elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll; Generator 2 fault. Takeoff rejected between 90-100 kts. Generator 2 reset during deceleration (with no crew action).  While exiting runway; Generator 1 faulted. Generator 1 would not reset. Suspected water had entered avionics area and returned to Maintenance area to have avionics compartment inspected. Water was found in the generator contactor area. Both generator contactors replaced. Rain was falling during loading. No water noticed in crew entry area prior to block out.


Second narrative: After calling 80 kts I lost all my screens on my side with a Gen 2 failure. We heard a lot of clicking noise on the overhead panel. The Captain rejected. We performed the procedure and told Tower. As all this was happening we got Gen 2 back and lost Gen 1. We performed all associated checklists including rejected takeoff checklist. We returned to the gate for maintenance. They replaced parts and we started over.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff and returning for maintenance after experiencing anomalies affecting both generators. The problem was traced to water in the avionics compartment.
Date: 201709
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp EWR
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: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The compromised pavement; rather the transition from asphalt to concrete; at Gate in EWR poses significant threat. There is approximately 1 to 1 ½ inch of a lip between the asphalt and the concrete. When parking at this gate; which is rather tight to begin with as you are turning into the corner and maneuvering in reference to the baggage transfer belt/shed; this pavement difference is incredibly difficult to crest. It honestly seems to have gotten worse after the summer heat and the asphalt sinking deeper. The 10-7 parking gate information does mention that this gate is slightly uphill. While that is true; this pavement 'lip' creates an additional challenge. Given the tight maneuvering in that area; carrying excessive speed is not necessarily beneficial since it is somewhat tight on the wing and several ground vehicles are maneuvering around that baggage area. With both engines running and on the J-line; we were unable to get onto the concrete portion of the pavement. With [two other gates] right behind us; careful consideration was heeded relative to max thrust for breakaway maneuvering. Even at limits; a full aircraft would not make it onto the concrete. Ultimately; we had to get towed in the remaining distance. The ramp agent driving the tug mentioned that this is quite common for aircraft to have trouble parking at this gate.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the transition from the asphalt taxiway to the concrete gate at one of the companies Jetbridge pads at EWR has a very large lip to overcome.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Manuals; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I taxied to the ballpark in EWR for de-ice after midnight local time. It had started to snow about 2 hours earlier as part of a historic snowstorm for the Northeast and the ground was covered with about 3 to 4 inches of snow. The ATIS reported visibility at 3/4 -SN and there was about 2 inches of snow on the jet. I pulled in the pad and was surprised after about 5 minutes when I was told de-ice complete.The fuselage was never sprayed and I had snow covering the nose; wipers and side unseated windows. I told the First Officer to ask if they sprayed the whole jet and they replied wings and stab only. I then told them to spray the entire jet which they preceded to do. I noticed several other jets leave the pad with several inches of snow on the top of the fuselage. Spraying only wings and stab in a winter snowstorm and departing with snow on the aircraft is counter to the FOM requirements of a clean aircraft. How am I supposed to do a nose check if the snow and ice is never cleaned off in the first place?The FOM says the nose is not normally sprayed? The FOM also says the only snow or ice allowed is hoarfrost on the fuselage and 1/8 inch frost under the wings. 2 plus inches of snow on the top of the fuselage and snow and ice on the side windows and nose and is not allowed. This is the second time I have had to ask EWR to properly deice the entire jet in a snow storm and I have seen other aircraft leave with snow and ice on the fuselage and areas other than wing and stab. Please address this issue before we have an accident and let me know if I'm somehow mistaken on the requirements of a clean aircraft in a snowstorm. Thanks for your time and consideration.




Synopsis: Captain disagreed with de-icing crews method of cleaning snow accumulation on aircraft.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took two friends on a flight. When we departed I noticed low fog over the ocean. On the way back to SNA the fog had moved inland. About 7 miles out; approach control asked if I had the airport in sight and I told them I did not. I received vectors for a right base to runway 20R. I told them I could see the lead-in lights so I could probably make it in for landing. On final; at about 500 feet AGL; I realized the clouds were too low to continue VFR; so I did a go-around. I called approach and got an IFR clearance for the ILS into SNA. When I was established on the ILS; the tower reported 2400 RVR and 300 feet ceiling. Minimums for the approach are 250 feet and 1/2 mile visibility; so it was very close. I was instrument-current; and I had recently passed an IFR simulator test for a pilot job interview; so I was feeling confident about my skills. I received a clearance to land on 20R. At 400 feet AGL; still above the clouds; I realized I had forgotten to reset my altimeter. I grabbed a knob and twisted; but it was the OBS; the wrong knob. I finally got my altimeter set; and at that point I was at 300 feet AGL in the middle of the cloud layer. I noticed I was below the glideslope so I started to level off. At 250 feet I was still below the glideslope so I flew level for a few seconds to see if the runway would appear. At that moment the runway came into view and I could see all the way to the end; so I determined the flight visibility was adequate to land. I turned towards the runway and landed. On my rollout; the tower told me to 'cross 20R and contact ground' which is when I realized I had landed on 20L; the incorrect runway.One contributing factor was that my friend had an event she needed to get to; and we were already running late; so I really wanted to get in that night; even though there were plenty of VFR airports nearby. I had a hazardous 'invulnerability' attitude; which kept me from using due caution in the situation. In the future I will set personal minimums that are higher than the legal ones; and stick to them.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported landing on the wrong runway in SNA during foggy conditions.
Date: 201809
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight just past the point of equal time enroute to ZZZ; an Insufficient Fuel alert message flashed. It then went away. It returned and this became the new norm - this message coming and going about every 30 seconds. Also; the time to our next waypoint became erratic and changing. Also; our FMS predicted landing fuel began to vary from quite low to insufficient to make destination. We began to trouble shoot with manual time speed calculations and also manual fuel flow over time calculations. The fuel totalizer (gauges) looked fine/normal. It was only predicted/projected values in the FMS that were erratic and incorrect. We notified FSS Radio of a possible time error for next waypoint of more than two minutes; and that we were having computer problems with unreliable predictions of time at next fix. We looked over multiple procedures in the QRH and Flight Manual but nothing seemed to fit our scenario. We were certain that we did not have a fuel leak based on fuel aboard for our given time in flight. It suddenly dawned on me that since the FMS problems were all due to predictive and/or calculation errors; and that since we were in managed speed using Cost Index; perhaps I could alleviate some of the computer's issues by hard coding speeds in the VNAV pages. This had the almost immediate effect of solving/removing all of the problems we were experiencing. The remainder of the flight proceeded normally and without issue. To my recollection; our times crossing fixes were always within two minutes of reported for next. We wrote the problem up and reported to maintenance technicians upon landing.


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


Synopsis: B737 Flight Crew reported issues with the FMC fuel burn computations.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC gave us HOGGS intersection at FL180/290 KIAS from FL350. The Captain and I were training on company procedures when ATC asked us to start our descent. We discovered that the descent would be very close to make the crossing restriction. We hadn't realized that the tailwind was stronger than expected; as well. The Captain directed me to ask if we could descend faster than 290 KIAS and ATC approved that. At about FL190; the overspeed clacker went off. The Captain immediately slowed the rate of descent and decelerated below 340 KIAS. The exceedance was for about 2-3 seconds and about 2 KIAS. The Captain took immediate and appropriate action to correct the situation; wrote up the overspeed upon arrival at JFK; and informed Maintenance at JFK.




Synopsis: Distracted by on the job training the flight crew of a B737-800 failed to initiate their descent in a timely manner. During the descent they exceeded Vmo for a brief period.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MSP.Tower, MN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Performed a go-around on [Runway] 30R at MSP. We queried controller that we saw an aircraft sitting on runway while we were on short final approximately 900 feet. He told us to go around which we did - then thanked us for the query due to him being distracted or involved with a disabled aircraft on Runway 30L; this occurred during VFR conditions at night.




Synopsis: Embraer pilot reported executing a go-around after spotting an aircraft stopped on the runway.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BAZ.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Variable winds; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A-1 Husky
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Loss of directional control during ground roll after landing. This was the ninth landing of the training sortie and the student's second lesson in the tailwheel airplane. The student made a safe wheel landing (soft field technique); in light and variable winds; and we were decelerating when the student began to create minor oscillations with the rudder. I instructed him to not over correct and that he was inducing the oscillation. The student made an over-correction and the aircraft moved out of alignment with the runway. I took the controls to prevent a ground loop and planned to coast into the grass; but the airplane nosed down upon leaving the runway and caused a prop strike. The aircraft stopped quickly since we were at a slow airspeed when the strike occurred; but still managed to nose into the ground on the paved berm of the runway. I believe the ultimate cause was the variable winds. The winds were favoring the north and Runway 35; but were variable to the east. Although light; they may have created the minor deflections in airplane alignment that led to the loss of control.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reports departing the runway and nosing over after taking over from his student who was over controlling after a wheel landing.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL380 while passing north of a thunderstorm; FMC SAT temperatures went from -51* to -44* to -28*. We noticed ice building on windshield wipers and turned Engine Ant-ice on and asked for a lower altitude seeking a smoother ride. A FL360 descent was granted approximately 4 minutes later. As the descent was begun a right Bleed Trip Off light illuminated and the cabin rate indicator showed a steady climb rate. While referencing the QRH Bleed Trip Off procedure the Left Bleed Trip occurred and the cabin altitude warning began. We started an emergency descent to 10;000 feet with 02 mask on and successfully restored the packs by pushing the Trip Reset switch. Since a higher than normal fuel burn occurred at a lower altitude; a diversion was commenced.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information].


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew experiences a dual bleed trip during a descent to FL360 causing a loss of cabin pressurization. Pressurization is regained during the descent but the crew elects to divert to a suitable airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DRT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use R-6316
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying a helicopter owned by government law enforcement in the vicinity of restricted area R-6316 for a Homeland Security mission. I was utilizing a panel installed Garmin GNS 430 (update expiration in 9 days) as guidance to approach and remain outside of R-6316. After approximately 30 minutes of flying a racetrack pattern near the east side of the restricted area; I contacted my dispatch and instructed them to call the Operations Center in order to request authorization for my aircraft to enter R-6316 so that I could continue my mission. Dispatch told me that authorization was denied. I acknowledged the denial and remained outside of the restricted area. Approximately 10 minutes later; dispatch informed me that [Operations] had called back and wanted to let me know that I was currently inside the boundary of R-6316 and that I needed to 'get out.' I verified my position on the GNS 430; then informed dispatch to tell [them] that my instruments were showing that I was not within the boundary of R-6316. The reply was that I needed to stay out of the restricted area and that 'they were watching me' (assuming they meant that they could see my position on radar since I was squawking a discrete transponder code). I reiterated to dispatch that my GPS was showing that the aircraft never went inside the boundary line of R-6316. Dispatch replied 'roger'. I continued my racetrack pattern for approximately 5 more minutes; then departed the area. During this mission; I paid very close attention to my GNS 430 and ensured that I never flew within the boundary of R-6316. I also visually verified my position by observing the aerostat mooring tower and keeping the required 2.5 mile radius distance.




Synopsis: A law enforcement helicopter pilot on a Homeland Security mission is informed that he is inside R-6316. However; he is using a Garmin 430 to avoid the airspace.
Date: 201505
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
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing through FL260; the Cabin Altitude Warning horn sounded. We accomplished memory items and QRH for Cabin Altitude Warning Horn/Abnormal Pressurization. We returned to our departure airport for Maintenance and to refuel. Upon rechecking the pressurization panel during descent; we discovered we had set 12;660 rather than 1;226.... I did not verify the correct altitude during the Before Start Checklist. I should have looked more closely at the small numbers in the analog windows. I 'saw' what I was expecting to see.Take time to verify every checklist item.  We weren't late or rushed; but I was still lulled into responding to the checklist item as 'correct.'  Checklist item settings are almost always correct; but I need to ensure that I closely check every item; every time; before I respond.




Synopsis: A B737 flight crew returned to the departure airport due to a Cabin Altitude/Pressurization warning passing through FL260. During the descent it was discovered that the wrong altitude had been set in the Pressurization Control Panel.