elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cowling
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the second leg of our day on a flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 sudden turbulence was encountered. Approximately 3.5 hours into the flight while descending through an estimated 27;000 feet; we felt a bump which we both agreed was likely Clear Air Turbulence. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. The aircraft was not adversely or noticeably affected in its ability to fly and no buffet or shudder was noted in the flight controls. After landing and unloading the line crew notified me that the right engine cowling was missing. Upon further inspection it was noted that the right engine cowling was in fact missing and the horizontal stabilizer had likely been struck at the time the engine cowling separated from the aircraft.


Second narrative: The flight was from ZZZ to ZZZ1. After preflight inspection; we had an uneventful takeoff out of ZZZ. At an altitude between 35;000 feet and 25;000 feet during the descent we hit momentarily clear air turbulence. We both agreed that it was turbulence. We continued our descent into ZZZ1 as briefed. After a normal approach and landing we parked the aircraft then assisted the passengers with their bags and they went on the way. On post flight walk around we discovered the right engine cowling was missing and a small dent in the leading edge of the tail of the aircraft. That is when we suspected that the clear air turbulence was caused by the right engine cowl departing the aircraft. ZZZ Tower; our company operations manager; and the FAA were then notified.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported after landing they discovered the right engine cowling had come off in flight and struck the horizontal stabilizer. During their descent they felt a bump which they thought was clear air turbulence.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At v1 our EICAS went blank. Messages began to appear on lower crt including: Right electric hyd pump; auto throttle disc; L Center Fuel pump inop; fuel config. Additionally we lost EPR indications on left engine. It seemed to both of us to be an electrical problem possibly a bus off or gen off so we started apu. Ran electric hyd pump QRH. Ran EICAS loss QRH. Neither of these helped out. We were unable to determine the root of our problem so we elected to air return to [our departure airport]. After landing the stress of the event was still present and we decided not to continue with the pairing.


Second narrative: At V1 the upper EICAS blanked. I continued takeoff and at rotation the autothrottle disconnected. We also had a left EPR failure. I turned the APU on. I continued a normal hand flown departure up to 27;000. I put the auto pilot on after we did the after takeoff checklist. Then we had a right electric hydraulic pump failure and a L center fuel pump failure. The FO (First Officer) ran the Right Hydraulic Pump failure checklist. Once he completed that we got a Fuel Imbalance EICAS. It appeared that we were having some electrical issue; possibly a BUS issue but we had no cockpit indications of an electrical system failure as the overhead panel looked normal. Starting the APU did not fix any of the messages. We decided the best course of action was to curtail running several checklists for each failure as we did not know what the underlying issue was. We coordinated with dispatch and ATC for a normal return and landing in [our departure airport]. We were below landing weight. The flight attendants and pax were advised of the situation. We landed and taxied to the gate with no further incident.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported several EICAS failure messages appeared after takeoff that necessitated a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Super King Air 200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local Control and a Navajo was landing Runway 2L. A King Air called ready to go on Runway 2L. Since I had traffic on short final; I really didn't scan to see where the aircraft was; I just issued the appropriate 'hold short' instructions and the pilot of the King Air correctly read back the 'hold short' instructions and then said 'I see the aircraft landing'. When the Navajo was in the flare; I started scanning near the approach end of the runway for the Lifeguard King Air; but could not see him. I even said to Ground that I could not see the King Air; she said 'right there between Golf and Hotel' and since my Navajo was approaching Hotel Taxiway; I told the King Air 'Runway 2 left; line up and wait.'  Well; the King Air was at Bravo Taxiway and the Ground Controller thought I could not see my Navajo that was landing. I immediately saw the King Air at Bravo Taxiway and he started to move towards the runway. At the same time; I observed the Navajo at what I would estimate as a taxi speed and I immediately told the Navajo to 'hold short of Bravo Taxiway' (got acknowledgement) and then cleared the King Air for take off on Runway 2L. The flight progress strip that Ground Controller put on my strip-board had marked Bravo Intersection on the strip; but not in the place I was expecting. I shouldn't trust the Ground Controller to point out my aircraft; if I do not physically see the departure waiting; don't clear them. I relied on the Ground Controller's understanding of what I was asking too much.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a near ground conflict event when; relying on input from the Ground Controller; the reporter issued a 'line and wait' clearance.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I flew to ZZZ on an IFR flight plan to shoot the ILS 18R and go back to ZZZ1 the flight to ZZZ went as planned and the approach was good. I did a touch and go and during takeoff climb shortly after rotation I noticed a tremendous amount of smoke coming from the fuse panel. Not having adequate amount of runway left I turned right to join downwind while opening window and door to get the smoke out also calling Tower letting them know I needed to return to land Runway 18R. When asked what was wrong I said I have smoke in the cockpit. I'm pretty sure I said it was not an emergency but when I landed and taxi off the fire department was waiting on me. Impressively fast may I add. I noticed the alternator circuit breaker popped and the pitot head circuit breaker popped. After taxiing to [the FBO] I was greeted by fire department and police and had to fill out an incident report. Had mechanics at [the FBO] take a look at the plane and after a few hours of troubleshooting they found a loose wire on the pitot heat breaker which they fixed and said the alternator was fried; we ordered one and had it shipped next day to find out the alternator was fine and now the 60 amp fuse to the alternator 'melted' which is where the smoke come from. I drove back up to ZZZ [a few days later] with a replacement breaker and flew the plane home back to ZZZ1 with no problem.




Synopsis: Pilot reported smoke in cabin on take-off caused by failure of alternator; wiring and fuse.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We [were] flying the LDA PRM 28R in SFO. We were put 2.5 miles behind a 747-400 who was on the ILS 28L. The winds below 4;000 FT were 180 at 15 KTS and surface winds were 250 at 10 KTS. I asked to slow due to the 747's close proximity on the approach given the southerly winds that would blow the 747's wake into our path. The Controller seemed upset that we were concerned about the possible wake encounter and said that we could go missed if we had a problem. We broke out at 1;700 FT and stayed high and flew over the wake that we could clearly see due to the moisture in the air! My issue is with the Controller not having any situational awareness in regards to the 747 and the winds aloft considering the close proximity of the aircraft and these dangerous approaches. Smaller aircraft should be still given 5 miles behind a heavy on this approach considering how close the 2 runways are (750 FT)! This is an accident waiting to happen!




Synopsis: A320 pilot reported he was upset with SFO Controller's technique in not providing enough margin to a preceding B747 wake turbulence.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 0E0.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: CTAF 0E0
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Near miss with a glider above 0E0 at 9;200 FT MSL. Made four advisory calls on the CTAF approaching the airport to alert traffic that we will by overflying; VFR with a southbound heading. First radio call at 15 miles; second at 9 miles; third at 2 miles; and the fourth while overflying the airport. The only traffic making radio calls were a 'Conquest' call sign and a fixed-wing towing a glider; both were reporting departures straight out on Runway 26 (and we achieved visual of both aircraft departing the airfield). Seconds after reporting our altitude of 9;200 FT MSL and position passing over the airfield; we had a near miss with a glider passing at our 2 o'clock position/same altitude. The aircraft had a climbing; left turn attitude. We immediately made a radio call in the blind to any traffic on the CTAF that there was a glider not reporting over the airport at 9;000 FT and began a rapid descent to 8;000 FT MSL to expedite out of the area. No traffic responded to our announcement of a near miss. At 9;200 T MSL; we were in Class E airspace. There were no clouds/ceiling and visibility was greater than 10 miles.




Synopsis: A Military helicopter pilot reported a near miss with a glider at 9;200 FT over 0E0 after making three CTAF position reports approaching the airport.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
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; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff the first officer and I noticed a smokey smell. We also saw smoke in the flight deck. Climbing through approximately 400 ft AGL the lead flight attendant called the flight deck and reported that there was smoke in the cabin. I believed the issue was coming from the air conditioning packs; so I turned both supply switches to HP bleed off. We informed the tower and we were cleared to land on runway 32. I made left traffic and called for the return checklist. The flight attendants reported that the smoke was not getting any worse.I stopped the aircraft on the runway and fire and rescue inspected the outside of the aircraft.  Communicating through the tower fire and rescue said there were no signs of fire. I talked to the flight attendants again and they told me that the smoke was not getting any worse and possibly getting a little better. I elected to taxi back to the gate.




Synopsis: MD80 Captain noticed smoke in the cockpit just after takeoff and then is informed of smoke in the cabin by the Lead Flight Attendant. The engine bleeds were turned off and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201710
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In the new version of Jeppesen FD-Pro there is a setting under Airport Moving Map (AMM) that says 'set as default on landing.' This setting cannot be turned off. If you turn it off; it turns itself back on. This is bad.The AMM is a nice tool; but it should be the pilot's choice whether or not to display it at certain times -- particularly after landing. Here's the problem with the AMM: When you zoom out; the taxiway names disappear.Consider this scenario: As you turn off the runway at a large airport you look down at the map (which is the AMM; not the standard taxi chart; because the AMM comes on automatically and we cannot turn that feature off). You get some complicated taxi instructions and then zoom out the AMM so you can get a general big-picture idea of where you're supposed to go. But when you zoom out the AMM; the taxiway names disappear. So now you have to switch back to the standard taxi chart and zoom/position that chart to get the information you need. That's a lot of heads-down iPad manipulation immediately after exiting the runway; and it's not safe.Give us control over whether or not to automatically display the AMM after landing. The AMM may work fine at a small airport; but at a large airport when given taxi instructions that are multiple miles long; the AMM is useless for big-picture situational awareness.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the Airport Moving Map (AMM) on the Jeppesen FD-Pro cannot be turned off by the flight crew. Zooming out on the AMM taxi chart causes taxiway names to disappear resulting in increased workload and heads-down iPad work during after landing taxi.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OKC.TRACON, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C OKC
ATC / advisory: TRACON OKC
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Filed out en route to destination. Clearance Delivery assigned 'vectors; on departure climb and maintain 5;000 FT; 17;000 FT in ten; on departure fly heading 010; etc....' I read back filed route. Upon being handed off to approach; and given vectors; I was told to fly direct to KRMSN. I told ATC not on flight planned route. After some vectors; I was told it was on the arrival. I searched the NACO approach plate and after some searching found KRMSN fix. Clutter on arrival plate seemed to worsen situation. Also; I believe that the fact that the EA50 FMS inability to add arrivals without transition might have complicated situation. In an effort to add certain transitions; this leads pilots to add transitions that are not going to be flown in an effort to shorten the list of way points. For example; if filing FINGR.FINGR4 the shortest transition is BYP.FINGR4; so adding that to a filed FINGR.FINGR4 adds the least amount of fixes to FMS. During flight; it is up to the pilots to remember to sequence the FMS (this is not the case in systems such as the G1000). That was entered into the FMS and might have led to believe it was near FINGR. I believe that if Clearance Delivery was intending to give me the IRW.FINGR4 as the transition (that is where KRMSN is located) they should have stated in the initial clearance: 'Cleared via the FINGR4; IRW transition....'




Synopsis: An EA50 pilot had difficulty entering the KRMSN waypoint in the FMS because it was on the FINGR 4 Arrival IRW transition; which was not on his route of flight and the FMS design did not allow an arrival without a transition.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMU.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower MMU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I would like to report an issue that concerns me: there was no incident at all; but I'm hoping that this submission may lead to action and improvement to avoid one! We all can learn. My home base; MMU; is not always the best on reporting weather. Often reports are missing only at MMU in all our bases; at other times the report will have obviously incorrect information; such as a dew point of 2 degrees on a humid summer day. A few days [we had] some of the most severe shear that I've seen aloft; and the challenge of the higher-minimum (roughly 600/2) GPS approach for Runway 05. The weather was almost unbelievable. We called the Tower from an intermediate stop. The weather was obviously wildly inaccurate; and the Tower confirmed. Towers need to check what they're sending out; and then check to see if that was what was published. Automation is great; but this is going to hurt somebody! We called after this report; and the Tower seemed unconcerned and unaware. On a day with some very strong conditions and weather near minimums. (The ILS to 23 is much better--had the wind been from the SW.) All of us on the safety team need to take pride and follow-up on our actions; is there any way that we can get towers to have a system to check on the accuracy of what's being put out there? Garbage out like this could really hurt some one; especially student and private pilots.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot operating out of MMU voiced concern regarding the inaccurate weather information being provided; the reporter suggested Tower personnel should verify automated weather observations before they are transmitted.