elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the LEGGO2 arrival at IAD; about 5 miles north of TICON Intersection at 4;000 MSL; we received a 'Terrain; Terrain Pull Up' warning. Due to the fact that we were night IMC and could not visually confirm terrain clearance; we called ATC while climbing to avoid any possible collision. After reaching 4;300 FT. MSL the warning and associated red light extinguished and we were able to return to our assigned altitude. We believed this to have been a false warning due to the fact that we were both on course and altitude for that particular section of the arrival. No further issues were encountered; and a normal landing was accomplished.Perhaps more frequent; or more thorough; inspections of our avionics/warning systems would possibly avoid this and other similar false indication situations. This should include exterior components and any associated seals. The rain may have played a large factor as water and electronics do not mix well.




Synopsis: A Dash 8 flight crew responded to an EGPWS terrain warning while level at 4;000 MSL; 5 NM north of TICON on the LEGGO RNAV STAR to IAD.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed Runway XX.  Wind was right quartering 4-6 knots.  Landed using a wheel landing; after slowing to about 20 knots or less the tail lowered and the aircraft veered hard right.  Unable to counter with rudder and brake.  Result was a ground loop to the right.  Aircraft stayed on the runway and partially exited onto Taxiway 1.  Left tire was blown. Left wing tip made ground contact. Quarterly tailwind was contributing; afternoon hot  conditions.




Synopsis: PA-18 pilot reported a ground loop during landing.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Logbook Entry; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: We were dispatched to an MD-82 aircraft for a manual engine start; in accordance with MEL 80-01. When we opened the engine cowling we found loose wiring exposed inside of the engine compartment and this was the reason the start valve was placarded. I also questioned [why] the placard was for the start valve; not the wiring to the valve; does this placard cover a wiring problem too? Maintenance Control was called and they said don't worry about it; it will be OK.The exposed wiring should have been capped and stowed; yet the wiring was left exposed inside the engine compartment and could have shorted out; or sparked and cause a fire. The MEL was for the start valve; but the person who placarded the valve knew of a wiring problem and documented this in the logbook; they should have known better.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports an MEL applied to an engine start valve on an MD-82 aircraft was improper. He also notes the known; loose; exposed electrical wiring for the start valve that were not capped or stowed inside the engine compartment prior to issuing the MEL; could have shorted or sparked and caused a fire.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight Yaw Damper
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure [we were] given a right turn to the northwest while told to maintain 8;000 feet MSL. During the turn our yaw damper malfunctioned and the aircraft began to go into a 'Dutch roll'. While bringing the aircraft out of the 'Dutch roll'; we were unable to level off at 8;000 feet MSL and reached an altitude of 8;400 feet MSL. Once we had taken the aircraft out of the 'Dutch roll'; we went back down to 8;000 feet MSL and informed ATC of our situation. We landed without incident and were not asked to contact anyone or given a phone number.




Synopsis: A Learjet Captain reported a failure of the yaw damper system while making a turn during the climb phase of flight. The airplane entered into a Dutch roll which resulted in an overshoot of the assigned altitude. The Dutch roll was successfully arrested and the aircraft was returned to the cleared altitude.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Takeoff had been delayed due to thunderstorms over the departure fix and we were holding at approach end of runway. Tower advised they were going to release us at XA:23 local. Started engines and performed checklist and MEL procedures. Another Air Carrier landed before us and had cleared runway. We were cleared for takeoff. Sometime after the 80 KT callout and at an estimated 100 KTS; Tower said 'Air Carrier X; Abort.' Immediately rejected takeoff with full reverse and autobrakes. Tower then asked us to clear runway as soon as possible due to another aircraft on final behind us. We cleared runway as quickly as feasible but the other aircraft was instructed to go around. After clearing runway; stopped aircraft on Taxiway Kilo. First Officer communicated with Tower while I advised passengers of reason for abort. I could only tell them that ATC had instructed us to abort as I did not yet know the reason and Tower advised they would explain via telephone. Elected to return to gate and have aircraft inspected by Maintenance and coordinated same with operations. Since we had been off gate for over 2 hours; passengers needed to be given opportunity to deplane. Since we were not sure of disposition of flight; he decided to deplane all passengers. Chief Pilot agreed to contact Tower to see what had transpired and the reason we were told to abort and call me back. Aircraft performed flawlessly during abort with excellent braking and anti-skid as well as directional control. Brakes on left side gave overheat ECAM though temperature was only slightly above 300 degrees. Use of brake fans initiated. Cause; as per explanation by Tower Supervisor; there was a malfunction with the Ground RADAR. It issued a conflict alarm and although the Controller knew there was not a conflict; FAA procedure required Controller to take action based on the alarm and issued the instruction to abort. [A] suggestion; an abort at high speed; especially on a short wet runway; allows little room for error. As a pilot; we must make a split second decision and there is no time to question the Controller as to why we are being instructed to abort. I realize the need for SOP's; but a Controller should be able to use his or her judgment in cases like these and be allowed to deviate; when necessary; if it is a safer course of action.




Synopsis: Air Carrier reported a high speed abort instruction from the Tower on a limited distance wet runway; reportedly an automated ATC alarm was the reason the instruction was issued by ATC.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: 1L door failed to seal; causing air return due to failed pressurization. Leveled 10;000 feet and seal did not seat. Returned to departure airport uneventfully. Found door closed; but seal not seated.




Synopsis: A B737 1L door seal did not seat properly and therefore the aircraft could not pressurize. The flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was a student on my cross country and I had an accident on landing. I contacted my instructor and his response was that; 'If you're asked by the NTSB; tell them we did three touch and goes before you left' I was a little troubled by that request. As I got home that night; he also left a message that night on my voicemail asking me to come by and see him and don't enter that flight in my log book until we talk. So the next day I went over to the airport where I really wanted to insure I was covered by the insurance and he said I was; but he need to make some entries in my log book to protect us both on the insurance; I said I didn't understand what my logbook had to do with the insurance and I said I wasn't comfortable allowing him to enter flights that didn't happen. He then stated unless he did these entries we weren't covered by the insurance. I said I'd go get it at home but never returned. So I made some inquiries on this with another flight instructor and a few pilots and they said he was trying to cover his ass because he should have flown with me at least within a 90 day period before I did this flight and he should have done a flight plan where it would have stated the wind conditions and he would have seen on the NOTAMs that the runway for landing into the wind was closed for painting and only Runway 9 was being used which had a crosswind. So I'm troubled on what to do. He just wants to protect himself and he should have insured I was ready for this task; I could have been killed and no one would know about his actions. The last thing he said before I departed for this flight was I needed to pay up on the balance I owed.




Synopsis: A student pilot reports a landing incident while on a cross country flight. The reporter's instructor wishes to make entries in the students' logbook for flights that did not occur; which the reporter rejects.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
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 - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the Stadium Visual to Runway 29 using the RNAV waypoints. At about 1000' Tower asked us to square the turn to final. I widened and squared the turn using both outside references and the map and course presentation on the flight deck display. However; not being familiar with EWR visually; I lost sight of the runway in the sea of lights and ended up right of the final approach path by maybe 1500' to 2000'.We received an Obstacle Caution; although did not see any obstacle. Since it was night conditions we executed the prescribed go-around which we needed as well; due to our poor alignment. I don't believe we committed any deviations; but with the Obstacle Caution wanted to spread the info for other's benefit. The request by Tower to square the turn would likely be no problem for a familiar local flyer that could more easily pick a good ground track.


Second narrative: I was Pilot Monitoring. We were cleared the STADIUM Visual Runway 29 at EWR. Proceeding aircraft was approximately 3 NM ahead; and as we made the 45 degree final segment to the runway; Tower requested we 'square the turn;' which meant deviating from the LNAV PATH. Not having that lateral guidance when we did turn final complicated an already very busy arrival. Numerous speed requests from Tower and inability to get details due to radio saturation. High winds (250/22 gust 31) also were a factor; and neither of us had flown this approach before.As we turned to final; I had the airfield in sight but not the Runway 29. We were slightly displaced right of centerline and could not safely correct to course. When we received a Terrain Caution (approximately 500') I called for a go-around. During the subsequent approach; the Pilot Flying flew the LNAV PATH all the way. That worked much better.A quick note about how difficult Runway 29 is to acquire visually; due to the late turn to final [would be helpful].


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported executing a go-around after receiving a terrain alert at 500 feet AGL on a night Stadium Visual approach to EWR.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CNO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D CNO
ATC / advisory: Tower CNO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X departing runway 26R on a right downwind started to cut southeast bound to 'avoid Ontario class-C' airspace due to the way the charts show the airspace. By doing this when pilots do it; they cut off traffic on final for the ILS approach to runway 26R at around the same altitude. The ILS arrival traffic had not yet checked in on frequency from SCT.The charts need to more accurately depict our airspace to the northeast of CNO airport as to not confuse the pilots and have them flying opposite direction on final. Additionally; our letter of agreements are grossly out of date and revisions seem to have been permanently put on hold.

Callback: Reporter stated this is a recurring issue during this runway configuration. Local airspace agreements are not depicted on the VFR Charts for pilots.



Synopsis: CNO Local Controller reported an aircraft departing on downwind turned into traffic on the ILS final approach course to avoid ONT Class C. Based on local agreements the airspace belongs to CNO Tower during its hours of operation; but this is not indicated on the VFR charts.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff we experienced a dirty sock/fume event that was isolated only in the flight deck. Both myself and the First Officer put on our oxygen mask to abate the smell. The odor dissipated within 15 minutes of departure. Upon descent the dirty sock smell came back this time more prominent. We tried to isolate the smell by using the odor isolation procedure in the Flight Crew Operations Manuel with no help in getting the dirty sock smell to dissipate. The odor was first only in the flight deck on descent but then spread throughout the cabin.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fume event during initial climb which dissipated shortly after departure. The odor returned more intensely during descent. Flight crew completed the Flight Crew Operations Manual procedure which produced negative results.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed on an IFR flight plan north with 4 passengers on board. At Flight Level 250 I requested lower and was given descend to Flight Level 240. I powered back for the descent and at 24;000 feet powered back up using primary Torque/Throttle control for level flight and did not get a response as I continued to descend. I brought power to close and repowered and did not get a response and pulled nose up to maintain altitude. At that point I got a gear down aural message that led me to believe I had lost the engine. I notified ATC that I had an engine failure and wanted vectors to the nearest airport. After getting established on a course to ZZZ while descending I activated the secondary power control lever and the power came back. I informed ATC that I had recovered power and continued to a safe landing at ZZZ.




Synopsis: TBM850 pilot reported an engine failure at altitude; recovered power using the secondary power control lever and diverted to a safe landing.