elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We got a message on the EICAS at approximately 60 knots. E2 ATTCS NO MARGIN. After evaluating the message we aborted the takeoff. We were still at a comfortable speed for the reject and were able to slow down to taxi speed about halfway down the runway without hard braking. We decided to taxi clear of the runway to complete the checklists. Flight Attendant did not report any problems in the cabin so we taxied back to the gate. There was an added threat. Engine 2 had an MEL on it already with a few associated messages. This slowed down my reaction time slightly. We did brief the possible associated messages due to the MEL but it still made me 'think' at a time when time could be critical. I guess I could have memorized these possible messages better so I could react faster on a message that was not associated.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain rejected the takeoff after the EICAS alerted E2 ATTCS NO MARGIN meaning the Alternate Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS) has no margin for ITT or N2 to attain higher thrust should it be triggered.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N27.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON BGM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was as 6;000 MSL; flying heading 360; requested N27 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23 approach into airport N27; IAF DOMVY; under IFR.  VMC prevailed.  High terrain south of airport.  The published miss turns right; north; away from the high terrain.  Approach controller overrode the published miss.  Gave us this missed approach instruction instead:  'Upon entering controlled airspace; turn left heading 060.'  N27 is class G on the ground; has elevation 730 MSL; and has overlying class E starting 700 feet above the surface.  MSL elevation of the class E floor is therefore 700+730 = 1;430 MSL.  Terrain south of airport has a peak at 1;476 MSL; a peak at 1;327 MSL; a peak at 1;304 MSL; and a peak at 2;696 MSL.  We flew the published miss.  If it had been IMC and we had followed the controller's instruction; we could have been killed.




Synopsis: A pilot on the N27 RNAV GPS RWY 23 was issued custom missed approach instructions by BGM TRACON. If followed; the instructions would have led to a terrain impact versus the charted missed approach procedure which accounted for nearby high terrain.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CMH.Tower, OH
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: We are normally staffed minimally staffed with 4 people for the mid shift; to work 3 positions. Yesterday afternoon; a controller called off on sick leave. Management made the decision to only hold over one person from the eve watch; giving one of the three controllers on the mid shift a break during his shift. The other two controllers were forced to work all night without a break until the day crew arrived. So between the hours of midnight to XA00 local; the facility was staffed with three controllers for three positions. This lack of staffing causes added stress to the workers which results in fatigue and adds risk to the National Airspace System.I recommend not staffing the mid shift with the bare minimum of 4 controllers for 3 positions; utilizing operational risk management; that if someone calls off sick; it doesn't leave a facility at risk with fatigue and added stress; because controllers are being forced to work positions for five hours without a break.This is added stress and fatigue on workers that are already being forced to work six day work weeks. Because our employer is not providing mandatory staffing; in my case; seven weeks of overtime in a row. I am forced to end my week at XB15 local on Saturday morning. I am forced to start my week Sunday evenings at XF15 local. I am in the facility 49 straight days in a row before being scheduled a [scheduled day off].




Synopsis: CMH TRACON Controller reported staffing issues at the facility.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During pushback and prior to engine start; an unusually strong burning odor was detected on the flight deck and confirmed to be present in the forward galley. Passengers in the forward section of the aircraft also mentioned the strong odor. An elderly lady seated in the front row began to cough and complain about the strong odor. I confirmed with the Flight Attendants that no smoke was present. I elected to have the aircraft towed back to the gate and deplane the aircraft to include all passengers; crew personnel & belongings. Maintenance was called to troubleshoot and they suspected the air conditioning ducts had residual contaminants that burned off when the packs were first brought on line. I verified the odor was isolated to the forward section of the aircraft by conducting a sweep of the middle and aft sections as part of the terminating procedure. An aircraft swap was arranged and we continued the flight to ZZZ1.Many times I have experienced a faint odor during an originating flight on a cold originating aircraft. This happens when the automatic temperature control drives the mixing valves to a very warm setting to deliver hot air into the cabin until the selected temperature is reached. The odor today was much stronger than I have experienced under these conditions; which led to the decision to gate return and deplane passengers and crew.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a fume event during gate pushback resulting in a tow back to the gate for passenger deplaning. Maintenance assigned an aircraft swap and flight continued with a normal departure.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was weather in the DAL HI sector and we were working many arrivals to IAH T. A B737 was level at FL330 to HOU over PPUNT and the arrival. Challenger 300 was at FL390 going to SGR. We needed to get the Challenger 300 down to FL280 as per the LOA. My trainee assigned the Challenger 300 descent to FL280 and APREQD descending with BILEE HI sector. They said unable. The Controller quickly came back and said it was approved as long as we got him below the B737; which we said we will do. After doing some other things; we noticed that they took the hand off on the B737; but not the Challenger 300. He was less than 2 minutes from the boundary. There was weather off his left side and the B737 on his right. They wouldn't take the hand off saying he wasn't separated from the B737. I begged them to take the handoff as I couldn't turn the Challenger 300 and we said we were getting him under the B737. Hand off to BILEE HI have been a problem in the past and continue to be presently. This happens especially when they don't think we are doing our job; but they will be separated before separation is lost. This practice of not taking the hand off is a huge distraction and takes our time away from scanning other parts of our sector and risks a deviation. BILEE HI needs to take handoffs in a timely manner. This is an ongoing problem and needs to stop before something really bad happens.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller described an airspace infraction when an adjacent sector refused a hand off; claiming separation was not yet established between two aircraft.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out we got a Right Oil Pressure warning message and aural warning. We complied with the QRH. Operations and Maintenance were contacted and it was decided to return to [departure airport]. Swapped airplanes; and continued. The only threat was that the right engine was run at a reduced power setting per the QRH.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported low oil pressure warning message was received on climb out. An emergency was declared; and the flight returned to departure airport with the engine operating at reduced thrust.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Tower, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X departed Rwy 8R RNAV to HRSHL. IFR conditions once he got airborne; the radar showed him drifting south just like a lot of the previous departures. When the CA alert went off I asked him to confirm that he was in his left turn to HRSHL since I couldn't see him out of the window. The pilot replied that we are correcting. At that time I turned him to 040 heading and stopped his climb at 2500 feet. The aircraft off his right side was climbing out of 2700 feet. I was told closest proximity was .4 miles and less than 200 ft.About 10 minutes earlier the same situation occurred but the aircraft was actually on the right track the radar was wrong and the target jumped back to the right track. So when the radar showed Aircraft X drifting south I questioned the pilot instead of issuing an immediate turn; due to the fact that it has been known to show a target in one spot but the plane is actually in another spot. The radar has been doing this now for about 2 months and it has been a concern for controllers. 25 minutes or so later the radar showed an aircraft off runway 9L with a CA alert with himself while there was another departure of his left that also drifted south according to the radar. Our radar technicians have informed us that Gwinnett's sensor is out and this causes all of the anomalies. Fix Gwinnett's sensor or take us off Fusion.




Synopsis: ATL Tower Controller reported of target jumps due to the Fusion RADAR which contributed to a loss of separation.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ran up engine after oil change; set brakes and departed aircraft with engine still running to check for any oil leaks. When stepping off of the wing the airplane took off at a high rate of speed and collided with hangar approximately 75 yards away resulting in damage to both wings and the propeller.




Synopsis: General Aviation pilot reports performing an oil change on his aircraft then leaving the cockpit with the engine running and the parking brake set to check for oil leaks. The brake does not hold and the aircraft runs into a hangar.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were leveling off at an intermediate altitude; we were assigned a climb and the Captain selected the altitude in the MCP. I verified the altitude and noticed the Vertical Speed window +2500. I assumed the Captain knew we were in Vertical Speed. I was distracted putting charts away when I heard the autopilot disengage (we were at the top of the minimum maneuvering speed). The Captain took control of the aircraft; pitched down slightly to increase airspeed and; as a result; we descended approximately 500 FT. We resumed the climb and VNAV was engaged.


Second narrative: During climb and approaching FL230; we were given clearance to FL410. As I selected 410 in the MCP Altitude window; I must have missed that the pitch mode entered the Vertical Speed mode. I must seriously step up my CRM procedures and my efforts at verbalizing; verifying; and monitoring of the automation systems.


Synopsis: B737-800 was climbing in Vertical Speed mode; unnoticed by the flight crew. A near-stall and altitude excursion resulted.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BIH.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: CTAF BIH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR flight to BIH. I was complacent and did not check NOTAMS beforehand. Near BIH I received ASOS information: Clear / Calm winds / Nothing unusual.I did a practice approach to runway 12. Near the threshold I noticed trucks on the runway; after that I saw a fairly lame 'X' on the runway. I went around and landed runway 34.I asked the airport operator what was going on and why there was no information on ASOS. I was told the runway was closed for maintenance and NOTAMs were issued. Then I was told that ASOS is owned by NOAA and the airport operator has no power to add information regarding local NOTAMs; i.e. possible closed runways. The inability of an airport operator to add information to an ASOS report loses a potential major enhancement to the overall safety in aviation. I am puzzled why this situation could ever have developed.




Synopsis: Pilot reported attempting to land at BIH after he listened to the ASOS. Pilot observed an 'X' on the runway and wondered why the runway closure was not on the ASOS. Pilot had not checked NOTAMs before departing for the destination.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tires
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 7 hours into our flight and immediately prior to my break as First Officer (Pilot Monitoring); we got an intermittent amber annunciation for 'Tire pressure;' on for 5-10 seconds and then off again. Upon immediate check of the gear synoptic; number 6 tire pressure was fluctuating between 173 and 172 while all other mains were between 215-235. Just then; the Captain returned from his break. My changeover brief included this issue. While I was showing him our indications on the synoptic; we saw the number 5 tire at 215 intermittently go amber also. At this point; I left on break. I returned from break about 50 minutes prior to landing and was thoroughly briefed by the Captain (Pilot Flying) regarding the situation and the plan. As we approached the field; the Captain told me he would like to have the ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting) equipment standing by as a precaution. To ensure ARFF would be available; I immediately [advised ATC]. Approach and landing to XXR was uneventful. We stopped on the runway. Maintenance came out; told us to shut down the engines so they could inspect our tires. They said there was no visible damage to the tires. A few minutes later; a tug came onto the runway and we were towed to the gate. The item was written up in the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log).




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported low; fluctuating tire pressure on two tires; but were able to land without incident.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23 Apache/Geronimo Apache
Operator: Other Private Survey company
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other survey ops
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine started running rough; went through memory items & went for checklist. Bang; looked out on right wing and an outboard cylinder was lying on the wing (happened over the ocean). Shut down and secured right engine with accordance to checklist. Landed without incident. Taxied off runway; parked in tie-down. Inspected engine; the back outboard cylinder was the one that ended up on the wing. Cylinder was still attached by 2 wires; thus it stayed put on the wing.It seems like the assembly of the engine was incorrect or a mechanical failure. The engine only had 150 hours on it. Only damage done was to the engine.




Synopsis: PA23 pilot reported an inflight engine failure that resulted in one cylinder lying on the wing.