elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Moderate turbulence was reported by approach control below 6000 ft to landing along with wind shear +/-20kts on approach. Landing Runway XYL wind reported by tower was 210 25G39kt after the 500ft call between 400-300 ft we had a momentary speed fluctuation to 158 kts with full flaps then immediately after the fluctuation we received Alerted Warning WINDSHEAR then preformed the Escape procedure per FOM. On the missed; tower was vectoring us to the west for another approach to Runway XYL. We declared min fuel and requested Runway XYC. Landing fuel was at minimums. After landing; contacted maintenance to report the speed fluctuation and made an AML entry.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported experiencing windshear on final approach and executed a go-around. They declared minimum fuel and were given clearance to land without delay.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 60
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Glider
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was inbound for landing at ZZZ arriving from the south in position for a 45 degree entry into left traffic for Runway XX; the runway in use. I was in two-way communication with the ZZZ Airport Control Tower from the time I was 10 miles out. Tower requested me to report left downwind abeam. At that time; a single engine piston aircraft was departing Runway XX and was on upwind for an east bound departure and a CRJ-700 commercial flight was established on left downwind for landing on Runway XX. A Cessna 182 was maneuvering from the west for a practice RNAV approach and initially requested Runway XY. Tower rejected their request because Runway XX was in use and because of the volume of traffic. The C-182 then requested and received a practice approach for Runway XX. I had all three aircraft in sight. Myself; the departing aircraft on upwind; the arriving CRJ; and the C-182 were in two-way communication with the Tower. At about 3.5 miles from the airport and just completing my descent to traffic pattern altitude (8000' MSL); I observed the unidentified piston twin aircraft at my 11 o'clock and above me within the distances specified above.  I immediately took evasive action by initiating a descent and slight turn to the right. The unidentified aircraft was within the ZZZ Class D airspace and as far as I could tell was not in communication with the Tower. I then entered the left downwind for Runway XX; made my position report to the Tower and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: PA-28 Pilot reported a NMAC event in landing traffic pattern with an unidentified twin aircraft in class D airspace.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff [and] the Captain aligned the airplane on the centerline of the runway and gave me the airplane with the brakes released. I advanced the throttles to takeoff power and the aircraft began veering to the right edge of the runway. I applied left rudder with no resultant airplane correction toward centerline. I applied full left rudder with still no airplane correction toward centerline. I stated to the Captain that it was going right and not correcting. I then tapped left brake which seemed to [bring] the airplane toward centerline. The Captain stated that he had the airplane and performed an abort on the runway. The airplane never left the runway surface. The speed was less than 30 knots from throttle advance until abort. We taxied clear and [went] back to the gate for maintenance.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew reported directional control difficulties on initial takeoff roll; so takeoff was rejected and the aircraft returned to the gate for maintenance attention.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SAF
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SAF ATCT removed the SID for Aircraft X right at his P [Proposed Departure] time without verbal coordination. I believe this violates 2-2-11.c and sets [Sector] 16 up for an invalid release altitude. In this case; removal of the TAFOY2 SID and allowing the aircraft to proceed direct to TURKI after departure changes the minimum initial release altitude from 100 to 140 due to terrain.Have SAF ATCT comply with 2-2.11 and stop voluntarily removing SIDs at SAF.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller reported of SAF ATCT personnel who removed the SID for an aircraft. Reporter stated this is a violation of FAA Order 7110.65 paragraph 2-2-11.c. By removing the SID; the minimum initial release altitude goes up 4;000 feet higher due to terrain.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: MEL; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After we arrived; Maintenance was called to deal with two unrelated mechanical issues.  While they were reviewing the paperwork they noticed that MEL 22-12-02 needed a write-up stating that the IAPS check for the first flight of the day had been accomplished per Maintenance Control.  According to our understanding of the MEL; the check for the IAPS messages should be done on the first flight of the day; but I didn't realize that an entry in the logbook needed to be made since there were no operational procedures.  None of the IAPS messages showed up during the test. One was the max that could be shown.  If a logbook entry should have been made; then we took the airplane on a flight without the IAPS MEL 22-12-02 check being documented and signed off. There are other MEL's that require pre-flight checks that don't have to be documented; just done.  According to the Maintenance Technician I should have had it documented. Aircraft considered unairworthy since the IAPS check was not documented. In the future I will contact Maintenance Control to clarify whether or not a sign off is required.  I must not assume that the procedure like this was documented properly.  I will contact Maintenance Control if I have any questions. I think the MEL should have stated more clearly that a documented check in logbook was required. I will also review our information in the FOM to verify my responsibility concerning MEL's like this one.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reports being informed after the fact that the checks required by MEL 22-12-02 needed to be documented in the logbook.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After assuming the Local West 1 position I amended an arriving aircraft's landing clearance to include LAHSO. We were arriving and departing Runway 18R due to extended closure on [Runway] 18L. I began to coordinate with Ground Control for a crossing starting out by saying; 'my aircraft on 4 mile final is LAHSO'd;' before I could continue with my crossing instructions the Ground Controller stated 'I don't need LAHSO to cross an aircraft.' At that point I cleared Aircraft X for departure while the LAHSO'd aircraft was on a 3 mile final. As Aircraft X began departure roll Local Assist noticed that Aircraft Y that Ground was holding short with began moving; I canceled the take-off clearance and instructed the aircraft to exit the 1st available taxiway with is approximately 1;000 FT from the aircraft's departure point. Aircraft X exited the runway and the landing Aircraft Y landed without incident. Aircraft X returned to the runway and departed without further incident.This was a classic case of communication breakdown on both parties. I should have told the Ground Controller to 'hold short' and he should have verified my intent for him to cross. In the future I will ensure all my instructions to any other CPC at concise and specific. In addition the fact that we were having to hit holes when there were 3 other available runways for arrivals added to the complexity of the operations. Even with [Converging Runway Operations] CRO in effect on Runway 13R; the number of arrivals to the departure runway outnumbered the arrivals to [Runway] 13R. Runway utilization was a contributing factor. Yes we have all performed the operation multiple times; but that doesn't make it the safest or most prudent.




Synopsis: DFW Local Control attempts coordination for a LAHSO aircraft; when Ground Control advises Local; that he doesn't need this information. Local clears aircraft for takeoff; then observes Ground crossing traffic without approval. Local cancels takeoff clearance of departing aircraft.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ1
Aircraft component: Aileron Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After rotation PF (pilot flying) had difficulty turning left to HDG 330; I thought he was rusty. Had him hand fly to about FL180. When we put the auto pilot on we had the AP LWD Caution msg. We ran the QRH and noticed the aileron trim did not respond or move. ACARS Dispatch and they mentioned deferring the aileron trim. I then noticed the Aileron Trim circuit breaker was popped. I attempted to contact Dispatch through AIRINC prior to ZZZ. Dispatch could not hear me. We advised ATC for flight control malfunction. Test items ran no brace I briefed the passengers I did not have the go through planned diversion with passengers. I was very surprised that Dispatch had a known bad headset. She knowingly continued to act as a Dispatcher with a bad headset. I could not hear her on AIRINC and when I called on the phone I could not hear her. She said she knew it was bad and they needed a new one. If I knowingly operated an airplane with a bad headset I'd be in major trouble.




Synopsis: Air carrier check airman reported student difficulty with directional control after takeoff.  Discovered failure of aileron trim during climb. Returned to base and was concerned about communication with company personnel due their lack of adequate equipment.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Windshear; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuselage
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On departure from ZZZ single pilot with no passengers under Part 91; IMC; light rain and smooth air climbing through 11;400 feet to assigned altitude; I encountered microburst. The aircraft indicated a stabilized climb speed of 125 kts the instantaneously indicated about 260 kts (Vne is 188 kts) of PFD 1; PFD 2 and Standby Instruments. What I believe was torsional tail flutter also occurred. The microburst or wind shear event lasted about thirty seconds then normal flight returned.Upon safely landing I contacted Piper; for guidance on appropriate inspection as outlined by Piper factory engineers. The safety issue of potential structural damage to my aircraft; a Piper M500 has never been addressed by Company nor Aircraft Manufacturer after several documented verbal and written correspondence with both parties. With the history of structural failure of the PA-46 series; especially; the turbine powered versions I would expect some form of established Engineering Order readily available for owners and operators of this aircraft because of the performance envelope.We have gone to extremes to find a corrective action in the form of reasonably inspection to assure safety of flight; but Company and Aircraft Manufacturer are refusing to support their product thus creating a safety problem that will most likely present in the future as an inflight structural failure. Their position is that if they handle or touch the aircraft; when there is structural failure both parties will have shared financial liability. As of today; the Companies' position is stating Aircraft X is safe for flight without any further inspections.These Companies are voluntarily negligent in assuring the structural integrity of Aircraft X as is required by CFR's; federal and state law. Please assess the urgency this matter needs.




Synopsis: PA-46 pilot reported an inability to get the aircraft manufacturer to provide technical guidance for required inspection procedures following an in flight structural failure.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting right base to new private airport level at approximately 500' AGL in order to evaluate appropriate traffic flow for the landing site. ZZZ is awaiting final activation in the ADIP (Airport Data and Information Portal) portal system. While in my right turn; a local property owner was conducting legal drone operations. There was not a collision hazard; but the potential for such an event was identified by the drone operator. After engagement with the operator; I agreed to adjust pattern corridor to avoid overflight of the area of concern at low altitude. Prior to further low altitude flight operation in the immediate vicinity of ZZZ I will await final FAA activation of the landing site. I will also engage the immediate community to inform them of flight operations and solicite any additional safety concerns. It was a good learning experience on community engagement and to be more proactive in risk identification/mitigation.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot was flying into a soon to be new airport. The pilot saw a legally operated UAS and noted it may become a safety concern after the airport opens.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While taxiing south on Taxiway E was issued an instruction to hold short of Runway 27R. When given the clearance to resume taxi; I added power; but aircraft would not move. We were subsequently notified that our right main wheels were sunk into a depression/soft spot in Taxiway E. A tug was procured to tow us back to the gate where we had the aircraft inspected for damage. This could present a real safety concern should the aircraft need to make a timely return to gate for a medical or any other reason that required immediate need to taxi.




Synopsis: After holding short of Runway 27R on E; an air carrier flight crew was unable to continue taxi as their right main gear wheels had sunk into a 'depression/soft spot' in the taxiway. A tug was required to extricate the aircraft.
Date: 201506
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Navigation Light
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This aircraft still has the left wing-tip Navigation lights operating opposite the right wing-tip [NAV light] and opposite every other aircraft I've seen during routine walk-around inspections. I was contacted by a representative and was told by him that after discussions with maintenance in ZZZ1 that they believed that the wing-tip light on this aircraft was not behaving correctly for a given cockpit switch position. I wrote-up this issue again today as it still seems to be operating incorrectly.  Can I please get some definitive information on whether this aircraft is wired correctly and every other aircraft is wrong.  Or; if it doesn't matter which bulb illuminates with the switch position; i.e. Position-1 and Position-2 have no meaning.




Synopsis: First Officer files another report about the same A320 aircraft with the left wing-tip navigation lights operating opposite the right wing-tip NAV lights. Pilot requests some definitive information on whether this aircraft is wired correctly and every other aircraft is wrong or if it matter which bulb illuminates with the NAV switch in Position-1 or Position-2.