elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The first instance I was made aware of our close proximity to the ERJ-145 was an utterly unintelligible and faint radio call from the 18C Tower Controller. What I remember hearing was; 'Air Carrier flight number; there is conflicting traffic on the go around for Runway 23'. It was later learned that the ERJ aircraft was executing a balked landing on Runway 23. This departure path placed the ERJ aircraft on a converging course with our aircraft. At the time we were made aware of the ERJ in question; we were beyond V1 and were beginning to rotate the aircraft. I caught a glimpse of the ERJ-145 as the nose was smoothly pitched up into the takeoff command bars. As a rough approximation; there was about 200 - 400 FT separation from our aircraft and the ERJ and our paths nearly converged exactly at the same point. We queried the Controller as to whether it was SOP to have simultaneous operations on 23 and 18C to which the reply was something to the effect of; 'we do this all the time'. What makes this event particularly troubling is that; had we not been at an approximate TOW of 51;300 LBS; the upshot of this event could have included loss to life and property. It is of the opinion of both my Captain and me that there was only one action that; within the limitations of the ATC system in CLT; could have prevented our egregiously close encounter; monitoring the ATC Tower frequency for Runway 23. The risk factors were: 1) Simultaneous departures on 18C and arrivals on 23; 2) Differing Tower frequencies for Runway 23 and 18C; 3) An unstabilized approach performed by 'Air Carrier'; which resulted in a balked landing. Change: 1) Not allowing simultaneous departures on 18C and arrivals on 23; 2) Have the same Tower frequencies for Runway 23 and 18C or find an alternate means to keep pilots in the communications loop.




Synopsis: Air Carrier departure from Runway 18C at CLT described a conflict with traffic executing a go around on Runway 23; the reporter suggesting these simultaneous operations be terminated.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on the CEDAR CREEK STAR; ATC assigned a speed of 300 KTS for traffic with a clearance to cross 'HOWDY' at 11;000 and 250 KTS. At approximately FL180 ATC vectored us off the arrival and; approximately 90 seconds later; cleared us back direct HOWDY. I instructed the First Officer to ask if ATC still wanted 300 KTS. ATC then said 'no comply with the speed restrictions on the arrival.' Approximately 10 seconds later the Controller asked if we were going to be able to make the restriction [at HOWDY]. Initially we responded yes; and then in the interest of passenger comfort and safety said no. The Controller then gave us a 40 degree vector off course and upon roll out re-cleared us back to HOWDY; descend and maintain 12;000 FT and to contact Approach. No altitudes or speed restrictions were violated; however this narrative is an example of what seems to be becoming commonplace on arrival. ATC is using speed and vectoring to obtain optimum spacing; once their spacing is optimized; the aircrew is then expected to make speed and altitude restrictions. While on the vector the aircrew has no idea how long the vector will be or if the duration of assigned airspeed. Trying to plan a reasonable and comfortable descent becomes almost impossible. This example is one of at least two on this pairing and two on my last four day trip. It appears to me that ATC is assigning high speeds and then relying on the crew to remind them that there is a speed restriction over the fix. Please advise DFW ATC that if they assign a speed and a vector they are responsible for insuring that THEY specify that the restrictions over a fix will still be expected. It's becoming common once a speed is assigned that the aircrew has to ask if the fix crossing restrictions are still in place....and then as an after thought 'yes comply with the speed and altitude restrictions' This phenomenon seems unique to DFW.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain took exception to DFW TRACON's habit of assigning speeds for spacing and/or vectors off of STARs and failing to specify their expectation with respect to subsequent published airspeed/altitude constraints on the arrival when they are re-cleared to intercept and descend via the arrival.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EDDF.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower EDDF
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At 4;000 FT MSL [we] encountered wake turbulence from a 747 five miles ahead on final approach Runway 25L EDDF. Climbed to 4;400 FT MSL and stayed above glideslope for a normal landing. Five miles is not enough space for 747.




Synopsis: A330 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of a B747 on final to EDDF; stating that in his opinion five miles is not enough separation.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out at 1000 ft. AGL the left auxiliary fuel pump was selected to the off position. This resulted in an immediate loss of power in the left engine. The auxiliary pump was then selected back to the low position and the engine did not return to a normal power output.  Engine failure after takeoff flow was performed and [Advised ATC]. ZZZ Tower cleared aircraft to land on Runway XX. After landing and during the roll out; the left engine stopped running. The aircraft taxied to the ramp under the power of the right engine.




Synopsis: A Cessna 402 Captain reported a loss of engine power when reconfiguring the fuel boost pumps; necessitating an immediate return to the departure airport.
Date: 201310
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A ramper nearly had his foot severed off when his foot came in contact with a bag tug while backing up a belt loader. The steel from the boot was completely torn out of the boot.




Synopsis: A Ramp Operations worker backing a belt loader up nearly had his foot severed when it came in contact with a bag tug.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Enroute flight was uneventful. Upon handoff to MSP Approach we were given vectors to an ILS [Runway] 12L approach as they were in the process of closing [Runway] 12R for snow removal. Weather was 03014G20KT 3/4SM -SN 006OVC. Approach was briefed and MED Auto-Brake selected. Landing weight was 129;500 and airspeed bug for 40 Flap landing with additive was 138. 3 previous flights landing reported braking action FAIR. Landing was on speed in the touchdown zone. Spoilers deployed; auto braking commenced and reverse thrust was initiated. Aircraft started drifting as we slowed and I came out of reverse to regain directional control. This was at midfield and the aircraft stopped decelerating. I started maximum manual braking but the runway was covered in more snow than what was noted in the first half of the runway and braking was ineffective. I then went to max reverse in an attempt to stop the aircraft. As we were headed for the end of the runway and a steep drop off to a highway below; I continued with reverse thrust and maximum manual braking. Several compressor stalls were noted and the aircraft stopped with literally only feet to spare. We cleared the runway and taxied to the gate with both engines running. We reported that braking action was POOR and the airport was subsequently closed for snow removal. The compressor stalls were written up and Maintenance was informed. Total Flight time for the day 8:50; duty time was 12:10. Get accurate braking action reports from previous aircraft and have airport be more aggressive with snow removal and runway condition reporting.




Synopsis: MD83 Captain reports poor braking action during landing roll out after being told to expect fair. Braking and reverse thrust are reduced during landing roll due to directional control issues. Maximum reverse thrust is applied and several compressor stalls are heard before stopping just feet from the end of the runway.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Off Duty
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received an e-mail stating; 'During a recent internal audit; the Company discovered that a crew scheduling rule in the system which impacts three FAA regulations was inadvertently turned off. As a result; you may have exceeded the following crew scheduling regulation(s): 14 CFR 121.471(a) on [date]'.[Recommend] corrective action was taken by the company.




Synopsis: B747 First Officer reported that Company email informed him that the Company schedule tracking software was turned off causing possible violations of FAR 121.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying in level cruise flight at 7000 feet; on a heading of 060; at 155 Kts IAS; 10 miles NE of JFK; we spot a small white object ahead; slightly below; and to the right of our plane. We are closing fast yet clearly saw that it was a drone/white quadcopter with a white light. When we passed the drone (approximately 5-10 seconds later); it was 100 feet horizontally from our right wing and 50 feet below us. We were unable to tell the direction it was flying. It was clearly a close call. We notified JFK Approach; he warned other aircraft in the area; and gave us a number to call upon landing.




Synopsis: A small aircraft pilot in cruise at 7;000 ft 10 miles northeast of JFK reported a near miss with a UAV.
Date: 201502
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Assigned [an aircraft] for a ferry then passenger leg.  Weather at both destinations was marginal with snow and 1 mile visibility being forecast at our final stop.  Spoke to 2 (TWO) other crews who both refused this tail due to the MELs listed.  One of the crews was the crew that brought the plane in the night before and was assigned it this morning (who subsequently refused).  The plane in question had the autopilot; yaw damper; right side flight director; mach trim and several other MELs listed.  After speaking to both crews and to each other about this situation; both the PIC and I decided it was unsafe to fly this plane with a majority of the automation missing.  The PIC contacted the [Chief Pilot] and informed him of our decision and concerns.  We were then given another tail to sit standby on.    The fact that the company tried to get 3 crews to fly a plane that was quite unsafe is astonishing.  Every recurrent we talk about altitude and navigation deviations being the big 2 issues we have; and yet the company tried to push THREE crews to fly a plane several legs a day for numerous days with the autopilot deferred AND no flight director on the right side with no yaw damper or mach trim.  This increases the workload on the crew exponentially and unnecessarily.  More so; the plane was at a maintenance base at the maintenance facility!  This event never should have happened and further events can be avoided by standing by [our company's] SMS level 4 safety status and fixing a plane that has this many MELs that compromise safety.  Sadly had we or another crew taken this plane and had a nav/alt deviation I'm sure the company would have said the plane should have been refused by the crews?!?!




Synopsis: Fractional First Officer (FO) reported he and his Captain; as well as two other flight crews; refused to fly an aircraft into a marginal weather situation with several autoflight systems inoperative and deferred. Reporter stated he was concerned with his employer's attitude and pressure.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Operations delayed flight without Dispatcher contact. Delayed to a 37 minute turn. Swap was available.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that a flight was delayed without notification of the Dispatcher.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EGLL.TRACON, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON EGLL
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff PACK R EICAS message appeared on upper screen. Pack R procedure accomplished with no reinstatement of right pack. review of Air synoptic page showed right engine bleed valve; pack valve; and right isolation valve all closed. ENG BLD LOSS R EICAS message also noted at this time.  Established communication with Dispatch and Maintenance. Because of loss of wing anit-ice as a result of the above proceedure the decision to return was concurred with by all parties.  Emeregency was declared with ATC on hand off. Coordinated with ATC for fuel jettison. 43;000 lbs of fuel was jettisoned at FL300; for approximately 14 mins.  Recovered with uneventful landing below max landing weight.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reports loss of the right pack shortly after takeoff. Pack reinstatement is attempted before noting that the right engine bleed valve and right isolation valve are also closed. Fuel is dumped and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on a training flight with a student. We had been flying for around 45 minutes. The student was under the hood. Minutes after reaching 3500 MSL approximately 2800 AGL our engine cut off (complete loss of power). I took the controls from the student and asked him to do the restart procedures while I found a place to land. I attempted to restart; but it did not. I found a runway and began to glide there. We made it to the Runway safely with a soft landing. Nobody was hurt and the airplane was in great [albeit dead engine] condition. We were happy to have made it to the Runway. The mechanic from my school confirmed that it was not our fault and we couldn't have prevented the engine failure.




Synopsis: While conducting flight training in a Piper Cherokee PA28 this reporter experienced a complete engine failure and successfully landed power-off at a nearby airport.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training; Other Flight Evaluation
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting a power-off 180 precision landing on Runway XX; an aircraft that had initially indicated they were entering the pattern for the opposite Runway XY crossed in front of my aircraft as I was beginning my base to final turn. I did not hear this aircraft specify they were on final straight-in; nor see them as I was clearing final prior to my turn. My co-pilot also did not hear or see them.This aircraft had earlier stated they were going to enter on the downwind left traffic for Runway XY; the opposite direction of Runway XX; which was in use by myself and two other aircraft. Estimated distance is easily at or less than 500 ft. horizontal separation when they crossed in-front. I aborted the maneuver and elected to remain in slow flight configuration to gain separation. The aircraft landed 2/3 down Runway XX and took back off again; departing to the south of the field.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported a near midair collision as another aircraft was landing on the opposite runway and took evasive action to avoid a collision.