elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing an IFR flight with student to the ZZZ1 airport; we canceled IFR on short final and requested a Tower to Tower departure to ZZZ2 with intent to request the published hold at ZZZ VOR. The airspace was very congested with VFR training airplanes.We were given a frequency change to ZZZ2 Tower by the ZZZ1 Tower Controller; and the student; under the hood continued his climb while I attempted to contact ZZZ2 Tower; which was extremely congested.After several attempts; I instructed the student to turn to a heading of 150 and level off prior to 2;700 MSL to exit the local airspace and was focused outside. Due to the heavy training activity; I could not contact ZZZ2 Tower.I looked inside and noted that the student had climbed to above 2;900 MSL which was inside the Class C shelf of ZZZ; but nearly clear to the south.I instructed the student to level off and depart the airspace; and we returned to our home base without further incident. In retrospect; due to the congestion; I would have landed at ZZZ1; taxied to the ramp; and amended my plan with the student. Traffic congestion since COVID has been significant; and has made training IFR training a challenge. I have begun to mitigate this by filing direct to airports as previously described with a plan to return home under VFR. In the future; I will no longer request Tower to Tower and plan to leave and attempt holds at airports in northern ZZZ3 County.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a Class C airspace incursion.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Inbound write up for a broken pawl replacement at door 1L. Post maintenance; I was called upon to inspect the installation of the replacement pawl. During a functional check; I noticed the placard on the exterior of the aircraft; just below the handle cut out. It reads; 'EXIT HANDLE PRESS RED RELEASE PULL HANDLE PUSH DOOR UP.' I generated a Non-Routing write up; which reads; 'Placard below main door handles reads 'EXIT HANDLE PRESS RED RELEASE PULL HANDLE PUSH DOOR.' The external disarm levers below the door handles are 'NOT' red. They have been painted white with red stenciling 'PRESS.' Handle does not match placard.' The Aircraft Maintenance Technician resolved the issue. Painted background red with white letters per drawing.The issue here is that the disarming lever is for anyone; including First Responders to enter the aircraft; without having the Escape Slide deploy while trying to enter the aircraft. Yet the placard calls out to PRESS the 'RED' release handle. Anyone not knowing the correct sequence would NOT FIND the red handle. This appears to be an oversight from when the aircraft was painted to its current paint scheme. This affects ALL 767's; all Main Entry Doors. External Dis-Arming levers that need to be repainted to comply with the drawing.




Synopsis: B767 Inspector reported that the external disarm levers on the forward entry door were not red as indicated by the placard.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exhaust Gas Temperature Indicat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight; it was noticed that the right engine Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) began to fluctuate and on occasion the EGT display for that engine would go blank and no EGT was displayed. All other engine parameters never changed. Dispatch was contacted via Satellite phone and the display problem was discussed with Maintenance and Dispatch. It was decided that the most prudent action was to return to the departure airport.A route was issued for a return to our departure airport and we advised ATC that we had a maintenance issue and we needed to return to the departure airport. ATC cleared our flight via a left turn direct to [our departure] airport. Later routing was to fix ZZZZZ then ZZZ VOR then the airport. We continuously monitored the right engine for any changes to other engine parameters should it become necessary to shut down the engine. An uneventful landing was accomplished and then taxied to the ramp.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew experienced high Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) indications on right engine. Flight crew elected to return to point of departure. No engine shutdown was needed.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other Survey
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 1.5 hours into this flight; flying survey points over south east [state] in Aircraft X; the right engine stopped producing power at 9;138 ft. MSL. Indications were a 'shuddering' of the aircraft as the right engine windmilled. I looked down and saw that manifold pressure and RPMs were dropping on the right engine; as was EGT. I held directional control of the aircraft; pushed mixture; prop; and throttle levers full forward and turned on the boost fuel pumps. No change in the right engine. I looked down and saw that cylinder temperature remained at 380 degrees; oil pressure remained (prop was wind-milling); and oil temp remained at around two notches below maximum (normal). I handed my operator the check-list; and had him read off 'Loss Of Power In-Flight' checklist while I performed the steps. No change. I had him read off the 'Restart Engine In-Flight' checklist while I performed the steps; the engine did not re-start. I had him read-off the 'Secure Engine In-Flight' checklist while I performed the steps.While performing the 'Secure Engine In-Flight' checklist; I contacted ATC to inform that I had an engine failure and that I was returning to ZZZ. I also [advised ATC]; that two souls were onboard and approximately 2 hours fuel remained. We started a slow descent into ZZZ.At about 9 miles out from ZZZ; I contacted Tower and told them that I was going to land on Runway XX (down-wind runway) and that I was [advising ATC] I had my operator read off the 'Single Engine Landing' Checklist; and landed uneventfully on Runway XX; with enough momentum to taxi off the runway and not close the airport. Following shut-down; the FBO tugged Aircraft X to the ramp.Post-flight inspection did not reveal any excess oil in the nacell; nor fuel pooling inside or streaks out. There were still 9 qts (hot engine) in the right engine; and fuel level in the right tanks were 3/4 tank in the inboard and 1/2 tank in the outboard. Fuel pressure was satisfactory on the ground post-flight.




Synopsis: PA-31 pilot reported and engine failure that appears to have been well handled by the pilot through the use of CRM.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the Pilot Flying on the visual approach to RWY 15 at ASE (Aspen; Colorado); tracking the localizer inbound. Tower had just cleared a takeoff from RWY 33 (note: this is standard procedure at ASE).Typically aircraft departing RWY 33 while traffic is inbound to RWY 15 will be assigned to fly the LINDZ departure; which requires the departing aircraft to turn north to heading 343 until reaching 9100 MSL; then turning west. In my experience operating at ASE; this should provide a healthy separation between aircraft.On our arrival on Y/XX/2020; the departing aircraft tracked outbound along our extended centerline; as opposed to passing off our left and above us which the LINDZ procedure requires. We saw the aircraft on our TCAS display but never saw it visually. The TCAS display showed the aircraft within 300' of our altitude and merging with our position. I took evasive action and flew to the right of centerline and dipped below the PAPI (4 red lights). I believe the conflicting aircraft either didn't fly heading 343 after departure; and/or had such a poor climb rate that they were unable to climb above our final approach path on the PAPI.I suggest that ATC develop a DP with an initial waypoint to the north of the RWY 15 final approach path; to reduce the potential for departing aircraft to track outbound on the final approach path. Perhaps this could be a Day-VMC-only procedure which will reduce the potential for mid-air collisions without increasing the risk of terrain collisions. The FAA could clarify that this is okay for 135 operators who are required to depart with an active IFR clearance.




Synopsis: Captain reported conflict at ASE between traffic arriving and departing from opposite directions.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on [a runway that was] over 11000 feet long; 200 feet wide. The First Officer was performing Pilot Flying duties. I was performing pilot monitoring duties. Upon initiating the takeoff roll; the aircraft was accelerating sluggishly. Engine instruments were normal - the First Officer had transferred control of the throttles to me per normal takeoff flows. The AC was accelerating straight down the runway. As the situation progressed; and at approximately 75kts; I announced abort and pulled the throttles back to idle. We advised ATC of the situation. Once clear of the runway; we advised Ops of the situation. The aircraft was able to taxi. Subsequently; we taxied to the gate and dropped our passengers off. The aircraft was written up at this time; [Maintenance] advised; and I also discussed what happened with the mechanics.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff at approximately 75 kts because the aircraft was not accelerating normally; apparently due to a brake issue.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After clearing 25L at H-6; we joined H and were instructed to 'face west and hold short of P.' The intersection of H and P is not a sharp 90 degree turn; but rather a gradual easement (i.e.; a high-speed turnoff). Taking care not to encroach onto any portion of P; we stopped short of the point where the pavement begins to diverge from H onto P. After stopping; ATC insisted that we 'move up and hold short of P.' This was perplexing as; in our best assessment; we were doing just that; and moving forward would have constituted an incursion onto P. Before we could ask for clarification; ATC then told us; with some urgency; to move forward as we were 'blocking the runway.' Presumably; ATC meant that we were blocking the exits for 25L; which are in close proximity to P. Since we were well established on H; no part of the aircraft was over any runway hold line. We then moved forward; passing P; and were instructed to hold further west on H; behind another aircraft which was holding short of T. There a few possible explanations for this confusion. First; it may me possible that ATC intended us to hold short of T; behind the other aircraft; rather than hold in the area near P; which is in the vicinity of the several 25L turnoffs. ATC may have mistakenly said P; meaning T; as we all sometimes do. The other is that ATC may have indeed wanted us to hold short of P but we did not move far enough forward. If so; there are inadequate pavement markings with which to determine the proper holding position.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew and ATC at LAX had a conflict over where to hold short of Taxiway P when Westbound on H. The 'quasi' high speed entrance to P at H combined with the lack of any hold short markings were contributing factors.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While being vectored for the visual approach to 26R in ATL; the Approach Controller pointed out traffic 'one moving to two o'clock'. We called the traffic and the runway in sight. The Approach Controller then issued the instruction to 'follow the traffic; cleared the visual approach to 26R; maintain 170 knots to AJAAY.' When it became apparent that our traffic was less than 2.5 miles from the traffic in front of him and right at 2.5 miles from us; we elected to slow to 160 knots. Before handing us off to Tower; Approach asked us our speed and instructed us to speed back up. Upon switching to the Tower frequency the aircraft in front of us was asked to slow to approach speed and the aircraft in front of them was asked for minimum time on the runway. We began slowing again; as we were passing AJAAY; and the aircraft in front of us cleared the runway as we were passing through 500 feet AGL. We deviated from our assigned speed in order to safely accomplish our other instruction to follow the traffic in front of us. We didn't inform ATC of this as the frequency was too busy.


Second narrative: We were asked to call traffic on a base leg in sight when we were about 15 miles out on approach to Runway 26R. We called traffic in sight and were cleared to follow the traffic to 26R and maintain 170 knots to AJAAY. It appeared to me that the traffic was going to be too close to us when they joined final so I began reducing speed early. I estimated the projected spacing to be about two miles between us when the traffic joined if speed was not reduced. The frequency seemed busy so we did not advise ATC of the speed reduction. ATC then noticed our speed reduction and we told them we reduced early to avoid a separation issue. He replied that the separation was fine and instructed us to speed back up to 170 knots. We complied and landed with no further incident. The spacing between us appeared to be approximately 2.5 miles when the traffic touched down.


Synopsis: Pilots reported of being told to keep speed up on final. Pilots realized they were getting to close to traffic they were following and slowed. Approach told them to increase speed and go to tower. On tower frequency they heard minimal time on runway for traffic that just landed and the aircraft they were following was told to slow.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: First flight of the day checks. I was the PF (Pilot Flying). Normal brief; push; start and taxi to Runway XXR. On TO roll PM (Pilot Monitoring) noticed that the Number 1 Engine EPR was higher than Number 2 Engine EPR reading. All other engine indications were normal. On climb out and at 800 feet CL detent was selected. No change to the EPR on the Number 1 Engine. Number 2 Engine responded normal. ECAM directed to Engine Number 1 master switch OFF. Normal shutdown. PF confirmed correct master switch. [Coordinated with ATC]. Vectors for a 15 mile visual backed up with ILS Rwy XXR. TEST brief with FA's (Flight Attendants). No evac. Text to [Dispatch; advising of the single-engine return]. ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting) met aircraft on runway. Nothing noted. Followed aircraft to gate.


Second narrative: During the takeoff roll I noted that the EPR on engine 1 was well above what it should have been and also well above what engine 2 EPR was. All other engine parameters were normal. We determined that the safer course of action was to continue. After takeoff when the PF (Pilot Flying) set the thrust levers to the climb detent; there was no change in the engine 1 EPR. In fact; the EGT and N1 indications had now started to climb. The beta target on my PFD also indicated a yaw to the right; indicating engine 1 was producing much more thrust than engine 2. We then got an engine ECAM that related to fuel. I'm not sure what the exact title of the ECAM was. At the same time the ECAM popped up the PF had started pulling the engine 1 thrust lever to idle. There was no response from the engine. The next item on the ECAM was engine 1 master off. We confirmed I was about to shut down the number 1 engine and then completed the ECAM. We [coordinated with ATC] and returned to the field and then to the gate.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported engine anomaly on climbout resulting in shutdown and return to departure airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The crew vans from the hotel in ZZZ were overloaded with crew.  The vans seat 15 and could probably seat seven or eight with social distance and were loaded to 10 or more crew members. Further; the hotel provided three vans for the XA00 AM shuttle; all were equally or greater loaded and the crews were not directed to the van they were assigned by flight number; though the hotel did have a detailed sheet about which crew was supposed to be in which van.Company needs to send or coordinate a team to assist this property in partitioning off unusable seats.  Other locations with the same style van use placards or tape to mark unusable seats.  This property is incapable of doing this on their own.  The same thing happened on the afternoon pickup and I was forced to pay for my crew due to van overcrowding.  Further; contract tracing for crews overnighting at this hotel must assume we were all in the same van.  They were mixing crews and vans so that any paperwork that they provide to assist who was on a van with whom is inaccurate.  Until company can verify this hotel's compliance; we are putting every crew member at risk and potentially stranding 30 or more crew members per day due to contact tracing.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot stated hotel was not keeping crews separate from each other on crew transportation from the hotel.