elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll aircraft hard bypassed causing a drop in torque; EGT; and RPM. I aborted the takeoff and taxied back to [ramp]. We deferred the SRL computer and took off after that.For some reason I have had to abort more times in a Metro than I have in my entire flying career. If we could make it so this bypass issue was not so prevalent that would reduce a large amount of stress. Continual incidences like this condition your mind to 'just go with it' and troubleshoot after since it's happened so often before. I cannot stress how much that should not be the case. It is frustrating as a pilot to have to continually deal with SRL issues.




Synopsis: SA-227AC Captain rejected the takeoff when the aircraft 'hard bypassed' due to an SRL computer fault.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Conducting OJTI [On the Job Training Instruction] at this time. Aircraft X was on a downwind from the west and issued a 360 heading which would be a base turn. Aircraft Y was on a 340 heading from the southeast. After issuing Aircraft X a 360 heading; Aircraft Y was given direct to SAILZ which is a point on the approach that tracks a 280 heading and descended to 3000. Next Aircraft X was issued direct SAILZ and given an approach clearance. Aircraft X read back both of the control instructions; but never executed the turns. Aircraft Y was turned to a 330 heading; and then I took over the frequency and vectored Aircraft X to a 270 heading. The trainee keyed up after this transmission and told Aircraft X to turn to a 140 heading; I took control of the frequency and turned Aircraft X to a 270 heading and vectored Aircraft Y north then east away from Aircraft X. After landing the pilot called and said it was a pilot deviation. He had his FMS incorrectly programmed and was navigating towards STERE; which is a point east of Sails. That would be about a 060 heading. The Falcon data showed the mileage as 1.53 NM and 0 feet. During this time the Conflict Alert never went off. That would have been helpful. We could have kept Aircraft Y at 4000 until we saw Aircraft X execute both instructions.Also; I spoke with the trainee and explained that once I take over the frequency; they are no longer allowed to talk on the frequency until I'm ready to give it back up. It would have been helpful if the Conflict Alert went off.




Synopsis: C90 TRACON Controller reported while providing On the Job Training Instruction; an aircraft did not turn as instructed. The developmental turned the aircraft to a different heading and complicated matters; which led to the loss of separation.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Three hour flight to ZZZ. [It was a] night landing; right crosswind; [with] rain. [Aircraft] went off left side then returned to runway and taxied off. Damaged pitot tube under left wing; near tip; where pitot tube struck grass.[This was] probably caused by misjudging height and dropping plane in. I may have started to go-around; but [was] too late.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported a runway excursion and ground strike following a night landing in crosswind conditions.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: Tower ROA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Crew on left base outside of WUDAG; turning inbound; on the visual approach at 3;500 feet when the GPWS went off. Crew executed a go-around and returned for the GPS Runway 24 approach. Could have requested full approach.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer report a GPWS on a visual approach to ROA resulted in a go-around.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being cleared for takeoff and aligned on the runway; the First Officer took control of the aircraft; pushed the throttles up approximately 40% and checked even spool up. After an increase in throttles the autothrottles caught and increased thrust to N1 Target. The Pilot Flying said 'Check Thrust'; The Pilot Monitoring said 'Thrust Checks'. Shortly thereafter (below 80 kts.) the EICAS message 'ENG TLA not TOGA' (Amber) appeared and the master caution illuminated. The Captain called for the rejected take off and took control of the aircraft. We brought the aircraft to a stop and exited the runway. We taxied back to the ramp. One Maintenance employee boarded the aircraft and ran an autotrottle diagnostic. He said he did not find any issues. We refueled; took off; and flew without further incident to our destination. The EICAS message display and alert sound below 80 kts. caused the crew to abort the takeoff in accordance with the takeoff briefing. Maintenance was not able to duplicate the problem and the subsequent takeoff was successful. I cannot diagnose a root cause for this incident.


Second narrative: Took runway after checklists were completed; including an auto throttle arm check on the PFD. Began takeoff roll. PF (Pilot Flying) called 'check thrust' and PM (Pilot Monitoring) verified and verbalized 'thrust checked.' Shortly into takeoff roll (approximately 40 kts.). Crew got EICAS 'engine TLA not TOGA.' Immediate abort of takeoff. Maintenance inspected and found no abnormalities. Crew took the plane back out and conducted flight with no abnormalities.After debriefing the aborted takeoff; PF remembered feeling auto throttle take throttles upon spool up. PM also checked thrust and verified target N1 matched throttle setting. Also saw the AT flash as it armed on takeoff roll. Cause of EICAS message unknown. Without knowing the cause exactly; can't contribute any valid suggestions based on the findings.


Synopsis: ERJ-175 flight crew reported that after 80 kts; EICAS message ENG TLA not TOGA appeared; causing a rejected takeoff and return to gate for Maintenance.
Date: 202105
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Ramp Service personnel are required to work outside in the elements while wearing a face mask as per the Government mandate. It is heating up very quickly in ZZZ. While we understand the importance of the mask mandate it is time that someone revisit the mandate and make some adjustments as far as wearing face masks outside. It is literally becoming more difficult to breathe while wearing a face mask in the extreme heat. Our Company's flight schedule and work load in ZZZ are just about pre-pandemic levels. Today; I was on a crew that had to go across the field to the Company hangar and tow an aircraft back to the terminal gates. Upon returning from the hangar; I observed employees from two other major airlines working the ramp without face masks along with an entire construction crew working on the field for the XXXX County Aviation Authority and not one was wearing a face mask. If the mandate is not being enforced out on the Ramp; then why is the mandate still in place?




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp Agent reported concerns with having to wear a face mask outside when the weather is getting hot making it difficult to breathe.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On Date; I was receiving an aircraft check out in a Cessna 182P. Preflight inspection of the aircraft including the engine and engine oil was ordinary. The engine operation was also normal during start; taxi; runup; and takeoff. During each of those phases; various throttle positions including throttle full rearward to throttle full forward were typical with expected corresponding engine manifold and RPM indications. A normal crosswind takeoff was conducted at throttle full forward and engine operation during takeoff and climb indicated the engine was producing full power. The power was subsequently reduced to cruise setting after leveling off at 6;500 feet MSL before again increasing to full power for a step-climb to 7;500 feet MSL for airspace avoidance. Again; power indications on the second climb and level off to cruise were normal for the corresponding throttle positions. After clearing the area for traffic; the instructor asked me to perform a stall and recovery. To set up for the maneuver; the throttle was reduced to partial power to reduce airspeed. At some point during the maneuver the throttle was increased to full forward; however the engine remained at very low thrust and the engine was unresponsive to throttle control movement. An immediate turn towards ZZZ was commenced and a radio call requesting a full stop landing. An attempt was made to diagnose the problem during which we both confirmed we were no longer able to maintain altitude at a safe airspeed and [advised ATC] and landed in a field approximately 5 miles southwest of ZZZ1. Impressions: The throttle was moved to various positions during all phases prior to flight and no anomalies were noted. This included movements from full aft throttle to full forward. I do not believe any preflight check would have indicated an issue prior to throttle cable breakage. An A&P mechanic made a comment that it's difficult to inspect the throttle cable during routine maintenance. My recommendation would be the further investigation into the feasibility of inspecting the throttle cable for wear during maintenance.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an off airport landing after engine power loss precluded an airport landing.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
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: Cockpit Window
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in cruise to our destination when R WSHLD HEAT caution message annunciated.  When I looked up I noticed a large crack developing in the right windshield.  We exchanged flight controls while I pulled out the QRH and looked at the procedure for 'Arcing; Delaminated; Shattered; or Cracked Window or Windshield.'  The QRH directed us to turn off the affected side windshield heat.  It then directs us to put the pressure control to manual and increase the cabin pressure at maximum rate to below 6.2 PSI.  Then it said to put on the CREW and PAX Oxygen before descending to a lower altitude.  I knew that increasing the cabin at the max rate while still at FL330 would rapidly increase the cabin pressure and could cause discomfort for passengers.  I examined the cabin pressure at altitude and as we began to descend.  The cabin pressure was almost 6.2 already and it began to decrease as we began the descent.  At this point in time; I elected not to pressurize the cabin at the maximum rate in order to avoid additional workload and creating new potential errors.  I verified that the cabin PSI did go below 6.2 shortly after we began our descent.  We initially requested lower from ATC and were told to standby.  At this point in time we decided to request priority handling and descend lower immediately.  We asked ATC later if they had received our request and were informed they had not.  I also contacted Dispatch to discuss diversion alternates; as we would not be able to conduct the approach at our initial destination due to the forecasted icing conditions. Dispatch advised us to divert back to ZZZ.This event was caused by a cracked windshield.There should be a QRH procedure for cracks in the windshield that do not cause pressurization issues.  Cracked windshields are more than likely an unavoidable consequence of operating the CRJ series.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported they received a 'R WSHLD HEAT' message during cruise and noticed the right windshield developed a 'large' crack.  The crew ran the appropriate QRH procedures; advised ATC and Dispatch; and decided to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Canopy Window
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was training student unusual attitude recovery techniques. Student was looking down at their knees; I was flying the aircraft at a level altitude banking left and right +/- 20 degrees. On last turn to right at 25 degrees with the airspeed about 120 KIAS indicated with nose falling through the horizon into a descent; the left side of the forward canopy popped open about 1 inch. Airspeed had increased at this time to about 130 KIAS and bank was about 30 degrees to the right.I maneuvered the aircraft to straight and level flight slowing down to 90 KIAS. I then made a precautionary landing at the closest airport. After shutdown; it was noticed that the latch cable was no longer able to secure the left hand side of the forward canopy.




Synopsis: A DA40 instructor performed upset recovery training with a student and noticed the left forward canopy popped open about one inch. He landed as a precaution and discovered the latch cable could no longer secure the forward canopy's left side.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Other Flight school
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine failure on take off at ZZZ in a CSA SportCruiser. After a successful run-up; my student applied full power for our take off roll and engine indications were green with 5;000 RPM. At about 200 feet AGL; engine RPM decreased from 5;000 to 2;000 with a very rough engine. 2;000 RPM is not sustainable for flight in the SportCruiser. I took flight controls and landed on the remaining runway and taxied back to parking with out incident. At maintenance; it was determined that the connection for the outside air filter for the carburetor and the carburetor itself was loose and became completely detached on take off which lead to the large RPM drop.




Synopsis: Pilot reported loss of engine power on lift off and elected to land on the remaining runway safely.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we approached DCA we were cleared to descend via the FRDMM ONE ARRIVAL. The Captain started the step downs but after a few looked as if he may be on the high end of the altitude range if he did not increase his descent rate. I pointed this out to him; and he increased his descent. Later we received another clearance to maintain 7;000 FT after LETZZ. The Captain then asked me if we still needed to comply with the rest of the altitudes on the arrival. I replied I believe so; but I'll check. I tried to confirm with ATC; but she just repeated the initial clearance of 'maintain 7;000 after LETZZ'. The Captain then immediately re-asked our question.Meanwhile; I interpreted it as we still needed to descend via the arrival and delete the altitudes listed below 7;000 FT after LETZZ. After being on a glide path to be on the high end of the crossing altitude range before; the Captain was now again too high. I tried to tell the Captain he was now too high to make the next crossing restriction at all unless he made another descent rate change; but he was still trying to understand ATC.After he did not reply to my telling him he was going to be too high; I told him again. He again was only listening to ATC. I then reached over and pulled the thrust levers to idle (he was using descent mode) but it was too late. We were too far behind to catch back up to the crossing restrictions.




Synopsis: When they were cleared to 'maintain 7;000 FT after LETZZ' while 'descending via' the FRDMM RNAV STAR to DCA; the flight crew of a CRJ-700 was unclear as to the necessity to comply with intervening crossing restrictions at prior waypoints. When the Captain attempted to get an ATC clarification the First Officer; believing they still had to comply; unilaterally reduced the thrust levers to idle but they were still unable. No comment regarding any clarification from ATC was included.