elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Mentor/Turbo Mentor (T-34)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Super King Air 200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training and was sequencing arrivals into a Navy airport. I had one aircraft (T34) on a 5 mile PAR final with a BE20 executing a TACAN approach to the same runway. I assumed the BE20 would slow down more than he did when he turned into the wind. I originally told the BE20 to contact the Tower; but my trainer over keyed and told the aircraft to remain on frequency to which the pilot replied roger. Shortly after; I gave the BE20 alternate instructions and cancelled his approach; but he didn't respond. I called the Tower and told them to give him the instructions if he was on their frequency. After a few seconds; the Tower said they had him finally and said they gave him the instruction. By this point the BE20 was 2 miles from the T34 turning and climbing. Part of the complexity involved in this situation and the confusion between controllers stems from an inability to coordinate between the Navy facility and our own; because our systems don't allow for automation. Having to manually hand off and coordinate every inbound is very taxing and distracting to the overall goal of concentrating on separation and sequencing. Additionally having to maintain strips for more than six different aircraft at a time caused us to keep our heads down too often to scan effectively.




Synopsis: TRACON developmental described an overtake event on final between a PAR and TACAN aircraft.  The reporter listed coordination complexities and limited automation interface between the TRACON and the Navy base as causal factors.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback; with parking brake set; both engines running; APU off and after both pilots had completed their after start flows; we experienced a Flap Fault and Slat Fault. Approximately one minute later we experienced an uncommanded simultaneous dual engine failure and associated loss of all AC power.We restored power by starting the APU and had the aircraft towed back to the gate.Maintenance re-set the flap and slat control system successfully. Next they ran the engines at the gate and were unable to duplicate the problem. They advised that they were planning to sign the aircraft off as airworthy and return it to service.Maintenance did not attempt to determine the reason for the dual engine failure; did not intend to make such a determination; had no plan to prevent a similar dual engine failure from happening again and intended to return the aircraft to service.After consulting with the Dispatcher; I refused to accept the aircraft.I later observed the aircraft being connected to a super-tug; presumably to be towed to the hangar.Suggestion: Require that Maintenance determine why a [dual] engine failure occurred and take action to prevent it from occurring again prior to deeming the aircraft airworthy and returning it to service.


Second narrative: After pushback; with parking brake set; both engines running; APU off and after both pilots had completed their after start flows; we experienced a Flap Fault and Slat Fault. Approximately one minute later we experienced an uncommanded simultaneous dual engine failure and associated loss of all AC power.We restored power by starting the APU and had the aircraft towed back to the gate.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported refusing aircraft due to a maintenance inability to determine cause of a dual engine failure after pushback from gate.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C TUS
ATC / advisory: Tower TUS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A CVLT was doing VFR pattern work in the rectangular pattern for Runway 29R. An IFR PA46 reported on a GPS approach to Runway 21. The pilot did not state how far he was from the airport. I expanded the scope to 22 miles and still did not see the PA46. I then asked the pilot his location and he replied that he was 2 1/2 mile final. There was no tag; data-block; primary target; etc on the scope and I could not see the PA46 out the window. The PA46 stated that he could maintain 040. I told him to maintain 040 and instructed the CVLT to make left traffic with and early crosswind and stopped him at 035. The data-block and other associated information for the PA46 reappeared when the aircraft was midfield. I ensured that the PA46 was VFR at that point and instructed him to turn right on course to Phoenix and he departed my airspace without incident. I don't know what the fix is for this. After reviewing the RADAR tapes I found that the PA46 flew approximately 4.5 miles with no data block or primary tag.




Synopsis: TUS Controller described a target loss event when both the primary and secondary indications were absent near the airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower 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: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 1;500 feet after takeoff; the FA (Flight Attendant) called the emergency call button and notified me of a smoky haze in the cabin. I told the FA to expect to land in 5 minutes. I communicated this info with the FO (First Officer) and asked him to tell Tower we are returning to the field with smoke in the cabin. I then called for the smoke fire fumes QRC (Quick Reference Checklist). I took the radios and already had the controls. The FO started on the QRC/QRH (Quick Reference Handbook). On the base turn the FA called and said the smoke had cleared. I then made a brief announcement to the passengers of our intentions to return to ZZZ and what to expect. I then stopped the FO from running the QRH immediately before pressing the pressurization dump button and redirected his attention on running landing numbers and setting up an approach. We made a 270 degree turn from the base to set up then continued the approach and landing. After landing I called the FAs and they said everyone was ok and no indications of smoke. We continued to the gate while CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) followed us. We deplaned via jet bridge. CFR boarded the aircraft to inspect it. They did not find any hazard; although there was a dusty burnt smell.When the FA called back and said the smoke had cleared; I felt the risk of fire had been reduced and taking the extra turn to properly prepare for an approach was safe. After landing; since there was still no smoke; I felt safe continuing to the gate. A more conservative approach would've been to land immediately and have CFR inspect the aircraft on the ground prior to entering the ramp. I chose not to don the oxygen mask as per our memory item since there was no smoke in the cockpit and the mask can reduce the ability to communicate.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported smoke was reported by flight attendants after takeoff and cleared during return to departure airport.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; 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: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: While replacing a radar transceiver; the pitot line to the Captain's ADM (Air Data Module) was removed to help make room for transceiver removal. After installation the line was not reinstalled. The root cause was not attaching a red streamer to the line to remind myself to hook line back up after the installation and troubleshooting of the radar.




Synopsis: Technician reported not reinstalling the Captain's Air Data Module after troubleshooting and installing the radar transceiver; causing an air turn back and precautionary landing.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CHO
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were being vectored on a box pattern to wait for an arrival to CHO ahead of us. ATC assigned 3000 ft. and heading 120. We approached a ridgeline and the EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System) issued 'Terrain! Terrain! Pull up! Pull up!' I disconnected the autopilot and climbed to 4000 ft. We advised ATC of the EGPWS warning and asked for a new clearance. ATC said the minimum vectoring altitude in the area was 3000 ft. ATC vectored us back around and we flew the approach. ATC vectored us too close to a ridgeline. I climbed to 4000 ft. Adjust the sensitivity of the EGPWS as we were at the MVA (Minimum Vector Altitude).




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported encountering an Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System alert during initial approach to airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT; Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival into IAD; we were assigned landing runway of 19C on initial contact with Approach. We were coming in from the south and as a result were vectored for a right [sic] downwind on the east side of the airport. Abeam the FAF of FEMKO for 19C; Potomac Approach cleared us for the visual to 19C. My First Officer selected 1500 in the altitude select which is depicted as the intercept altitude for the ILS to 19C. He began a descent to that altitude as we started to make our base turn. Approach then handed us off to Tower. A few seconds after the initial check on Tower; Control stated; 'Check altitude; you should not be below 1;900 feet.' We initiated a climb to 1;900 feet and were recleared for approach and landing by Tower Controller. Nothing further was mentioned by the Controller and we proceeded to the gate uneventfully. I could not find any reference to an altitude restriction of 1;900 feet on any of the approach plates.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reports being cleared for a visual approach to Runway 19C at IAD from the left downwind abeam FEMKO. The flying First Officer begins descending to 1;500 feet and is chided by the Tower for descending below 1;900 feet.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching to land in Atlanta on Runway 27; there was a thunderstorm north of the airport. Approximately 15 seconds prior to touchdown we received a 'monitor radar display' aural alert. The Crew elected to continue the landing. The wind was a constant 20 knots through the final and landing sequence. The Tower did not issue any windshear warnings and no aircraft in front or behind our aircraft executed a go-around. After aircraft shutdown at the gate; we reviewed the QRH; which confirmed our suspicion that we; indeed; should have gone around.A more thorough review of items in the QRH such as this could be accomplished. During the landing flare; I was ready to execute the go-around once I received the 'monitor radar display;' however; I was erroneously waiting for the 'windshear ahead; go-around' warning from the automated system. This type of alert can trap a lot of Crews since we are often spring loaded to act only after receiving aural warnings and not aural 'cautions.' Since this happened just before beginning the landing flare; there wasn't a lot of time for discussion during the event.




Synopsis: Upon receiving a 'monitor radar display' aural warning while initiating the flare for landing (during atmospheric conditions consistent with potential predictive windshear alerts) the Captain of a B737-700 opted to complete the landing rather than initiate a go-around.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The #2 tire blew at about 150 KIAS. Continued the takeoff at 162 KIAS. Did not raise the landing gear. The 'A' system hydraulics were eventually lost and Departure Control was advised. Dispatch was called via #2 VHF. Vectored for a landing; which was flown by the Captain.Stopped and shut down the aircraft on the runway. Passengers were deplaned via air stairs and loaded onto buses to take them back to the terminal with their carry-on bags only. Cargo and checked luggage stayed on the aircraft. All emergency/support personnel and crew were very professional. There were no difficulties in coordination throughout the event.


Second narrative: Narrative contained no additional information.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew experiences a main gear tire failure just prior to rotation and continues the takeoff. The gear is left down and the A hydraulic system fails shortly thereafter. The flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon beginning the take-off roll it seemed as if I had full power from the engine but the aircraft did not seem to be accelerating normally. I decided to abort the takeoff and reduced power. While slowing down the aircraft veered sharply to the right and full left rudder did not seem to be effective. I rolled into the dirt between the runways and at the last second the aircraft nosed over causing the propeller to strike the dirt. There was little other damage to the aircraft. Upon further reflection; I believe that the 'brake hold lever' was the reason for this incident. While waiting for takeoff I used the brake hold lever to maintain my position in line. When it was my turn to take-off I taxied seemingly normally onto the runway (position and hold) and then was released for take-off. Prior to the aircraft being towed off the dirt area I checked the brake hold lever and it was still 'On.' I believe that the brake hold lever was probably unevenly holding more right brake than left causing uncontrollable veering to the right. The labels for the brake hold lever are not easily visible from the pilot or co-pilot seats so it is easy to forget which position is 'On' and which is 'Off.' Moving the pedals a certain amount should automatically release the brake hold or give the pilot a warning.




Synopsis: Pipistrel Sinus Pilot reported failure to release brake level at takeoff resulted in runway excursion with loss of control.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We encountered 2 to 3 separate wake turbulence events following a 757 into Atlanta. The first one was approximately 8 miles in trail and it was very strong rolling motions that needed the autopilot to be disconnected going through 13;300 on the arrival. The second one was a very strong rolling motion and we informed ATC we needed more separation from the aircraft in front of us. They then slowed us to 180 knots on downwind. We were still 5 miles separation at this point and we received the 3rd wake turbulence which was the strongest rolling tendency. ATC wanted us to expedite our descent so we could keep our position in line and stay behind the 757. We declined; so they re-sequenced us.Reduced separation from 757 aircraft; in my opinion; is not a safe strategy. This was the strongest wake turbulence I have ever felt and it was very unnerving. ATC needs to be more receptive to wake turbulence [reports] and when you have already stated that you have had several severe wake turbulence events following an aircraft they should not try and get you to expedite your descent to stay in trail of the aircraft that has already caused the wake turbulence.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 FO reported encountering 'very strong' wake turbulence on approach to ATL eight miles in trail of a B757. Reporter would like to see a more positive response from ATC when wake encounters are reported.