elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; 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; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During a visual approach to Runway XXL at ZZZ at approximately XA10L; at approximately 350 ft. AGL a go around was initiated by my aircraft to avoid a Runway landing conflict with an aircraft that was just beginning a takeoff roll on Runway XXL.As my aircraft passed thru 1000 ft. the Tower Controller issued a takeoff clearance to a Company X aircraft to depart Runway XXL. As we proceeded in a descent towards the Runway below 1000 ft. I was unable to visually identify the Aircraft X lining up on the Runway. As we approached 650 ft. AGL I was able to identify the Aircraft X in the over run or stop way of the Runway. I made my 500 ft. foot call at 600 ft. and at that point I focused my attention on the Aircraft X that I could see had just begun it's takeoff roll. At approximately 400 ft. I determined that adequate clearance with the Aircraft X on the Runway could not be assured if I had allowed the First Officer to continue the approach and landing. At approximately 350 ft. AGL I announced on the frequency that 'Company Y is going around'. At that point I could see that the Aircraft X had not accelerated enough to have crossed the Green Threshold Marking Bar of Runway XXL. I felt that the closure rate with the Aircraft X that had just begun it's takeoff roll was unacceptable. During the initial go around we made a slight right turn away from the Runway. The Tower Controller acknowledged the go around and issued a 1500 ft. climb limit. He then issued a turn to 120 degrees and a 3000 ft. climb limit. As my aircraft was climbing thru approximately 1000 ft. I looked left to see the clearance with the Aircraft X. I noticed the Aircraft X was in close proximity to my aircraft at the 10 o'clock position as the flight paths were diverging. In my opinion the Tower Controller was attempting to 'squeeze' a departing aircraft out between arrivals. He should have allowed more time between Runway movements. His attention may have been divided between too many tasks to recognize the conflict he was creating.




Synopsis: Commercial Captain reported conducting a go around on short final due to departing traffic still on the runway which resulted from ATC's inadequate traffic separation.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
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: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after leveling off at F360; we heard a loud band in the cockpit. We saw that the FO's side window was shattered. It appeared to be the outside pane. The fo completed the qrh procedure.  I asked atc for a lower altitude; we needed to get the psid to below 6.2. Both of us were concerned about the scoring around the heating element and concerned about arcing. Not knowing the severity of the damage and not wanting to further damage the aircraft; we decided to divert. We were approximately 80 nm west of ZZZ and thought that would be the best place to divert. We contacted the dispatcher and told her we wanted to go to ZZZ. They agreed by text msg. We declared an emergency with atc and were cleared directly to the ZZZ airport. FA and passengers were briefed; landing was made with no further issues. One threat we discussed was not knowing which pane was broken and what to expect. As far as we knew the other panes could fail as well and the obvious scoring around the heating element created an concern of an electrical fire as a possibility. That is a huge threat in our opinion.The maintenance controller was very disingenuous. He began our conversation in an accusatory tone; questioning my decision and being very offensive. That is not necessary from maintenance personnel; and the company can instruct maintenance personnel proper procedures in discussing with line pilots.  I believe our crew operated and performed as trained.




Synopsis: Flight crew opted to divert to the nearest suitable airport after the First Officer's side window shattered with a loud bang at FL360.
Date: 201708
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
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [On takeoff] experienced N1 compressor overspeed indications on both engines at 100 kias with TOGA power indicated on Flight mode annunciation and APU bleed ON. A rejected takeoff was executed and aircraft returned to gate for maintenance inspection. Cause not determined at this time.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to an N1 compressor overspeed on both engines.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Windshear; Icing
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As expected; we determined our takeoff would require full power due to conditions requiring engine anti-ice. The weight manifest directed a trim setting of 3.0 units which we set accordingly. A normal pushback and engine start were performed and we taxied to the deicing facility where the aircraft was de and anti-iced. Deice/anti-ice checklists were completed and normal taxi was accomplished. The airport was clear of traffic and we were cleared for takeoff as soon as we reached the runway. The Captain aligned the aircraft on the runway and transferred control to me. Power application and initial roll were normal. At rotation; I noticed the aircraft required a significant amount of force to raise the nose; the airspeed was accelerating rapidly and we quickly accelerated to within 5-10 KTS of the maximum flap speed for flaps 15. I had to use both hands/arms to raise the nose to avoid exceeding the flap 15 speed; forcing me to add additional nose up trim to relieve the excessive force required to raise the nose. In addition; the Captain reduced power to help assist. When a stable climb was established I noted the stab trim setting was 4.5 units. Once the speed was under control the rest of the flight was normal and without incident.




Synopsis: At rotation the First Officer of an unidentified commercial fixed wing aircraft found the stabilizer trim setting provided by the computerized weight and balance program was insufficient to prevent excessive acceleration after lift off. Additional nose up trim was added and the flight proceeded normally thereafter.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SZT.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF SZT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I heard aircraft calling to land 20 miles out. It turned out that he was landing. I did not see him coming the opposite direction. I took off over him with plenty of clearance.




Synopsis: Corporate Jet pilot reported a departure from SZT that flew over another aircraft that was landing the opposite direction.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to fly as the pilot not flying with another company pilot; in support of tower inspections. The work method involved includes flying two men to the top of energized 500 K.V. towers and inserting them on the towers arm or bridge. I was the pilot not flying in the P.I.C. seat position. During the course of the insertions and linemen pick-ups; I noted that the pilot flying was exceeding our company manual airspeed limitations policy by 25 KTS of airspeed while the linemen were attached to the line. The current airspeed limitation while linemen are attached to the line is 60 KTS. I noted my concern to the pilot flying and pointed at the airspeed indicator in the cockpit. The pilot flying acknowledged my concern and said 'ok;' then slowed the aircraft back down. After I informed him; the pilot flying continued to exceed the policy airspeed. Each time I pointed at the airspeed limitation indicator and told him to slow down. Each time he said 'yea' and 'ok' and ignored my concerns. I also pointed at the airspeed indicator when he reached speeds of 110 KTS in violation of our Federal Aviation Administration issued 133 certificate limitation of 80 KTS. I became increasingly irritated when my notations were noted by the pilot and there was no corrective action on his part and I was ignored. During this occurrence; CRM procedures were not complied with by the pilot flying. Re-briefing of procedures and compliance by the pilot flying would have eliminated the above 133 VNE exceedance.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot; assigned as pilot not flying during an electrical transmission Tower inspection flight; reports the pilot flying operating at speeds above those prescribed by company operating specifications with external linemen attached. Reminders to the pilot flying are essentially ignored.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Equipment
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: On this flight I couldn't see the survival kit lanyard while doing my safety checks and reported the discrepancy to the flight deck they called tech operations. Tech operations showed me a piece of cloth in the very back of the door frame near the girt bar; I told him that is not where the lanyard is located and showed him the operations manual. He said the plane was good to go.Today I was made aware of several other Flight Attendants not being able to locate the lanyard and being told by tech operations that we attach the survival kit after the door is opened. This is the same thing I was told and is contradictory to the Safety checklist for Ditching and the operations manual for attaching instructions located in the equipment/survival kit/operation.This discrepancy is alarming as there is no way to connect the survival kit like we are trained to.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported survival kit lanyard was incorrectly installed; causing confusion over its location.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class A ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: The traffic was higher than usual. Supervisors where not prepared for the traffic. We didn't have enough people to work and keep a normal rotation and was not an effective flow on effect. My coworkers and I went through high volume traffic without any coordination or plan to execute our duties. We received aircraft with no coordination from non-radar airspace that we didn't know who they were. TNCM shut down the airport with no notice. NY center shut down the airspace with no notice. Supervisors didn't hold people on the ground as we requested more than once. We had aircraft holding over different parts of the airspace plus we had more aircraft coming. No overtime was scheduled for that day. My coworkers and I lost the picture more than once during one session. Only 15 minute break between 2+ hours on position with high volume traffic. [We need] more planning and more staffing.




Synopsis: ZSU Controller reported a busier day than normal. Reporter said they were too busy to do coordination and the correct staffing was lacking. Controller reported that they were receiving aircraft with no coordination from non-radar airspace.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach; ATC had us turn off the approach and proceed to a fix for holding. While holding at 6;000 FT I notified the Flight Attendant; the passengers; and Dispatch. Dispatch sent us a message with the fuel required to go to our alternate. After I read this and checked our fuel; we were already below our 'Bingo' fuel. We immediately proceeded to our alternate airport and landed uneventfully. In route we burned extra fuel deviating for weather. Supply us with more fuel for weather deviations.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reports being issued holding instructions during approach and contacting Dispatch with the news. Dispatch responds the minimum fuel required for diversion to the alternate and the Captain notes they are already below that amount. The diversion is otherwise uneventful.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff passing approximately 1;000 AGL and still in takeoff configuration; we experienced a compressor stall and failure of the Number 1 engine. After maintaining control of the aircraft and assessing the situation; we started a left turn in accordance with the Special Engine out Procedure for Runway 7R. As pilot not flying; I notified the Controller or our heading change and intentions. The Controller vehemently advised that this was not a safe course of action as it would put us in the path of arrival traffic. Since we were already past the Special Engine Failure procedure turnpoint; visual with the terrain; and climbing away; we decided to comply with the Controller's instructions instead of continuing on the procedure. The Controller was very aware of the terrain and we also monitored it on our PFD display; but it was no factor. We were handed off to Departure and then Radar; and coordinated fuel dumping for a return to or departure airport. It took about 50 minutes to complete the fuel dump and prepare for our return which ended with an uneventful full stop landing. I want to note that the controllers at every facility we coordinated with were extremely professional and helpful. I don't think we could have expected better service.


Second narrative: Autopilot was engaged at 250 FT AGL to comply with the RNP 1 SID. At approximately 800-1;000 FT AGL; we experienced a compressor stall and subsequent failure of Number 1 Engine. The autopilot disconnected due to the yaw and roll associated with the engine failure. I took manual control and proceeded to turn to heading 050 as per our company special engine out procedure.


Synopsis: A B747-400 flight crew dumped fuel and returned to their departure airport after experiencing compressor stalls and eventual failure of the number one engine.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Panel
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was part of a crew that ferried a plane from ZZZ to ZZZ1. I was notified a couple of days after the completion of the flight that there was a missing panel on the underside of the aircraft that was not detected during preflight. I was the crew member that conducted the preflight inspection. I did not notice the missing panel. I believed I conducted a thorough preflight inspection and I do not recall any missing panel.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported operating a flight with a missing fuselage panel after failing to notice the discrepancy during pre-flight.