elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had to return after a gear malfunction after takeoff. This caused a delay for our passengers to get to the final destination. After attaching the jet bridge there was an altercation between the two gentlemen in the first row. I was still in the cockpit and did not see anything but I was able to hear the altercation. The Captain and Flight Attendant were back in the cabin and witnessed what happened exactly. From my account the passenger sitting in row X a/b side was asking about when we can get to our destination. The way he was asking came off as rude and disrespectful which caused the gentleman on the X c/d side to confront him. There were multiple cuss words from the second person but the general message was 'let the pilots do their jobs. They are doing the best they can.' I don't recall exactly what was said; but the argument did escalate to the both of them swearing at each other as the Captain tried to calm them down. Within about a minute of the argument we were able to get both men deplaned and an agent on scene to work the rest of it out. Both men were put on the replacement plane and there was no issue on the flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported two passengers were aggressively arguing while the aircraft was parked at the gate during a maintenance delay.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: There were snow drifts on the taxiway and runway.  Due to the snow; upon climb out; pilots side landing gear door would not close completely.  I cycled the gear several times to try and clear the snow to allow the gear to close fully.  We were unsuccessful getting the gear to close; so I decided to land and see if we could resolve the issue.  Feeling the departure airport was unsafe due to the runway conditions; I decided to divert to ZZZ1 to assess the situation.  I am familiar with the airport and they have a Tower and other facilities.  Roughly 20-30 minutes after ATC gave us our clearance to ZZZ1 (while we were at FL270); there was an explosion like sound and all cabin pressure immediately departed.  This blow out knocked off all of our headsets.  Understanding that we had a cabin de-presserization; I immediately pulled the power back to idle; dropped the landing gear and nosed the plane over for rapid descent.  Once we were going down; I changed our squawk to 7700 (knowing that this was our only form of communication with the outside world); set the autopilot to level off at 12;500 feet and re-engaged the autopilot in case I were to black out.  I didn't grab for my oxygen mask because at the time we were already coming down at a rate of over 8;000 ft/min and the wind/cold and just chaotic nature of the cabin; I didn't feel comfortable taking my hands off of the controls.  I also didn't go for my headset for similar reasons; as well as there being so much noise; I knew there would be no way for me to hear ATC let alone they be able to hear me. After we were able to level off at 12;500 feet; I looked for the closest airport (ZZZ2); brought up their weather and loaded the approach we wanted and turned to the appropriate heading.  I opened the inertial separator; turned on our landing and wigwag lights and decided to leave the gear down for the remainder of the flight.  I didn't want to accidentally add any other complications to our situation.  After what seemed like the longest approach in history; we finally touched down safely at ZZZ2; where I taxied the plane to the already waiting emergency vehicles.




Synopsis: Lancair Evolution pilot reported landing gear door failed to close followed by pressurization failure resulting in emergency descent and landing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JLN.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D JLN
ATC / advisory: Tower JLN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a less than 1 mile final when I heard the tower clear another aircraft holding short of the same runway for takeoff. At first I thought I was surely mistaken but when I saw the other aircraft start his roll; I reminded tower that I was on short final. He asked me to go around or do a 360. Since going around could have potentially put me over the runway; I chose to do a 360. At this point I was perhaps 200-300 feet AGL and obviously with full flaps. Fortunately I was able apply full power and perform the 360 all the while just above stall speeds and barely clearing tree tops. My wife was quite panicked and I have to say that I wasn't too excited about it either especially with both of my kids in the back. Of course I got nothing of an apology or otherwise from the tower controller.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cirrus SR22 on final approach was surprised to hear ATC clear another aircraft for takeoff. When questioned; ATC requested that the aircraft on approach go-around or perform a 360 degree turn.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Windshield Wiper System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [This report concerns] a flight with an inoperative windscreen wiper.  Captain and I both agreed the flight could not be flown safely due to weather in the destination area reported as a temporary probability of rain showers.  The Dispatcher and Maintenance was notified and minutes later a Chief pilot appeared at the aircraft and questioned our decision about operating the flight.  The Chief Pilot then stated that the only visibility concerns associated with a broken windscreen wiper would be limited visibility during ground operations and we would just have to operate with more caution. I questioned the limited visibility during an instrument approach and landing and identifying the runway environment.  The Chief Pilot stated that in his experience rain during landing has never created a visibility issue and the Captain would have to fly both legs of the trip since the First Officer's side wiper was inoperative.  After continuing to state our concerns and the Chief Pilot not budging on the visibility not being a factor in the rain; the Captain and I agreed with the Chief Pilot to take the flight.  The threat was forward visibility in the rain showers due to the inoperative wiper.  The error made was giving in to the pressure put on the Captain and me by Maintenance and the Chief Pilot; after initially refusing the aircraft due to safety concerns.  The flight was conducted without any known deviations.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reports an aircraft refusal for an inoperative windscreen wiper.  The crew is chastised by a Chief Pilot and eventually the crew agrees to accept the aircraft with the First Officer's wiper on MEL.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: CH750 / Cruzer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gearbox
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As I was in the 45 approaching the turn to downwind for left traffic at ZZZ the power suddenly dropped and engine rpm fell significantly. Gearbox oil temperature rose rapidly and a burning smell entered cabin air. I did a check for fuel flow and switch to use both fuel pumps without effect. I rocked wings to see if it was a fuel feed issue. Appling a cruise power setting caused engine to sputter; but it produces some power at near idle speed. Insufficient power was available to perform a normal pattern and landing; so I [advised] on CTAF and informed the CTAF that I would be making a direct shortened base and final into the runway at ZZZ. With the altitude to glide to the air field and the little remaining power; I was able to cut the corner and get the plane in position for a short final with some excess altitude; performed a slip to bleed off the extra speed and landed without further incidence. The engine was running; but not making good power but enough to clear the runway and taxi to hangar area where I investigated and found oil leaking from seal at the front of the gearbox power shaft. The sight window to the gear box oil showed opaque black oil; rather than the clear light amber color normally present. Downloading the data logger showed a climb in Gearbox temperature followed by sharp drop in RPM followed by a extremely sharp rise in Gearbox oil temperature; rising more that 120 degrees Fahrenheit above normal operating temperature. The Gearbox was a upgraded model recently installed and had 15 flight hours on it. The manufactured recommended replacement with the new model based on better cooling and stronger bearings. The previous gearbox had flow for 50 hours with no failure; and was only replaced as recommended by manufacture because of design improvements. The aircraft was equipped with a Viking 130 engine; which includes the gearbox designed for the Viking 170 engine. Both are manufactured by Viking Aircraft Engines.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an emergency landing caused by engine power loss.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
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: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: DFW has an odd system of ground-frequency assignment for the east side of the airport; that has long concerned pilots for the very reason this incident highlighted. Outbounds from the remote; E Terminal spots of XX to YY are often assigned the discrete Ground frequency of 121.80; even though all other east-side operations for the apt are issued 121.65. However; those of us assigned 121.80 are never switched to the 'main' frequency of .65 that everyone else is operating on.On this day; as we taxied out we were assigned 121.80; but the First Officer; to his credit; decided to take the initiative to also pull up 121.65 on the other radio; so we could hear what was being said to and by the other aircraft operating in the same area and taxiways and the same controller. Northbound on Taxiway K approaching Taxiway Z there was a B737 waiting to pull out. Ground issued instructions to them over 121.65 to pull out ahead of us; and then transmitted to us on the same frequency to give way. The only reason we were aware of these transmissions was because we were monitoring both frequencies. We gave way to the B737 without incident and everyone went on their way none the wiser; except us. Had we not been monitoring 121.65 but just on our assigned frequency of 121.80; there's every reason to believe both aircraft would have gotten much closer together before the ground controller might have discovered his error; and ultimately; it was not his error but the assignment of two; discrete frequencies to different aircraft taxiing on the same taxiway.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported the crew would not have heard a taxi instruction to give way to another aircraft if they had not been monitoring a different  frequency than the one they were assigned.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working an aircraft on the localizer while departures were approved using opposite direction; same runway. The weather was low VFR but was improving steadily. An earlier departure was clear of the course of the arrival while the arrival was still 15 NM from the airport. The subject departure appeared on the RADAR scope when the arrival was about 8 NM from the airport; appearing then as opposite direction; the pilot had not yet started the Local-assigned turn. I think that since the weather had been lower and even included thunderstorms adjacent to the airport on the other side of the field; it did not occur to me that the Local Controller would be applying visual separation. It was this ignorance that led me to act as if there were two aircraft cleared at that time to fly directly into each other head-on. The Local Controller had turned the departure; but I did not call on the direct touch-line and also turned my arrival to the same cardinal direction; which put both on somewhat converging courses. Further vectoring and the issuance of an immediate climb clearance to the departure appears to have saved separation. Perhaps the SOP at facilities like mine; which allow the application of Visual Separation by the Local Controller and include an aircraft on the RADAR Controller's frequency should require in those instances that the Local Controller must notify the RADAR Controller immediately so that the RADAR Controller isn't put in the position to have to have such crucial faith in the Local Controller actually applying the Visual Separation and not (heaven forbid!) instead making a mistake that to be corrected; must be corrected immediately.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported being surprised by the opposite direction separation provided by the Tower between two Air Carrier operations. The reporter failed to realize the Visual Separation being applied by the Tower Controller.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JYO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After boarding passengers and starting engines; we notified Potomac that we were ready for departure Runway 17. We were informed that there would be a delay if we used 17; so we decided to depart Runway 35 to avoid the delay since winds were calm. There was one aircraft that departed 17 as we were taxiing to Runway 35 but heard and saw no other traffic. We were released by Potomac Departure from Runway 35 at which point we visually cleared the area left and right and transmitted our intentions on CTAF 122.97 that we were departing 35. We did hear another aircraft arriving from the north about 6 miles away but did not see them. After takeoff we were to make a sharp left turn and knew that that traffic would not be a factor. As soon as we took Runway 35 and advanced the power for takeoff my co pilot called airspeed alive and then declared he saw an airplane far down the runway. I yelled abort at a very low speed. Below 50 KTS. We had plenty of distance from the other airplane and watched them lift off and sidestep slightly to the right as we exited the runway. There was never any risk or danger to passengers and the other light single engine airplane passed abeam us about 400 feet. We never heard anything else on the radio and still had plenty of time on our clearance void time. With a brief explanation to our passengers and a short taxi back; we departed with no other interruption. We did not hear any other traffic on the frequency as we departed.




Synopsis: CE680 Captain reports rejecting a takeoff at low speed when an aircraft is sighted taking off in the opposite direction. No voice communication is ever established with the departing single engine aircraft.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; MEL; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I pulled up the flight documents for Aircraft X:-  Aircraft was on MEL XX-XX Left Pack Inoperative-  The First Officer and I reviewed the MEL for Left Pack Inoperative and concluded that all applicable items were complied with. -  We reviewed and discussed the [appropriate procedures] -  We then reviewed the procedure under 'Left Pack Inoperative' and how we would prepare the aircraft prior to takeoff.-  When cleared for takeoff we repositioned the switches as described in [the aforementioned procedure]-  After selecting TOGA for Takeoff I noticed that the N1 number was higher than I thought it was on the [Performance Data Sheet] paperwork; however; it did match the numbers that were in the FMC. -  After Takeoff we continued with the procedure-  At cruise we discussed the situation and realized this was more than just a Left Pack Inoperative and was actually a 'Bleeds Off' Takeoff and we should have had a [Performance Data Sheet] reflecting that condition. -  When we arrived [at our destination]; I discussed the situation with the 'Outbound Crew' and mentioned to them that I thought this situation should have a Bleeds Off Takeoff [Performance Data Sheet]. He looked at his paperwork and noticed it did not show Bleeds Off but instead was identical to my [Performance Data Sheet]; a normal Bleeds On [Performance Data Sheet].Dispatch failed to realize that the MEL would result in a Bleeds Off Take-Off thus requiring a different/adjusted [Performance Data Sheet]There is no mention in the in the MEL that the Operator should request a Bleeds Off Takeoff [Performance Data Sheet]Lessons Learned:- There is no reference in the MEL that the procedures outlined in XX-XX Left Pack Inoperative will result in a Bleeds Off Takeoff and to ensure you have a [Performance Data Sheet] reflecting that condition.-  In my discussions with Dispatch; it appears there is no indication to them that this procedure will result in a Bleeds Off Takeoff and to supply a [Performance Data Sheet] reflecting that condition.- There needs to be a bullet point in the MEL XX-XX procedure under Left Pack Inoperative that reminds the crew they need a Bleeds Off [Performance Data Sheet]




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported confusing MEL information related to takeoff procedure with one air conditioning pack inop.