elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was the 3rd Air Interrupt in a row on this aircraft for the same problem. Prior to this flight maintenance personnel had been brought in to help contract maintenance. There were at least 3 shipments of parts in an attempt to fix problem. Prior to flight; MX replaced a loose wire connector; a T/R unit for CA instruments; left idg; an overhead electronics panel and possibly more- see logbook. Here's what happened again. About 25 min into flight at FL390; lighter aircraft because ferry without rev passengers; little chop in area; - everything associated with the Standby AC bus started cycling rapidly and violently to include: L autopilot engaged was erratic (changed autopilots); Cabin Alt Indicators bouncing rapidly back and forth; yaw damper light; flood lights cycling on off; radar cycling on off; L FMC blanking; cabin lights cycling; Status Msg 'Capt Instr Xfer'; and may have been other indications. We turned around [to departure airport; before] entering oceanic. On descent; systems returned to normal (at lower altitudes and throttles back); and so descent - approach and landing were normal; not overweight this time. ARFF checked brakes; no problem; and returned to gate uneventful.Because this problem has only occurred during flight; I recommend test pilots fly this aircraft to altitude for systems check prior to revenue flight; following further maintenance.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported returning to departure airport after noting multiple electrical anomalies that were addressed before departure but not successfully solved.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X called up roughly 6 miles east of ZZZ with a VFR tag and stated that he was having trouble with his GPS and was [positioned southwest] and wanted to come into land; I told him to report a 2 mile left base for runway 15 and to report when he had the field in sight. He reported the field in sight at about a 3 mile final for runway 24. When he was about a mile and a half out and still lined up for RWY 24 I asked if he could circle north and land RWY 15; which was currently the advertised runway. He responded that he could and started to circle to the north. I then cleared him to land RWY 15. He then went around stating that he was too high. I gave him left closed traffic for RWY 15; and then changed it to right closed traffic for RWY 15 because there was [another aircraft] inbound from the northeast for a left base for RWY 15. I then cleared Aircraft X to land and read him the wind. He appeared to be landing long on RWY 15 and as he looked to be touching down it sounded like he hit the throttle briefly and then landed the aircraft and went off the runway to the right close to the departure end.I'm not sure what have could have been done to prevent this aircraft from exiting the runway. He appeared to be landing long but I believe had he not throttled back up he would have not exited the runway.




Synopsis: Tower controller reported an aircraft runway excursion after landing.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Agusta Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on leg one of an eight leg training flight; utilized the Ice Protection System. We had a Tail Rotor Degraded (half the tail rotor blades not being heated) caution light and switched system off. Turned system on again after 10 minutes; system operated OK then Tail Rotor Degraded Caution light again. Switched system off and left off for remaining seven legs. No other cockpit indications. Between leg three and leg four stopped for fuel. No abnormalities seen during walk around pre-flight. Continued leg four through leg eight. Subsequent maintenance post flight inspection revealed electrical arcing to the tail rotor assembly.




Synopsis: A-139 flight crew experienced inflight failure of tail rotor deicing system. Post flight inspection revealed electrical arcing in tail rotor assembly.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Canopy Window
Component problem: Design; Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I performed a left-wing low slip to lose altitude in the SZD-50 Puchacz glider. During the slip; the canopy opened and the canopy retaining strap broke. The canopy opened fully and shattered. Most of the Plexiglas was gone. I brought the aircraft out of the slip and what remained of the canopy was pulled back over and held in place by my guest passenger. A normal pattern and landing were flown and there was no significant difference in the performance and handling of the aircraft without the canopy. There are four possible causes of this event. 1. I had my hand on the air brake handle below the canopy latch handle. I may have dislodged the canopy latch handle while manipulating the air brakes in the slip. 2. My passenger may have dislodged the canopy latch accidentally. 3. The latch may not have been closed properly before take-off. The latch was checked during the before takeoff checklist and was confirmed closed at the time. 4. The latch may have failed. This glider has a history of inadvertent canopy openings in flight. To prevent the problem in the future; pilots of this model should be made aware of the potential for canopy opening and left slips may not be recommended. Some modification to prevent canopy opening could be useful.




Synopsis: SZD-50 Puchacz glider canopy opened in flight and shattered; so the pilot closed what remained of the canopy and landed without a problem. This aircraft's canopy has been the subject of past failures.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X arrival to ZZZ1 and Aircraft Y ZZZ departure were in direct conflict.  An IFR release was received from ZZZ2 approach for Aircraft Y and after Aircraft Y was airborne Aircraft X's data tag was in view on the edge on my radar screen.  I advised ZZZ tower on the situation immediately then passed traffic to Aircraft Y. As the collision advisory appeared a traffic alert was issued where the pilot immediately got the traffic in sight and asked what direction to go.  Aircraft was on an IFR departure climb below the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) so I advised the pilot left or right turn at pilot's discretion. Aircraft Y turned to avoid.I don't know the current visual aids used by approach for release availability to each facility but I'd advise that their visual aids should be made more effective. A radar software update to where ZZZ1's instrument final turns red if someone has been cleared for the approach would give ZZZ [Tower] better situational awareness and be a home run in terms of ensuring this doesn't happen again.  ZZZ controllers standard radar setting does not allow for view of ZZZ1 instrument arrivals much farther out then 10 mile final but we can always see the final and a change in its color would be noticed.




Synopsis: Tower Local Controller reported a departing aircraft was in conflict with arriving traffic under TRACON control. The reporter advised the departing aircraft who then took evasive action while below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MYEF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MYEF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After I cancelled IFR and initiated a VFR descent into MYEF; we cruised at 1;000 AGL toward Runway 12. I made contact with the 'advisory' Tower on the CTAF for the first time about 20 miles west; and they suggested Runway 12 based on the 080 surface winds. I was advised there was another aircraft behind and to our left; also inbound to Runway 12. I advised my position and altitude as 8 west of the FAF for Runway 12 at 1;000 FT. The [other aircraft] advised 2-3 miles behind us; and above us by more than 1;000 FT. Around 5 miles; I advised my position as a 5 mile final; 1;000 FT for Runway 12. The [other aircraft] came on frequency and said they were at 2;300 FT; and asked what our speed was. I replied with '108 over the ground.' At that time; our airspeed was right at 120; but I replied with my ground speed because I thought that would be easier to for them to relate to. The [other aircraft] replied; 'We are slowing up.' I never had visual contact of the traffic; nor did the traffic ever say they had us in visual contact. [First Officer] was flying; we were slightly slow; and slightly low; at about 112 KTS on roughly a 3/4-1/2 mile final; about 200-250 FT. All of a sudden; I saw the [other aircraft] overtake us from above; and descend through our altitude; off our nose about 75 FT in front of us. Since the Pilot Flying did not see the aircraft as quickly as I did; I took over control and executed a successful evasive go-around to the left. The SIC took over the radios and advised our go-around; and the reason for it. The [other aircraft] crew said they never saw us; but said that he thought I meant I was 'over the numbers' when I said '108 over the ground' in reference to my ground speed. I entered a right upwind and continued the I could have been clearer in my ground speed call; however; the pilot of the [other aircraft] should have verified our position again; if not visual; and should not have continued onto a short final without positive verification that I was off the active runway. I never called clear of the runway; because I had not landed yet.




Synopsis: Light twin pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft on a visual approach to MYEF.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
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 Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a visual descent to Denver; landing south; we were on downwind and cleared for the visual approach. As we planned our descent; the Captain entered a lower altitude [than] what I wanted as we were on an open descent. When I noticed the error; I turned the autopilot off and flight directors shortly after. ATC issued an altitude alert during this time. I leveled off; continued the approach visually; and descended once we reached the appropriate descent angle. This resulted in a normal landing. Captain entered an altitude at a midpoint inside the FAP (Final Approach Point) by mistake.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported ATC issued a low altitude alert after the Captain entered an improperly low altitude on a visual descent into DEN.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After crossing [the left runway] at Taxiway D; we joined Taxiway L instead of M as ATC had directed. We taxied west on Taxiway L and joined Taxiway M.... We continued to the gate without further incidence. Even though ATC instructed us to taxi to the ramp on M; I still turned on Taxiway L. Taking L to the ramp is usually what happens after crossing [the left runway]. I guess I just didn't process the different instruction. The early duty-in (and wake-up) had a contribution to miss-hearing/complying with the instruction given. Vigilance in listening and understanding instructions is always necessary when given a clearance from ATC. I will do better to understand the clearance given and comply with the instructions


Second narrative: It was definitely an incursion of Taxiway Lima which we were not cleared for. Captain was probably just headed for Lima as we usually get clearance to join Lima at that intersection during morning hours when the airport is not that busy; so may be just muscle memory.


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew attributes a taxiway incursion to following the route usually given rather than the actual clearance received from Ground.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the takeoff roll we experienced a right engine failure around 110 knots. We aborted the takeoff and stopped on the runway. We called the Tower and requested the Fire Department. We ran the ECAM procedures and shut the right engine down. Fire Department did not find any indications of a fire. The training department should be commended. The event is exactly as we train for.


Second narrative: Above 80 knots and well below V1 I rejected our takeoff due to a right engine failure. Write was for approximately 110 knots but aircraft data advised that it was 91 knots. The aircraft was brought to a stop on the runway. Passengers; Flight Attendants and company were notified.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported a high speed rejected takeoff due to an engine failure.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While reviewing our departure; our weight was high enough that a departure from Runway 28L or 28R might have been necessary.  We were departing on the NIITE1 RNAV departure; which off the 28';s requires a turn at 520 feet to TWINK and no faster than 220 knots to avoid terrain.  This is essentially the same procedure as one would fly on the old SHORELINE6 departure off the 28's.  While reviewing the engine failure profile off 28's; the Runway Data from ACARS says to refer to the 10-7 pages for details.  If an engine is lost before the first turn; it's straight forward:  at SFO 2.0 DME; turn right to 310 and intercept the SFO 294 outbound.  However; if you have already started the first turn; traditionally we have always continued the turn to heading 030 and intercepted the SFO 340.  This is where the safety issue comes in.  The 10-7E page (current update) which is what is directing per the ACARS runway data; states this:  'The ENGINE FAILURE PROCEDURE - TAKE-OFF/MISSED APPROACH AFTER FIRST TURN AND BELOW 1500 feet; off the 28's THE PROCEDURE BELOW APPLIES TO THE QUIET; REBAS; AND SHORELINE SID's ONLY.' The NIITE1 RNAV is conspicuously absent.  I checked the NOTAMS and nowhere does it say to follow the 'after first turn' engine failure procedure off 28's on the NIITE1.  So technically if you lost an engine after first turn off the 28's on the NIITE1; the way I read it you'd be turning back towards the 294... which would be a very bad idea.

Callback: The reporter states that his company has not gotten back to him as to when the engine out procedures will be modified to cover the AFIVA1; NIITE1 and TRUKN1 departures or what the interim procedure should be.



Synopsis: B737 Captain states that his company's engine out procedures do not address the new NIITE1 departure from Runway's 28 after the turn is initiated at 520 feet.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: 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 Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being cleared for takeoff; during the initial phase of the takeoff roll; the FO (pilot flying) called for takeoff power to be set. The ground range lights were called dark and the auto feather was called armed. At that point; there was an audible change in the sound of the number 1 engine followed by a yawing moment to the left. At 60 knots the takeoff was rejected and we taxied off the runway and ran the rejected takeoff checklist. The FO stated he observed the torque on the number 1 engine decrease to 60% and continue to trend lower as he rejected the takeoff. Due to the very rapid rejection of the takeoff; I was unable to observe the remainder of the engine instruments. Once the aircraft was taxied off the runway; both engines appeared to operate normally with power settings between flight idle and disc. Additionally; bleed selector 1 and 2 were confirmed on. According to the flight attendant; there was a customer in the back who stated was a pilot; and that he heard 'something wrong' with the engine just prior to our rejecting the takeoff. We then returned to the gate; deplaned; and maintenance control was notified of the status of the aircraft.




Synopsis: Dash-8 Captain reported rejecting takeoff when the number one engine torque began to drop. The flight returned to the gate for maintenance.