elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 400'-500' after takeoff I observed a decrease in engine RPM and asked my student if he had reduced power; to which he answered 'NO'. I then felt substantial; abnormal vibration and engine sputter. I decided to transfer controls from the student to me; and then proceeded to turn back to the airport. I kept a slight climb with the engine power available until landing back at the airport was assured. I ran the engine fail/power loss in-flight checklist and contacted ATC when there was an opportunity. The checklist was completed and the only change made was that the electric fuel pump was turned on and stayed on throughout the completion of the landing. No change in engine performance occurred from the electric fuel pump being turned on. I prepared for landing on runway XX; keeping the option open for runway XYL. There was an aircraft exiting the runway on YXR (opposite XYL) which caused the delay in decision. With sufficient time and altitude available I decided upon runway XYL and confirmed this decision with the tower controller. During the roll out after touchdown; the right main tire deflated at a controlled rate (not a blowout) and I was unable to taxi off the runway. The engine remained in operation but idled rough upon stopping. I confirmed that we could not exit the runway and I shut the aircraft down. Airport operations and crash fire rescue arrived and confirmed that myself and the student were not injured and no further danger was anticipated. There was no damage to the aircraft and no additional incident occurred. The aircraft was towed off the runway.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported a partial loss of power shortly after takeoff; resulting in an immediate return to the departure airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Central Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the First Officer from ZZZ to ZZZ1. During the takeoff role the Captain stated 80 kts.  I was monitoring my PFD and I only had 50 kts indicated airspeed.  I then looked over at the Captains PFD and saw he was above 100 kts at this time.  I made the decision to continue all airspeed call outs from his PFD; and once airborne the Captain called for positive rate; gear up.  Once I placed the handle in the UP position; my PFD was unreadable and several EICAS messages displayed.  The Captain lost his flight director; the auto throttles disengaged and he was flying raw data at this point in time.  We were entering ZZZZZ airspace with dozens of TCAS traffic symbols on our NAV display.  I asked the Captain if he wanted to make the turn to follow the SID or [advise ATC] and ask for vectors.  At this time we did not know what the problem was other than my PFD was unreliable and we had multiple EICAS alerts.  The Captain said to [advise ATC] and ask for radar vectors; which I did.  We then climbed up to 4000 ft and the Captain ask to retract the flaps.  The Captain called for the jump seater who was a MD 11 Captain to come up on the flight deck and assist me in running the QRH procedures.  At this point we assumed we had an air speed unreliable issue and treated the [situation] as such. After completing the QRH checklists and isolating the First Officers CADC; the Captain had his flight director back and we requested vectors for the ILS runway XXL; and returned to ZZZ.  I informed the company via the ACARS 'Divert' icon we were returning to ZZZ; I requested landing data; and we briefed the approached.  I asked ATC to provide ground speed readouts until touchdown as a backup and crosscheck to our aircraft information.  The landing was uneventful and we taxied back to the ramp.




Synopsis: First Officer reported that CADC2 failed on takeoff; resulting in loss off Air Data.  The crew returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MUGM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Center MUHA
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure from MUGM; we inadvertently entered Cuban Territorial Waters/Airspace between GPS Waypoints DANYL and EASTP. Standard departure routing is to fly VFR direct DANYL - EASTP - BYGON. At BYGON; aircraft pick up their IFR clearance with MIAMI CENTER. Deviation was caused by the aircrew failing to load the GPS Waypoint EASTP into the Flight Management System. The route of flight in the FMS was double checked prior to taxi by the both the First Pilot and the Captain. Both failed to recognize the missing waypoint. We took off from MUGM and the Aircrew recognized that the initial waypoint was missing; corrected the discrepancy; checked the remainder of the route and continued. The aircraft was on Autopilot; receiving course commands from the GPS NAV computer. We checked in with HAVANA CENTER over DANYL passing 9;000 feet MSL. HAVANA CENTER issued a squawk code; made radar contact; instructed that we fly direct DANYL; EASTP; BYGON with no left deviation unless prior coordinated; and then advised us to remain outside territorial waters. This is standard phraseology with HAVANA CENTER. HAVANA CENTER later contacted us and advised we remain outside territorial waters two additional times. We responded in the affirmative each time. At approximately XA:15 local the supervisor came on the radio and advised us that they were 6 nm inside the CUBAN ADIZ and had violated CUBAN TERRITORIAL WATERS. The pilot flying immediately executed a turn back on course and I began verifying the flight route in the FMS. Both myself; and my pilot realized that an additional waypoint was missing from the route of flight and corrected the discrepancy.




Synopsis: A military flight crew penetrated restricted airspace due to FMS programming.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The First Officer flew a great approach. He was stable at 500 ft. Over threshold (MEM RWY 27); the aircraft encountered a slight wind shift which created a slight airspeed loss.  Sink rate increased a bit and I directed the First Officer to begin his flare. The touchdown was a bit firm; so we wrote up the firm landing on the AML upon reaching our gate. Target Vref was 119 + 5 = 124 kias. Winds calm.I believe a wind shift or wake turbulence from the preceding landing aircraft caused this event.Because the aircraft was light weight; I had instructed the First Officer to carry power into the flare. As I felt the sink rate increase on very short final; I instructed the First Officer to begin his flare.  The event occurred so close to landing that there was very little time for the First Officer to implement my recommendation.


Second narrative: Stable approach at 500 ft.; continued stable approach with small corrections until 100 ft. and over the threshold; when Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring's eyes transitioned to mostly outside at the aim point. Pilot Monitoring felt a sinking feeling about 50 ft.; and instructed Pilot Flying to 'Flare' approaching 30 ft. Pilot Flying was slow to put flight control inputs; resulting in a firm touchdown. Pilot Monitoring took controls of the aircraft once on the ground. Last recognized crosscheck of airspeed showed on VREF +5 (119 +5). Because aircraft was light weight; Pilot Flying held power through the flare. This resulted in a firm landing. [The cause was] most likely a last minute change in winds or turbulence from [preceding] aircraft.Suggestion is if Pilot Flying recognized sink rate sooner and applied an increase in power; or if the Pilot Flying timely inputted the correct flight control inputs instructed by the Pilot Monitoring.


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported a firm landing resulted after encountering a wind shift or wake turbulence.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other parked
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While working a 4 leg day in Aircraft X eating lunch in the cockpit; I decided to open the window for some fresh air during a sit. I noticed as I tried to open the window; the window handle was jammed in the clipboard. After many attempts; I found that the only way to open the window was to move the clipboard sideways (something that DOES not occur and is not required in our 175 aircraft) and I found this to be concerning. If I was in a high stress environment during an evacuation and had to open the window to jump our with the rope; I am not confident that this would have been figured out in time. I have not seen any documentation on this. The clipboard is definitely in a different position on these aircraft in reference to the window opening handle; and that needs to be discussed; or the clipboards need to be moved.Clipboard is much closer to window opening handle on 170 aircraft than 175; and causes the window opening handle to jam unless clipboard is moved out of the way.Document this difference in the 170 aircraft; or move clipboards.




Synopsis: EMB-170 First Officer reported the cockpit window handle is jammed by a clipboard which could result in limiting ability to escape aircraft.
Date: 201906
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was contacted by our safety and regulatory department about an Internal AIMS audit. The AIMS system which impacts 3 FAA regulations regarding rest might have been turned off thus putting me over 14CFR 121.483. Company has addressed the issue and moving forward I will be more vigilant on these rest rules that might affect my flight.




Synopsis: Airline First Officer reported being notified by company audit department of FAR Flight Time Limitation violation due to company monitoring system error.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the Mount Vernon Visual on 11 mile final and level at 2500 ft; Potomac advised us of pop-up helicopter traffic 500 feet below our altitude.  Due to the potential conflict Potomac cancelled our approach clearance and said to maintain 2500 feet. We had no traffic displayed on the TCAS at that time.  A few seconds later at about 10 mile final the traffic displayed in red and we received a TCAS resolution advisory (RA) to climb. We climbed and told ATC that we were climbing due to the RA.  The 'climb' warning stopped after about 300 feet; we deviated about 500 (3000 MSL) in total.  After the 'clear of conflict' alert we returned to 2500 feet.  We then asked for a new clearance to get back in sequence for arrival.  I informed Potomac that I would file a report. I saw 400 feet on the TCAS as the closest distance between the two aircraft.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: A320 Captain reported experiencing an NMAC with a helicopter on the Mount Vernon Approach to DCA.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to the FAF ILS; we lowered the landing gear. Both mains showed down and locked but the nose gear did not. EICAS showed 'gear disagree' and 'gear doors.' We also got a 'gear doors light.' We cycled the gear and got the same indications. We then did a go around; complied with the QRH; called Dispatch and talked to Maintenance Control. I declared an emergency; as a precaution; even though we got the nose gear to finally lock down. We then landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A B757 nose gear failed to extend; the EICAS alerted GEAR DISAGREE; GEAR DOORS and GEAR DOOR light was illuminated so an emergency was declared; the QRH complied with and normal landing followed.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff just after rotation received ECAM ENG 2 EGT Overlimit followed by multiple compressor stalls on engine 2. Accomplished non-normal procedures and returned for an overweight landing. Upon return to gate maintenance advised that the N1 Fan section of the engine had seized.




Synopsis: A320 flight crew experienced an engine compressor stall during takeoff. Procedures were followed ending with a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZZZ contacted [Operations Center] after flight departed. Item 2; X at 252lbs; on the [load plan] had been held off for no show but ZZZ was unable to locate shipment. Shipment contained 1lb of [corrosive HAZMAT]. Upon arrival ZZZ1 reported offloading 1 box at 40lbs which indicated it contained hazardous materials and the airbill matched the airbill for the held off item.




Synopsis: Air carrier ground personnel reported HAZMAT item was erroneously shipped even though item was not meant to be transported.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We pushed back and were starting an engine when the tug driver told us there were three more passengers coming on a bus we called ops to verify and then shut down the engine and had the tug pull us back into the gate.  We opened the doors and loaded the three passengers.  I then went and asked the tug driver if we were getting a new pin. He said no they were included in the original count.  We then called ops to verify the passenger count. We had the Flight Attendant do a head count and the numbers matched. We closed the doors and pushed the rest of the flight was uneventful.This was caused because of the multiple buses that are used to move passengers due to the COVID-19 social distancing. We were told all passengers were onboard. I will have the flight attendant do a head count for all flights that are done with remote parking.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported being pulled back to the gate to receive 3 passengers who were not on the flight yet due to being transported in a different bus for COVID-19 distancing.