Captain stated Mechanic dismissed the need for reporting the fume event.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Staffing; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon taxiing at night on the ramp of FBO; there was wingtip to wingtip contact between Company Falcon and Baron. The left wingtip of the Falcon made contact with the bottom of the Baron's right wingtip during night taxi.Should not have taxied at night. Recommended action should have been to leave the aircraft at its current location and not taxi the aircraft. We; as the crew; were considering passenger and crew convenience to prepare the aircraft for flight. A request was made to move the aircraft; but a 'certified tow' person was not available. The procedure was simple enough but I believe night complicated things.


Second narrative: During repositioning on ramp at night our left wingtip contacted the right wingtip of parked Baron.I was looking at the Baron for as long as it was in view before I had to shift my attention forward to the Marshaller. It appeared that we would clear it with no problem. At no time did the Marshaller give a stop signal.We had requested our aircraft be towed on line for us to get it ready for passenger operations; but [Company X] claimed that their linemen on duty were not tow qualified; hence the need to taxi the aircraft. More care in taxiing aircraft and the use of a wing walker.


Synopsis: While taxiing at night to reposition on the airport; a Falcon jet wingtip clipped the bottom of a Baron wing. A Marshaller was guiding the aircraft in tight spaces because a certified tow person was not available.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Icing; 8
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Controller #1 asked if we could accept the MNNDO1 Star into DAL. We advised that we could. He gave us direct PNUTS intersection and fly the MNNDO1 arrival. We asked if we could keep the speed up as we were running late to meet US Customs. He said keep your current speed; but I may have to slow you for traffic ahead. We acknowledged and said we will maintain our 300 knots. Then; we were given a descent to JIGAM intersection followed by 'plan to cross ORVLL at 9;000'. Then we were handed off to controller #2.  After passing JIGAM; we were asked our speed. We said 300 knots. He asked if we were on the MNNDO1 arrival. We said that we were; but we were never given the 'descend via' clearance. He stated that if we were on the arrival; we were required to meet the speeds. He gave us a 30 degree right turn because we were overrunning [another aircraft]. Shortly thereafter; we were cleared back direct ORVLL. It seems that during the transition to the new RNAV arrivals into Dallas; controllers have been inconsistent in keeping you on the published profile and speeds. Often it is asked that we turn; or keep your speed up; or slow to... One controller told us specifically that if you weren't given the 'descend via'; then you only had to maintain the [charted track]; then proceeded to give us a variety of altitudes to descend to that did not agree with the STAR. I'm sure that 'consistency' will alleviate future problems.




Synopsis: F2TH Captain reported exceeding charted speed on the MNNDO1 RNAV arrival into DAL when he misunderstood the controller's clearance.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Trailing Flaps Disagree occurred inbound to runway for landing. We executed a go around in the configuration we were at. Declared an emergency and accomplished the QRH procedure. Number 1 Flight Attendant was given the emergency brief and informed that we had declared an emergency. The passengers were given an announcement concerning our situation. Flight Operations was given a call on the radio. Flight landed uneventfully and instructed the passengers to remain seated until we had arrived at the gate.




Synopsis: B757 Captain experiences a Trailing Flaps Disagree message during approach and goes around. QRH procedures were complied with and an uneventful partial flap landing ensues.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We received a message via ACARs stating that ZZZZ reported that position 5R included undocumented dry ice of 92.0 kg and a 2.2 package.  These were not on our manifest; thus this report.I assume it was an oversight by ZZZZ. I don't know why it happened; so am hesitant to infer as to why it did.




Synopsis: Air carrier first Officer reported the flight received an airborne ACARS notification of undocumented dry ice in the cargo compartment.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This incident occurred on a day in which I hadn't flown for over a week and was not intending to fly; however after preflighting the aircraft I decided to check the Pitot/static system as I had had some issues prior to the incident in which the airspeed indicator didn't give me a reading. I had dissembled the system and realigned the tubes from the Pitot tube and the static plus the AOA and thought that they were correct. Since that seemed to be the case I proceeded to inform ATC that I needed the longest runway since the winds were calm that day and since for safeties sake the longest runway would give me a better chance of avoiding problems should they arise. The purpose being the glazing of the new brake pads and I needed to get the airplane to at least 35MPH and then apply hard braking force. To do that on the ramp area would be to close for comfort in the braking aspect of taxi. After getting clearance to use the active runway I proceeded to advance the throttle about an inch and move the control stick to the neutral position at which time the airplane left the surface surprising me as it had never done this before and the only thing I can think is the angle of incidence must have been off on the elevator to force the airplane into the air. In any case I pushed the power in as the airplane was still climbing and the nose dropped and I pulled slightly on the stick but the plane dropped hard and bounced at which time the plane seemed to stall and dropped again harder and that must have splayed out the main wheels which in turn dropped it onto the nose gear which broke the nose gear then chewed up the prop and dropped the nose unto the runway with no injuries to myself. I should have flown my simulator first to avoid the unfortunate lack of flight time and/or not even attempted to test any aspect of operations because I was not adequately prepared that day.

Callback: Reporter stated that during high speed taxi test of the pitot static system the aircraft became airborne; came down hard on the main gear; and broke the nose gear bolt which collapsed the nose gear. This caused contact of the propeller with the runway and the nose coming to rest on the runway.



Synopsis: Pilot performing high speed taxi test became airborne and collapsed the nose gear.