elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After fueling and preflight I taxied out and accomplished a normal run-up. I leaned for best power at 1800 RPM and enriched mixture slightly for full power setting. Mag check was normal at 100 drop on both magnetos. After completing before takeoff checklist for a flap 10 takeoff I initiated the takeoff roll. The engine indications were 23 inches manifold pressure and 2500 RPM; the normal static RPM for this airplane. The aircraft accelerated normally to about 60 MPH. At around 60 the acceleration rate seemed to slow. I looked at the RPM which had decayed slightly to 2450. I pushed/turned the prop control to check that it hadn't backed out and got a slight increase in RPM. By now I should have had 2600 RPM but still had slightly less than 2500. With less than [half] of the runway remaining I had to decide to abort or continue the takeoff. There was a small berm at the end of the runway which I did not want to hit if I aborted. Since we were at a lower altitude than my home airport and the airplane seemed like it wanted to fly I elected to continue. There was a slight rise at the end of the runway and the airplane would neither accelerate nor climb above it. The airplane touched down at about 50 MPH on the slope with the airspeed decaying. The touchdown was uneventful and we decelerated to a near stop. We then stopped abruptly and the airplane started to nose over but then settled back down. The engine was stopped. I asked my passenger if he was ok and we both agreed we were ok. After assessing that there was no smoke or fire I secured the mixture; fuel; magnetos; battery and other shutdown items. We both exited the airplane and checked to see what had happened. It appeared that the airplane had hit a section of partially buried railroad ties. The nose wheel was sheared off and there was some visible damage to the right side of the cowling and the nose gear doors as well as one of the prop blades being bent. The rest of the aircraft seemed intact.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported running off the end of the runway and striking some railroad ties when his aircraft failed to take off. Reporter stated the engine seemed to be producing below normal power.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TRK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approximately 20 miles southeast of the airport we were with approach on radar vectors. Approach cleared us from 13000 feet to 12000 feet and handed us off to Center. When we checked in with Center we reported 13000 feet descending to 12000 feet. Oakland told us to return to 13000 feet (we were at 12500 feet). We returned to 13000 feet. Center informed us that they had different altitude restriction than Approach. No issues with traffic or terrain were noted.NorCal and Oakland should have same altitude restraints along airspace boundaries/handoffs.




Synopsis: A Challenger 350 pilot reported Approach handed him off to Center with an incorrect descent clearance.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching SJC from the south; NorCal Approach vectored us on a right downwind for 12R. We had SJC in sight; Moffett Field to the northwest was in sight and Company traffic [we] were to follow in sight. While on the downwind; NorCal cleared us for the visual approach 12R and directed us to turn our base leg over Moffett at 2;500 feet. Controller said she needed us not at or above 2;500 feet but at 2;500 feet. She said this was due to an arrival aircraft going into SFO. Pilot flying (Captain- recent transition from other carrier) acknowledged this altitude restriction; however; failed to meet this restriction. Pilot Flying (PF) [became] flustered [when] the automation kicked off the autopilot at around 3;000 feet and started a climb. Pilot Monitoring said 'Hey; you're climbing; ATC wants us at 2;500 feet over Moffett.' PF well behind the aircraft said he was trying to slow down in order to go from flaps 5 to flaps 10. We were 1;000 feet high and NorCal saw this. NorCal then queried us. Bottom line; PF mismanaged aircraft's energy and failed to execute basic stick and rudder skills in order to meet an ATC directed crossing restriction.As a nine year original Company First Officer I'm seeing a huge rise in buffoonery out of newly minted Captains who were former Captains from another carrier. It's getting to the point where it's becoming a safety concern for me. I often feel like a big babysitter and it's fatiguing. And I don't say this lightly. It's not an attitude problem or personality problem; it's a lack of experience problem. I often wonder how some of these individuals make it through training. They're getting paid Captain pay but not performing at a Captain level. These new Captains (former other carrier) often don't have the required baseline knowledge of the 737 and Company operations and are subsequently a threat to safe operations. I beg training to ensure these individuals are 'up to snuff' before they're given the Captain keys to a 737.




Synopsis: A B737 First Officer reported he has observed substandard flying skills associated with Captain's from a recently merged air carrier.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operating ZZZ-ZZZ1 did not receive NOTOC (Notice to Captain) paperwork or have apparent indication of HAZMAT onboard. F/O (First Officer) performed main deck cargo inspection and did not report any issue. Flight operated routinely with no event. During layover post flight received email indicating hazmat was indeed loaded on aircraft. Subsequent review of flight document revealed NOTOC 'YES' was notated on W/B (weight and balance). Suggestions: although familiar with the W/B; the NOTOC YES did not standout during this instance. The lack of actual NOTOC paperwork did not raise a flag. In this instance the system failed. It would be helpful if possible to have NOTOC YES or No more prominent on W/B. There was a breakdown of communication between F/O and myself and better communication regarding checking main deck cargo would possibly have caught the error.




Synopsis: B-747 Captain reported a communication breakdown between Captain and First Officer resulting in transporting DG cargo without required documents.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FADEC / TCC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took Runway 36 for departure had TO-1 thrust set; bleeds on packs OFF because of an APU MEL. I set thrust in the detent and about 15-20 seconds later we received an ATTCS No Margin EICAS message. The Captain took the controls and performed the low speed abort as required. We taxied off the runway; ran the checklists; and called Maintenance. Per Maintenance instructions we returned to the gate where our Maintenance personnel met us after just arriving to fix another broken plane. It was a standard abort for a mandatory abort message. I suggest fixing the APU's; as Maintenance said having the engine bleeds ON with TO thrust and 36C degree temps likely caused the message.




Synopsis: During the takeoff roll with an inoperative APU; an EMB-145 EICAS alerted ATTCS NO MARGIN so the takeoff was rejected and the flight returned to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC repeatedly called us by wrong call sign. Company [flight] XXXX was in front of us. ATC kept calling us XXXX.


Second narrative: Descending on the ROKKR 1 we [flight XXYX] were given continued descent to 7000 FT. Flight XXXX was also on frequency; SoCal [Tracon] seemed to be mixing up the call signs or we may have misheard them. It is possible our clearance to 7000 FT was meant for XXXX. Several times it sounded like SoCal called us XXXX or called them XXYX. Somewhat urgently; we were directed to stop our descent immediately; which left us at 10;100 FT; which we reported. Then we were given vectors for traffic and then a second traffic. Normal vectors to final and continued descent followed.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported ATC repeatedly assigned instructions to incorrect aircraft due to similar call signs.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff the crew received a EICAS message of Electrical Emergency Abnormal.  We identified the malfunction; completed the climb checklist; and requested level off.  At that time we proceeded to run the ELEC EMERG ABNORMAL checklist. I knew that if my batteries were draining I had a maximum of 40 minutes of battery life and wanted to get on the ground as quickly as possible. We requested to return to [departure airport]. The tower turned us on a downwind and cleared us to land. At this time I knew we were going to make a overweight landing and landed with a minimum descent rate.  After landing I deplaned the passengers and filled out the maintenance logbook. During this incident I should have declared an emergency per our operating procedures (overweight landing).  At that time we were minutes from landing and immediately given a landing clearance; I was more focused on flying the airplane and getting the passengers safely on the ground. I also recognize that declaring an emergency for the electrical emergency abnormal would have given us more options/services at that time.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported returning to the departure airport after noting the EICAS message 'ELEC EMERG ABNORMAL.'
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Enroute we heard a company flight with a very similar callsign on same frequency. Center notified us that the company these two similar callsigns on the same route at the same exact time every day. Similar callsigns increase workload unnecessarily. No deviations happened as a result of similar callsigns.Company should review similar callsigns and assign [different] numbers during forecasted conflicts like before.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported his company regularly dispatches two flights with similar call signs at the same time every day.
Date: 201910
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [Company] used to be a safe airline. I've flown many years with [Company] but since the merger there are so many safety policies that are unclear and flight attendants argue and even verbally attack each other onboard in front of passengers. I rarely see flight attendants do safety checks anymore; there simply isn't any time since agents want to rush boarding. There just isn't a safety atmosphere anymore at [Company]. It's sad to see [Company] becoming like this. No one knows simple policies of like arming doors; checking seat belts and the list can go on. Then we have complete new hires forced into flying the purser position; being in charge of a whole wide body aircraft. They just came out of training and have no clue; barely knowing if we serve food or not on a transatlantic flight; yet they are in charge of an aircraft with 100's of passengers depending on good leadership in an emergency. It's just a matter of time until the media finds out a new hire was in charge of an emergency. Good luck to us all. I'm truly worried about [Company]'s future safety wise.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported problems with procedures and company safety culture that could result in a safety issue.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After two late night flying events; this day three of three included two daytime flights. This reported event resulted in minor injury to a flight attendant. After a quick pushback; dual engine start; short taxi; then immediate takeoff clearance given; we began take off roll. A rolling takeoff was initiated. At flaps up call by me; the First Officer said to me we forgot to do the final items on the takeoff checklist. A minor flight attendant injury was communicated to the flight deck during the climb out about 10 minutes into the climb after the sterile cockpit light was turned off. This was the result of the flight attendants scrambling to get to their jumpseats as takeoff power was applied.


Second narrative: Flight crew failed to complete final items of takeoff checklist. Additionally; FO did not complete final items flow. Error was caught during after takeoff checks; as start switches were not in continuous position and transponder was not in Traffic Advisory (TA)/Resolution Advisory (RA) position. As a result of not receiving the departure announcement; a flight attendant pinched her finger in the jumpseat during her scramble to get seated upon takeoff roll commencement. In debriefing the event; aircrew could not determine any reason for the checklist incompletion. Evolution from push to taxi to runway was normal and without distraction. Fortunately; FA injury was not significant to preclude her performing normal duties.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew forgets to complete the before takeoff checklist after a short taxi and an immediate takeoff clearance. This results in the start switches and transponder switch not being in the correct position and the flight attendants being out of their seats when the takeoff is commenced.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; 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 Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were taking off from ZZZ and climbing; a very strong burning odor was coming into the cabin. FA (Flight Attendant) A called the flight deck immediately to notify the pilots. They told her this aircraft just got a new engine and they will monitor it. The smell went away shortly there after.


Second narrative: As soon as we took off in ZZZ and were still climbing; a very strong burning oil/ engine odor occurred.I immediately called the flight deck and was told that the aircraft had a new engine and the smell was because of that new engine; the pilots said they'd monitor it and to call if it got worse and didn't go away.Smell went away after ten minutes and didn't return.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight attendants reported a 'very strong burning odor' during takeoff.  They were informed by flight crew that the cause was a newly installed engine. The odor dissipated after ten minutes.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was climbing out from Runway XX during a 'Go Around' turning from left crosswind to a left downwind at 800 ft. I heard another aircraft reporting entering a left downwind to the same runway. Right after entering downwind I broadcast in the blind looking for a position of aircraft and he told me I had just passed below his belly at about 200 ft. away from his aircraft. I apologized and told him I never saw him until after his call and he was about 1/2 mile off my left wing.A safer practice would have been if I sidestepped to the right during the initial phase of the go around and climbed to 1;000 ft. AGL before turning left into the crosswind. This action would have put me farther away from the airport and would give me a greater view of the area I was turning into.




Synopsis: Pilot flying M20 aircraft reported a NMAC during initial climb.