elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B777-300
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed 6R LAX for the GARDY3 Departure. Before takeoff we advised Ground that it was questionable if we could comply with the 8;000 FT restriction at TRAAP. We again advised LAX Departure of being [unable] to reach TRAAP by 8;000 FT and they told us to do the best we could. The FMC placed us just past TRAAP at 8;000 FT. On departure we had moderate turbulence in the climb; a heavy aircraft with restricted performance and possible wake turbulence from the B777-300 that departed before us. Approaching TRAAP with climb decreasing to 300 feet per minute with degrading airspeed; then followed by a strong uplift with 2000+ rate of climb. We passed TRAAP above the 8;000 FT restriction. Heavy aircraft with decreased performance. Moderate turbulence with associated weather. Wake turbulence from aircraft in front of us.


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


Synopsis: B777-200 flight crew reported overshooting an altitude restriction departing LAX on the GARDY3 SID; citing weather and a wake turbulence encounter as contributing.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I planned a long cross country flight from State Y to State Z with the intention of flying just east of restricted airspace R-XXXX; near City X; State X; then toward the ZZZ VOR; near City Y; before turning north to fly west of ZZZ1.  Cloud cover was forming low near City Z; so I climbed to 8;500 for smooth air and very clear flying.  Unfortunately; I began to track to the ZZZ VOR too early and overflew the northwest corner of the restricted airspace.  I should have paid closer attention to my GPS to ensure I was well clear to the east of the restricted area before tracking the VOR.  Another contributing factor was slightly changing my route during the flight since I knew I wouldn't see ZZZ2 due to the clouds below.  I truly didn't realize I had made this mistake until I landed in State Y and was directed to call ZZZ Control.  Another contributing factor; and a mistake I will not make again; was my reluctance to call for flight following due to perceived reduced personnel at ATC facilities due to the COVID crisis.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying into a restricted area and attributed it to weather and not receiving ATC flight following.
Date: 201204
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The purpose of this report is to bring to your attention a possible pitfall/oversight specific to the B-737 community. I see that the nomenclature for the Two Engine Flameout [checklist] is now titled 'Loss of Thrust in Both Engines.' I would ask that the training department re-assess this change since it can complicate an anomaly germane only to the B-737 fleet; which some of us have experienced in the past. The B-737 fleet has and is experiencing a significant delay in thrust response (up to 40 seconds) under certain conditions. During this delay time; the throttles are inoperative; there is no increase in thrust…thrust is at idle power. So ostensibly there is no thrust available during this period of extended delay; however; the only issue that must be mitigated by the flight crew is airspeed and that is managed at this point through loss of altitude. All aircraft systems operate normally and so altitude loss is the only concern. Please note that both engines are still operating; however there is zero thrust available during this delay period and as such; it would appear that the pilot is obligated to shut both engines down; lose several normal operating systems and then of course have to lose altitude as well; all of which except for the loss of altitude is self induced. You can see my concern over the new title of this checklist immediate action item. I would recommend either changing the title back to 'Two Engine Flame Out' procedure or add additional information to prevent the pilot from executing an immediate action item and possibly complicating a very simple recovery. Please note that the loss of thrust in both engines occurs more frequently than an actual two engine flameout; thus the concern and the request for relief with this procedure.




Synopsis: B737 Captain laments the change in the title of the Two Engine Flame Out checklist to the Loss of Thrust on Both Engines checklist. The CFM56 engines on the B737 occasionally experience a significant delay in thrust response (up to 40 seconds) under certain conditions; which may be interpreted as a loss of thrust.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EYE.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C IND
ATC / advisory: CTAF EYE; TRACON IND
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing out of EYE; we filed for the Hoosier 4 departure then to ZZZ1. We had tried calling ATC to pick up IFR clearance on the ramp but were unable to establish communication. We decided to depart VFR and pick up our clearance before entering the class C airspace. While departing Runway 03 we heard a radio call on the common traffic frequency saying that an airplane was on the localizer for Runway 21. The captain made a decision to take evasive action after we saw the plane on our instruments and confirmed visually. We were still not able to communicate with approach until we had already penetrated the overlying class C airspace during the avoidance maneuver. When we made contact with ATC; they told us about possible deviation and provided us a number. My captain contacted them and was informed that radar did show a light airplane in our path and that they could see why we took the action.


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


Synopsis: Turboprop flight crew reported departing EYE VFR due to not being able to contact ATC for an IFR clearance. During departure the aircraft encountered opposing traffic requiring an evasive maneuver into Class C airspace.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After a good local flight and warm up for first solo; I sent my student to solo and he was a little nervous as normal. I was able to watch the whole thing from the ground and listen to ATC on a handheld radio. The student started off well by doing a good landing and communicating with tower. The second lap in the pattern he approached high and fast and made a good decision to go around. The final lap in the pattern; he approached normally; but was unable to correct properly for the wind. As he touched down; I observed the aircraft turn violently to the left and into the grass. The nose wheel collapsed and the propeller struck the ground. The student was uninjured.




Synopsis: A flight instructor reported that his student; on an initial solo flight; lost control upon landing his Cessna 152. The aircraft exited the runway surface; collapsing the nose gear and damaging the propeller.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; 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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Following the application of TOGA thrust and below 80 knots we received an amber EICAS message 'IDG 1 OFF BUS.' A rejected takeoff was executed per SOPs without incident. Once clear of the runway we received an accompanying EICAS message 'IDG 1 OIL.' Both messages remained until the aircraft was shut down at the return to gate. Aircraft Maintenance Log entries were made for both EICAS messages and for the rejected takeoff.




Synopsis: EMB-190 Captain experienced an IDG failure during takeoff due to loss of drive oil. The takeoff was rejected and the flight returned to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Tower, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On [date] we were turning final just outside TEB to join final to 22L at EWR. There is a building in Jersey City; NJ; that is a new construction recently completed that has white hazard lights atop the building that appear to be high intensity LED type that have an irregular flash pattern.  While turning final on this evening they appear to be REILs for a runway.  At other times they appear to be RAILs for a runway. They are misleading and could be very confusing to somebody not familiar to the airport area.  I subsequently queried EWR Tower and they stated that they have reported these lights as a problem and I was told by them that they were informed that these lights are stuck in the day mode.  These lights are still stuck in bright mode 24 hours a day.  I did some sleuthing and have found that this is a newly constructed building located at approximately the intersection of York and Hudson Streets in Jersey City; NJ. While I understand the requirements for these lights to be installed they are exceptionally bright and a distraction when vectoring for an approach to EWR.  In addition these lights could be plainly be seen from CRANK intersection at night on another flight. This is a general report as it did not involve any incident or error for my flights.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported that a building nearby EWR airport has high intensity; flashing LED type lights that sometimes appear to be REIL or RAIL lights and could be confusing to pilots.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climbout a Flight Attendant reported strong chemical-type odors/fumes in the cabin; particularly in the aft section. We executed and complied with the appropriate checklists; and landed back at our departure airport. After I taxied clear of the runway; Fire Department Personnel reported seeing a 'hot spot' on their thermal imaging equipment; about one to one and one-half meters in diameter on the lower left fuselage and aft of the over wing exit. We then evacuated the aircraft using the fore and aft slides on the right side of the aircraft. Flight Attendants assessed by EMS; then transported to local hospital to address concerns of throat irritation. No immediate Passenger injuries noted upon evacuation. Pilots assessed by EMS and released.


Second narrative: Although no evidence of smoke; fire or fumes in the cockpit; Captain and First Officer immediately donned oxygen [masks].


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew returned to their departure airport after receiving a report of fumes and odor from flight attendants. When CFR reported a hot spot on the lower left aft fuselage an uneventful evacuation was executed from the right side exits.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On descent into ZZZ was cleared to 5100 ft. and a heading of 090. Once established ATC asked if we had the airport in sight at 10 to 11 o'clock. Reported the airport in sight and was cleared for the [visual] approach. Commenced a [visual] approach to runway XX. Turned from heading 090 towards ZZZZZ. Once on the new heading confirmed alt at ZZZZZ of 4000 ft. and selected 4000 ft. In visual conditions it appeared we would be to the south of terrain and intercept at 4000 ft. to the south of ZZZZZ. Got a warning from the GPWS because of the descent rate and executed a climb. Warning stopped and continued approach to landing. Landed without any problem. In mountain terrain in visual conditions to be on final course before commencing descent.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported Ground Proximity Warning System alert on descent.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On my preflight; I noticed a split in the aileron surface; Captain's side; outboard edge. I told the Captain and he called Maintenance. Maintenance downed the plane and about 5 hours later we got a rescue plane. On preflight; I found the same issue in the same spot. So now we have downed 2 airplanes at an outstation late at night. We ended up taking a plane out to ZZZ1. What this report is for is pressure to go from the company. The Captain was on all the calls so I'm not sure who said it. But once the second plane was spotted with damage; we were told 'The Captain is to do the preflight' and 'now that you recorded it; we have to address it'. Meaning I took a video of the damage to show maintenance. Aircraft X is the third plane we had. There was pressure to go but we did not take the first 2 planes due to the damage found. Someone at the company really wanted us to go which didn't sit right with us.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported that the Flight Crew refused two aircraft due to a split discovered in the surface of the Captain's side aileron.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While taxiing to Runway 27 on Taxiway S; we were given taxi clearance by the Ground Controller 'Cross 30 taxi Quebec to Runway 27.' We missed the Quebec Taxiway and turned right on Papa. Ground Controller informed us of the mistake. Signage for Taxiway Quebec is confusing. Hotspot on 10-9 depiction does not include intersection of Taxiway T; P; and Q.


Second narrative: [Narative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: A flight crew reported while taxiing on Taxiway S and after crossing Runway 30 they failed to turn right on Taxiway Q to Runway 27 because the Taxiway Q signage on Taxiway S after crossing Runway 30 was confusing.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Aircraft component: Wing Leading Edge
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our ZZZ municipal hanger houses six aircraft which must be manually moved to get aircraft in and out. I moved a single engine [aircraft] back and bumped its rudder into the right leading edge of a Cessna 172; causing a dimple in the Cessna leading edge aluminum. Thinking this to be a cosmetic touch-up repair; I called the Cessna owner and with his permission; repaired the damage. I used a small dab of Bondo to reach the deepest part of the dimple which would not pound out as did the rest of the small area of contact which was easily restored to original shape. The IA (mechanic with Inspection Authority) who performs annual inspections on the Cessna observed the repair and the Bondo and said nothing to me about the repair. Nine days ago; we met in the hanger; and the IA told me he would not sign off the annual for the Cessna because an unauthorized repairman (me; a pilot) performed an unauthorized and unsupervised repair of the leading edge of the Cessna utilizing an unauthorized substance for the repair. To me; this was just a cosmetic touch-up of a ding on a wing and nothing to do with airworthiness in any way. The IA said the authorization of the owner/pilot meant nothing. So; the Cessna owner has a pickle on his hands; an aircraft in current annual until the end of the month; with a fixed ding repair looking perfect and painted well; but who is now afraid to fly because of the IA's position and the possibility of being reported to the FAA. That made me start being nervous about being reported to the FAA for doing a 'good deed' (always punished it seems) thinking my repair had/has nothing to do with FAA regulations; but now the IA has made me see that this is one of those things that can't be done by a pilot unless he is an Airframe and Powerplant mechanic or IA. I regret trying to be a nice guy and make amends for my error in moving aircraft around the hanger. I wanted to do the right thing for the other pilot instead of getting insurance involved which I would pay for anyway in my large deductible; and why bother when the fix was so simple and straightforward. My mistake in thinking. I will never do such a thing again.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported performing an unauthorized repair on a Cessna wing.