elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other Initial approach
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Initiated top of descent to ZZZ. A peculiar smell came out of the cockpit ventilation. Noticed smoke entering cockpit. Donned O2 mask. ECAM Master Warning: SMOKE FWD CARGO SMOKE; silenced CRC followed ECAM Master Warning: SMOKE AFT CARGO SMOKE; silenced CRC followed ECAM. Cabin crew called reporting smoke in the entire cabin. [Advised ATC] and continued to destination for an immediate landing. ECAM Master Caution: AVIONICS SMOKE. Contacted cabin for status; advised ATC of intentions; requested RWY XXR; CFR. Approached airport environment and prepared aircraft for arrival. Landed and came to a complete stop and set the brakes. [Deplaned passengers].




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported smoke in cabin and cockpit during initial descent resulting in a priority handling event at destination.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair Legacy
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While starting my takeoff roll my landing gear collapsed. The plane skidded along the runway and came to a stop less than half the way down the runway. With the help of an engine hoist and a number of volunteers; we were able to get the plane up on its gear and off the runway. The plane was towed to a hangar. Weather conditions at the time were VFR; sunny and clear with no moisture on the runway. At the time of the gear collapse; the engine was operating at full power. The plane suffered damage to the propeller and (presumably) to the engine. In addition; there was also damage to the inner gear doors; brakes; left outer flap hinge and undersurface of the left wing.




Synopsis: A Lancair Legacy's landing gear collapsed during the takeoff roll damaging the propeller; inner gear doors; brakes; left outer flap hinge; and wing under surfaces.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FRG
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While teaching my student takeoffs and landings in the traffic pattern; Tower asked us; as we were in the right downwind for runway 19; if we could see Aircraft Y in the left downwind for runway 19; turning base over the Long Island Expressway (LIE). I saw a plane over the numbers about to land 19 and what appeared to be the traffic over the LIE and responded that we had him sight. We were then instructed to follow him and that we were number 3 cleared touch and go. I kept an eye on the traffic as I divided my attention between instructing my student and looking outside for the other traffic. When I saw what I believed was the #2 traffic we were instructed to follow abeam us on final (we were still on downwind); I waited a few seconds and then instructed my student to turn base. As we were about to turn final; Tower asked us if we still had the traffic in sight; telling us that they were 1 o'clock and just below us turning to final. I saw the traffic and took the controls from the student; stopping our descent and making an immediate left turn to avoid him. Making this turn gave us enough spacing between him and us. We rejoined final and I returned control of the aircraft to the student; and the rest of the flight proceeded as normal; we made a touch and go.I believe a big contributing factor to this was my division of attention inside and outside the aircraft. In directing my attention inside; I apparently lost contact with the conflicting traffic. I was surprised by this though because we were told by tower that we were number 3; and I saw the two other planes: the one over the numbers and the other over the LIE. Perhaps when I said I saw the traffic over the LIE; I was seeing something that actually was not the other traffic? I believe this near miss would not have occurred if I managed my division of attention better between the inside and the outside of the plane. But I am also wondering if tower misspoke and we were #4 or instead of being #3.




Synopsis: GA CFI reported losing site of traffic they were to follow at FRG and had to make an evasive turn to avoid a collision. Instructor subsequently reported making a normal touch and go landing.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a routine training flight over the coast; about 7;500 feet the crew of two Pilot Instructing (PI) and Pilot Under Instruction (PUI) were giving instruction on and practicing demonstration stalls. The air was cool and improved aircraft was noted during the climb and all systems normal. The crew had climbed to 8;000 and had been roughly level for about 10-15 minutes at reduced power settings while conducting accelerated and cross-controlled stalls. During the recovery of a cross-controlled stall a strong electrical/ burning smell was noted by PI and confirmed by PUI. Light smoke/fumes were noted in the cockpit and PI stated this was emergency and to get the checklist. PI took flight controls and executed turning off of master electrical switch; avionics; pitot-heat and lights. A steep spiral was initiated to about 3;000 feet followed by an emergency descent maneuver towards the nearby airport. Traffic was observed to be to the left for Runway 18. The position was ideal for entry. The fumes were still present and the odor strong and the crew looked for sources of fire. None were found and the PI elected to perform an emergency landing on Runway 18 and the crew was briefed for emergency evacuation to follow. PI maneuvered direct to the runway and entered a close (1/2) mile downwind leg and began a descent abeam. Final traffic was identified SEL low wing aircraft and followed to runway. Final approach speed was about 70 KIAS as recommended for the configuration; the electric flaps were not available because the burning odor was still strong. The traffic seemed to land then accelerate to takeoff; then slow again. The PF slowed to prepare for a landing but the aircraft was still on the runway. PI was hoping to not go-around. The traffic turned onto the taxiway and cleared the runway. The PI landing and immediately cleared the runway and shut down the engine and evacuated the airplane with fuel shutoff. The [company] supervisor was contacted by phone.In the event of an emergency landing; be prepared to avoid traffic. Have a contingency landing prepared such as abeam taxiway clear of traffic or the best clear grass available. It would be important to weigh the fact that an emergency landing may cause more damage than whatever was prompting the emergency approach.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported executing an emergency landing when a strong electrical burning smell was noticed.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This report is regarding a procedure that is used routinely; that causes conflicts in the air; and potential safety hazards in order to expedite and reduce taxi time. At LAS there are several RNAV departures; and several non RNAV departures; that are designed for direction of departure from TRACON to Center airspace. Runway 25 is generally used by Air Carrier aircraft; and Runway 19 is generally used by private and business aircraft. This causes the problem described in this report. The STAAV Departure was designed to allow departure traffic to be balanced between the two departure sectors. The STAAV Departure is only used with departures off of Runway 25. Here in lies the problem; the Runway 19 departures; who naturally would rather not taxi to Runway 25; but instead depart Runway 19; are assigned a departure SID that is non-RNAV; and converges in the air to the Northeast of LAS causing an imbalance of traffic volume in the two sectors; as well as additional workload to both sectors due to the SID being non RNAV. Possible solution; either allow the Runway 19 departures to fly the STAAV departure SID; or discontinue allowing the Runway 19 departures; instead requiring those aircraft to taxi to Runway 25 to be flowed in with all departures thereby providing the built in balance of volume between the sectors. Either allow the Runway 19 departures to fly the STAAV SID; or discontinue allowing the Runway 19 departures; instead requiring those aircraft to taxi to Runway 25 to be flowed in with all departures thereby providing the built in balance of volume between the sectors.




Synopsis: L30 Controller voiced concern regarding the current departure runway assignments noting alternate departure runway assignments and/or changing the SID would elevate the potential conflicts now being experienced.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-25 Pawnee
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The following is a recap of my inaugural flight in the PA-25 Pawnee. After an instructional briefing at the hangar and taxi to the runway; I was authorized to take the aircraft for a flight. I departed the airport with calm winds and no restrictions to visibility or ceilings. After performing a few minutes of upper air work I entered the pattern and planned to touch down on the paved portion of the runway; my plan was to let the aircraft roll out past the paved portion (1;500 x 20 FT) and onto the dirt portion of the runway. Approach was made at approximately 75-80 MPH with 0 flaps and I touched down on the main gear at approximately 60-65 MPH followed by the tail wheel. Shortly after landing the aircraft started pulling to the right which I corrected with left pedal; the aircraft continued pulling to the right off the paved (20 FT) section of the paved runway onto the packed dirt portion (approximately 100 FT each side). At this point; I applied full left pedal and brakes but the aircraft continued pulling to the right of the runway coming to a stop along the right side. As the aircraft came to a stop; the propeller struck the raised embankment bordering the runway causing the engine to come to an immediate stop. Post flight inspection revealed damage to the propeller and tail wheel. Also; the right main wheel brake was leaking brake fluid at the wheel. Aircraft pulled to right off the paved portion of the runway possibly because the right main gear was on the dirt portion with the left still on the paved (20 FT wide) portion or because the right main brake pulled the aircraft right due to the brake fluid leakage at the wheel.




Synopsis: PA25 pilot experiences a runway excursion after landing with the aircraft pulling to the right and departing the right edge of the runway despite full left rudder and brake. Damage occurs to the propeller and tailwheel and the right brake is found to be leaking fluid.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain ended prior to landi; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The flight crew is experienced in the aircraft. The pilot flying has 700 hours as the PIC in type and the pilot observing has 400 hours PIC in type. The flight originated less than an hour away. Landing weight was 16;200 lbs. Landing distance was calculated at 3;740 feet for a wet runway. Rain ended approximately 15 minutes prior to landing. Standing water was not visible on the runway. The aircraft landed at Vref approximately 400 feet beyond the threshold (600 feet prior to the TDZ markings.) Immediately after touchdown; the nose wheel was lowered to the runway and maximum braking was applied. Maximum braking was maintained for the entirety of the landing roll. The aircraft did not decelerate for the majority of the landing roll. During the last 500 feet; the brakes became active and slowed the aircraft to a stop approximately 40 feet prior to the end. Worst case scenario landing performance predicted a maximum ground run of 4100 feet under conditions that were not present at the time of landing. Actual ground run was closer to 4500 feet. This incident was similar to the Phenom 300 excursion in September 2014 at Conroe Texas.

Callback: The reporter states that Phenom 300 has a unique braking system that uses a brake control unit to preform the functions of antiskid and autobrakes. The pilot applies maximum braking on touchdown and the unit determines how much braking is actually applied. The brakes appeared normal during taxi in and were normal during the next landing.



Synopsis: Embraer Phenom 300 Captain reported landing on a 5000 foot wet runway and applying maximum braking; to find that braking was almost nil until the last 500 feet of the runway. At that point braking became very effective and the aircraft stopped just before the end of the runway. He believes this incident is similar to an accident a year ago at CXO.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on a night visual to Runway 34L at RNO on a clear night with terrain clearly in sight; abeam EPOSE at approximately 9;200 feet MSL I received a GPWS Terrain warning. I immediately advanced power; raised the nose and performed the escape maneuver. The aircraft climbed 200-300 feet and the GPWS was silenced. We were able to rejoin a stabilized approach at approximately 1;800 feet AGL and we landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: Air carrier crew on visual approach to Runway 34L at RNO at night received a GPWS terrain warning. They performed the escape maneuver and rejoined the approach for landing.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Furnishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight Attendants #1; 2; 3; 4; followed proper door arming and verifying procedures of all doors. #1 went to cockpit and told Captain that all the doors were armed and we were ready. Captain acknowledged same and #1 closed the cockpit door. Within a minute or so; First Officer opened cockpit door and asked me (#1) to jiggle the 1L door; not showing correctly in cockpit. I pushed down on the handle to make sure it was all the way down and then must have applied pressure up and door and slide deployed. We were at the gate; jetbridge was retracted; no injuries. Mechanics came and released the slide. jetbridge was pulled up to aircraft and passengers were deplaned.SuggestionMore complete information and direction to disarm and rearm door.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant in charge reported an inadvertent slide deployment.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ICT.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ICT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was taxiing after landing and I missed the first available runway exit. The airport Controller dispatched the airport police to assist me and guide me to the ramp. The police vehicle had its overhead light bar on with red; blue; and white lights. I informed the Tower that the light bar was blinding me but the Controller said the Officer needed to have it on or some such explanation. The truck was in front of me but because of my impaired night vision due to the bright LED lights on the police truck I ended up taxiing onto the grass area after missing the turn. I believe that this occurrence could have been totally avoided if the Police Officer had just shut off his light bar. No one was injured and no damage was done to any property; including the airplane.




Synopsis: When an airport police/follow me vehicle was dispatched to assist the pilot of a CE210-P who had missed a turn off the pilot; while in trail of the vehicle; ran off the paved surface. The reporter cited the vehicle driver's unwillingness to extinguish the brightly illuminated light bar on the truck as the major contributing factor to his loss of situational awareness. ATC responded the driver was required to operate the lights at night. No damage or injuries resulted.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After inflight service was completed; realized I had served two Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) beer. I did confirm on paperwork they were armed and let them know right after that I had made a mistake and they were not to ask for alcohol while flying as armed LEOs. I looked in the manual and believe this was a company policy; could not find if it was an FAR as well.I completely forgot they were traveling as LEOs. The other FA and I were chatting with them casually during the flight about food to eat in their destination. No other possible explanation; I was not thinking at the time. I was very tired and had not slept well the night before.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reported inadvertently serving alcohol to two armed law enforcement officers while inflight; in violation of both company policy and Federal Air Regulations.