elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SIG.Airport, PR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF SIG
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was performing some landings with the student to a full stop on Runway 9 at SIG. On our third attempt; we experienced engine power loss on short final (about 150 -100 FT above the runway). It was a hard landing; and I told the student that I had the flight control and to please monitor the frequency. I transmitted on the frequency stating that we have a power plant power loss and that the engine quit all traffic to be advised. I attempted to restart the engine; but after two failed trials; it didn't start; so I transmitted one more time on the CTAF our situation and called to notify the emergency. My student and I saw a black multi-engine prop airplane taxiing rather quickly to Runway 9. I shut down the unnecessary equipment to conserved energy (keeping the strobes; position; and landing lights on.) Then we saw the black aircraft performing a back taxi on Runway 9 from B1. I told the student to keep transmitting on the frequency; I got out of the plane; told him to flash the landing lights; but the aircraft was on full power and on takeoff roll. I manage to pull the plane off the runway and off to the grass. The plane missed our tail at about 5-10 FT. It was a really close call. FBO ground personnel and Port Authorities saw us and came by to our help.


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


Synopsis: While an instructor and student were waiting for assistance on CTAF SIG Runway 9 edge following an engine failure on final; a light twin pilot; who did not hear their transmissions; took off and passed nearly directly over their disabled aircraft.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Other / Unknown; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: A LOSA (Line Operations Safety Audit) observation was performed highlighting the ongoing issues that technicians are having with the IPC (Illustrated parts Catalog) system in EDOCS (Electronic Document Control System). An Airbus A320 required a spoiler elevator computer replacement (SEC). The technician utilized the IPC through EDOCS to conduct his research for part effectivity. He stated that it was very challenging and time consuming to decipher all the cumbersome notes that could potentially determine if the part was effective for the aircraft. Those notes included researching COA's (Change Order Authorizations); AD's (Airworthiness Directives); service bulletins; etc. to determine the pre or post status. It took the technician over an hour and a half to finally determine that the part was effective for the aircraft. After the observation; I called the parts hotline telephone number to see if he would be able to give better guidance on determining part effectivity more efficiently. I had asked him to run through the same scenario that the technician faced with the SEC. It took him over an hour to finally determine that the part was effective for the aircraft. It has been documented in the past that wrong parts have been installed on aircrafts due to the inefficiencies of the IPC system. The question has been asked by technicians working the terminal and or line environment on why parts that are not effective for the aircraft not being filtered out even after the IPC EDOCS system asks for aircraft nose numbers? When aircraft nose number is entered into the IPC; it should filter out the parts that are not effective for the aircraft.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician had to spend an inordinate amount of time researching whether a particular part is correct for a particular aircraft tail number. Streamlining this process will decrease the chance of an incorrect part being installed.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABR.Airport, SD
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ABR
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ABR
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The PAPI on Runway 31 shows from left to right on glideslope WHITE RED WHITE RED; slightly below glideslope from left to right shows one WHITE RED RED RED. Upon returning to glide slope it showed WHITE RED WHITE RED. Both pilots acknowledged this arrangement. Improper light assignment.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported the PAPI lights at ABR airport are not aligned correctly.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BDR.Airport, CT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D BDR
ATC / advisory: Tower BDR
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Sikorsky Memorial Airport; BDR; has a potential hazard near the approach end of Runway 11. A construction company has been stockpiling construction debris on property adjacent to airport property. The concern is that the construction pile has increased in height over the past several years and may extend to a height that jeopardizes runway safety areas for Runway 11.




Synopsis: A pilot reported a pile of construction debris may be at a height that is unsafe for Runway 11 operations at BDR airport.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing and crossing approach end of 27R I was taxiing west on Taxiway K. Suddenly the aircraft veered hard right and the tail lifted. I was able to regain control using differential braking and barely missed departing the taxiway. It was a very violent event. After stopping I realized that there was a twin engine jet on the ramp (North of K) that was running its engines with the exhaust pointing directly at taxiway K and deduced that jet blast caused the event. After asking ground to find out what power setting they were using; the aircraft did not respond to ground control's inquiry. Later I was contacted by the ground controller and he stated that the maintenance supervisor said the engine run was at full power.




Synopsis: RV-8 pilot reported a loss of control during taxi due to an unexpected jet blast encounter.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had an ATC directed rejected takeoff. DCA was arriving/departing aircraft on Runway 19. First Officer takeoff. We were close to our Max Structural Takeoff Weight so during our takeoff briefing; we discussed; because of the short runway and heavy weight aircraft; that a static run-up to at least 40% N1 before brake release was a prudent takeoff procedure for the conditions. We were cleared by DCA Tower to line up and wait on Runway 19 after an aircraft had landed. Almost immediately we were advised that we were cleared for takeoff with an aircraft on [a] 4 mile final. Being so heavy it took a little bit [of] extra time to taxi and maneuver into takeoff position on the runway. During taxi onto the runway; Tower kept updating us about the aircraft on final. I don't remember if they told us to expedite; but the tone of the Controller expressed urgency. Tower canceled takeoff clearance and told the aircraft on final approach to go around. We did the Rejected Takeoff procedure at about 10 knots and cleared the runway. We proceeded back to the Runway 19 holding pad.Tower felt we were too slow on taxi and take off roll. Tower should understand that a heavy aircraft moving slowly with a departure to a [distant] city should need more time for taxi and take off.




Synopsis: B737-800 F/O reported they rejected the takeoff at ATC request related to landing traffic separation issues.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My plane was coming in on final at ZZZ 3NM final behind other traffic. The other airplane in question turned downwind to base. As he was turning base to final; he was right on top of us. Had to take over the controls from my student and evade at low level. I personally made 4 radio calls in the traffic patter on final. As I was evading the other aircraft get on the radio and say 'Traffic we see---- OH [$&!*]'. No one was hurt. No collision of aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported NMAC at an uncontrolled airport when one of the aircraft involved apparently was not using appropriate CTAF procedures.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
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: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Pilot Flying and during climbout passing 8;500 feet I heard a loud bang then a strong vibration through the fuselage. I looked at the engine gauges and observed a high ITT above 900 C on the left engine. I retarded the left engine and called for engine inflight [shutdown] checklist. We leveled off at 10;000 feet and informed ATC; which was Center; and informed them of the situation and declared an emergency. As the First Officer ran the checklist we were vectored back towards the airport. I informed the Flight Attendant of the engine failure and of the return back to our departure airport and then sent a message via to the Dispatcher. I also made a brief PA to the passengers of an engine situation and that we were returning to the airport.  Between threat and running of checklists; there were about 5 minutes to landing so all else went uneventfully.While completing checklist left engine was shutdown. Aircraft landing and taxi to gate was uneventful. While at the gate fire rescue checked engine and declared that there was no fire threat.  Training goes through an engine failure and we followed procedures as trained. Passengers and Flight Attendant were in the loop; so everything went as it should.


Second narrative: The training we receive in this area enabled us to perform our required tasks in a scripted fluid manner.


Synopsis: Upon experiencing a 'violent' shudder from the aircraft and noting an over-temperature in the left engine the flight crew of a CRJ-200 secured the engine; declared an emergency; and returned uneventfully to their takeoff airport.
Date: 201811
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action

Narrative: Aircraft X had damage to Number 5 slat O/B rib when the duct joint blew out which caused the lower fitting assembly to break off causing damage to the outer rib on the O/B side of the slat at location 531.75. The fitting assembly was attached with screws and nuts which is wrong per the IPC [Illustrated Parts Catalog]. The rivets it calls out for are BACR15BA5A; which would allow the rivet to shear in this event; not causing any structural damage. This damaged rib is not repairable. I have dealt with this before on other 767-300 and they were grounded because of wrong fasteners installed. I noticed on the Number 4 slat the same fasteners are installed at these locations which should be rivets.Inspect slats for proper fasteners installed so this doesn't happen again and cause a slat change.




Synopsis: Technician reported that during a previous repair to slat; incorrect fasteners were installed allowing damage to occur as a result of duct joint blowout. Proper fasteners should have been installed per the IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalog).
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BFI.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BFI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Ground Control position and CIC combined.  Aircraft X landed Runway 13R and was instructed to make a 180 and exit at A1; which is an intersection that does not cross Runway 13L.  I was making a new ATIS when Aircraft X called for taxi from A2.  It was sunset and when I scanned A2 I did not see the aircraft was between the runways.  I taxied him to parking and I realized he was crossing Runway 13L.  Another aircraft was in the pattern for Runway 13L and was on short final.  I did not stop Aircraft X as he was already clearing the runway.  Aircraft on final went around and Aircraft X was clear of the runway by the time aircraft on short final crossed the threshold. I asked LCW if Aircraft X was cleared to cross and LCW informed me Aircraft X was not instructed to cross nor did I give Aircraft X a clearance to cross.  I issued the Brasher Statement but Aircraft X did not respond.  I made several other attempts to contact Aircraft X on Ground Control frequency but never got a response. I should have confirmed he was at A2 and instructed him to hold short of the runway; although by the time he called for taxi he was already on the runway.




Synopsis: BFI Ground Controller reports of an aircraft taxiing across a runway that the aircraft was never cleared to cross.  The Ground Controller looked for the aircraft; didn't see it; and issued instructions.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Second aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ZZZ Center issued a clearance to climb and maintain 26;000 ft. At approximately 11;400 ft.; we received a TCAS descending RA. The Pilot Flying without delay complied with the descending RA. The autopilot and auto throttle were disengaged; and a smooth adjustment to a pitch down attitude was completed to satisfy the RA command. The Pilot Flying followed this planned lateral flight path until approximately 10;500 ft. when the Clear of Conflict was heard. ZZZ Center was advised of the TCAS deviation.Some important points that I (Pilot Monitoring) and the First Officer (Pilot Flying) took away from this event includes knowing company policies and procedures. The Pilot Flying did not hesitate to comply with the TCAS RA. The teamwork between the roles of Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring worked. I can contribute this to our TCAS training. This real life TCAS RA with passengers onboard was just like the scenarios we receive in the simulators.[We also had] a concern regarding ZZZ Center. Our flight was never given any traffic advisories to be on the lookout for this aircraft. The TCAS equipment on the aircraft was our first signal that there was a traffic conflict. Only after ZZZ Center was notified of the TCAS RA; did ZZZ Center start issuing traffic advisories to another company flight behind us. This is my first time in XX years of flying Part 121 operations that I have come this close to another aircraft. When ATC asked if I could identify the aircraft; I had no trouble identifying it as a King Air. During this descending TCAS RA; the closest I saw the two aircraft apart was 500 ft.




Synopsis: A B737 pilot reported a near miss after following an automated advisory to descend. Pilot reported ATC did not issue a traffic advisory prior to incident.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: I work for a Part 121 Airline and I'm kept current through them; but instead of six month check rides because of AQP we now do check rides over 9 months. So I keep a log to record approaches so I'm current for General Aviation. My friends who work for the airline tell me I'm always current as long as I work for the airline. I use a electronic logbook but my phone broke in March because of COVID all the apple stores where closed and I did not get it repaired until May. So I was not able to record my approaches. With the reduced schedules at work and my phone being broke I can't verify I have enough approaches to be current I talked it over with several people and they said I was current because of the airline requirements.Which makes sense that if I can go fly an airliner I should be able to fly Part 91. Which in most cases is less restrictive. But I filed IFR flight on date. Afterwards I tried to find where I was still legal for Part 91 and could not find it. So on the date I got an IPC. To make sure I was legal in the future. But I might not have been current the day before.




Synopsis: Part 121 pilot reported not being sure if he was current to fly a Part 91 flight.