elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON EGLL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During final approach to runway 27L into EGLL; we were given instructions to maintain 160kt until 4 DME. On approach we experienced an Auto Throttle (A/T) failure; as it disconnected automatically. We attempted to reengage the A/T twice with no success. Also we started to experience wake turbulence from the heavy aircraft in front of us and separation looked close. The Captain instinctively slowed to target speed just prior to 4 DME to maintain safe operation of the approach. After landing Ground Control queried why we slowed down. We responded that we had experienced wake turbulence.     In my opinion; the distractions of the A/T; the wake turbulence with reduced separation; combined with a very late landing clearance inhibited us in reporting our reduction of speed just prior to 4 DME.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported deviating from assigned speed on approach to EGLL; citing wake turbulence and an autothrottle anomaly as contributing factors.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
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: Confusion; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After lengthy delay with traffic saturation taking off and landing on Runway XX. Operations also occurring on Runway XY; we were cleared onto Runway XX for line up and wait. We taxied into position. Tower then cleared crossing traffic from Runway XY towards terminal while we waited in position. There were multiple aircraft including Runway XY and what appeared to be Taxiway 1. Then Tower cleared us to takeoff once traffic at opposite end was cleared. There appeared to be an aircraft facing us at opposite end with lights off when he gave us this clearance to takeoff. We emphatically rejected the clearance until all aircraft were off the Runway. Opposing aircraft was at far end but Tower seemed so task saturated that we did not trust his calls. This aircraft appeared to have come from Taxiway 2 onto Runway XZ facing us and just sat there. When we rejected takeoff clearance; aircraft seemed to make a left off around Taxiway 3 or 1. Once aircraft were all cleared; we were then given the appropriate clearance. We took off with no incident. This is my second ASAP in less than 2 weeks at this same Airport. This Airport is so task saturated that it is an accident waiting to happen. First Officer said the same thing as I was saying it. There are numerous aircraft taking off and landing on two Runways (normally XX and XY) with small aircraft taking off at midfield. Hard to get a word in on the comms because they are way too busy. ATC at this Airport seems overwhelmed with work load. They may need to consider a flow/metering into and out of this Airport. This Airport needs to find a better way to operate especially around the holidays when traffic saturation is high. They need better procedures and better operational risk management. They may need to consider a flow/metering into and out of this Airport. Understand this is a foreign/international Airport with their own set of country rules but a future discussion should be considered for safety reasons.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported they refused ATC clearance for takeoff because they observed another aircraft at the opposite end of the runway facing them.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After getting cleared for takeoff; we departed and made a right turn to a heading given by ATC. I noticed an odd smell and started checking under the panel for signs of smoke or fire. Once given another turn by ATC; smoke started coming from the radio portion of the panel. It was coming into the cockpit from the edges of the Comm 2 radio. I shut off the electrical power to the airplane and used my hand-held radio to communicate on my way back to the runway. After landing; I had myself and passengers clear the aircraft as airport fire and rescue checked the aircraft.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported returning to departure airport after experiencing smoke in the cockpit from the Comm 2 radio.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival into DFW following B777; Approach gave us spacing behind. Encountered wake turbulence roll. [We] advised ATC [who] provided more spacing. On turn to final; more wake turbulence and significant roll left and right. No reported injuries. Suggest providing more spacing behind the B777 and keep other planes above the B777 flight path.




Synopsis: A CRJ-90 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to DFW behind a B777 that resulted in 'significant roll.'
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; 1
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Ramp
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After clearing customs I sent my first officer to FBO and I went to Aircraft X and a heavy rain started. [I] called my copilot and told him to stay at the FBO and I'll reposition the aircraft alone. I accomplished the APU and left engine start flow followed by the after start check list. Then; I called Ground for permission to taxi from customs to FBO. After being cleared to taxi; I decided to taxi the aircraft with only the LH engine; when I gave power to the aircraft the aircraft started moving and I had no steering and no brakes. After applying the emergency break and shutting down the engine; the aircraft ended up on green grass area a few feet away from the US Customs parking area. The aircraft was not on the taxi way safe area and no damage to property or Aircraft X occurred.  Airport personal showed up and a tow service was requested to take the aircraft out of the grass zone.

Callback: I called and made contact with Pilot (P1). I asked P1 if the G200 aircraft would have steering or normal brakes with the number one engine started. P1 stated the G200 would not have steering or normal braking with only the number one engine running. P1 was in a hurry; in a confined area and without his other pilot. P1 wanted to use only one engine to have less jet wash on the ramp.



Synopsis: G200 Captain reported he taxied single engine without copilot.  Aircraft did not have steering and brake capability and emergency breaking was used to shut down engine; came to stop in grass.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On final approach into MEM on RWY18R I noticed what looked like a faint displaced threshold. This made me think I had missed a NOTAM about some construction. As we flew closer to the runway I realized it was a double image just like I had noticed in OKC about 6 months earlier. The double image is caused by the LED lighting and it appears to be like a prism or holographic effect in the windows or the aircraft. I wear glasses and so during taxi in I raised my glasses and had the same double image and my First Officer who does not wear glasses had the same double image. Also; the double image changes with seat position and is in the front and side windows. In OKC earlier I thought it was caused by the lights being step 5 but the lights in MEM were at mid-range intensity. This is a safety of flight issue that would affect your depth perception in a low visibility approach to a manual landing. I have never seen this in my entire career with regular incandescent lights. I think LED lights somehow reacting with the different layers of the aircraft windows.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported LED lighting on Runway 18R at MEM could affect depth perception in low visibility due to prism effect.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had only been on position for about 1 minute. Aircraft X was already cleared to descend via the arrival. There was no known traffic on my display. I knew nothing was about to happen until suddenly Aircraft X said he was responding to a TCAS alert. At the same moment he transmitted this to me Aircraft Y flashed Conflict Alert on my display. I immediately issued Aircraft X a 40 degree left turn away from Aircraft Y then issued a traffic alert. I watched waiting for the next update to process. I never have had an incident this close and at one point was convinced they would collide. I can only recommend that you possibly look into who was controlling the adjacent sector. I am not sure what the complete story was however the separation responsibility would rest solely with that individual. The adjacent sector Controller is the only person that would have seen these two aircraft the entire time. That Controller would also be the individual who issued the descent clearance that ultimately nearly ended in a mid air collision.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller reported a NMAC between two air carriers.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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 Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the C Flight Attendant on Flight ABC. To this date; I have not experienced any symptoms associated with an air quality incident; however; two of the FA's did mention significant nausea during the flight and into the layover.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendant reported a fume event with some flight attendants experiencing physiological issues.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 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: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: FL350; the Auto Controller number 2 went INOP and the red Cabin Alt light illuminated. We ran the checklist and did a phone patch to [Name].  We elected to continue to ZZZZ. After fifteen minutes; the Cabin Altitude controller number 1 was not controllable. We switched to manual controller.  We ran the Cabin Auto Inop checklist.  Called Dispatch and returned to ZZZ.  We did [advise ATC] and descended to FL250. We ran the diversion guide checklist. First Officer flew the aircraft to a great landing into the sun.  She was very professional the entire flight and I am thankful she was my partner. She made many suggestions.


Second narrative: Flight departed ZZZ with no issues. About 1 hour into the flight; Flight Attendant reported losing the galley ovens. About 1:30 into the flight we got a Cabin Altitude Warning. Ran the QRH and switched from Auto 2 to Auto 1 controller. The cabin altitude went back down from 10;000 to about 8;000 and seemed stable. We contacted Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] and everyone agreed it was safe to continue to ZZZZ. After about 15 minutes the cabin altitude started increasing again and right before it hit 10;000 we switched to the Manual controller per the QRH. The cabin altitude was controllable again but we [advised ATC] and opted to turn around and go back to ZZZ. Completed the diversion checklist. We also felt more comfortable at a lower altitude and descended to FL250. Landed in ZZZ without any issues. Captain was very professional and as cool as the other side of a pillow during the entire event.


Synopsis: 757 flight crew performed an air turn back after cabin pressure became uncontrollable.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Indications
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a turnover that Aircraft XXX in ZZZ had a Right Engine exceedance. The previous Controller had talked with them and explained to them what needed to be done. When I took over; I was busy with other aircraft and was waiting to get an update from ZZZ. After I got caught up; I checked and the aircraft had departed. The item was signed off as EGT red box reset and inspection of the inlet and the exhaust. Knowing that this items are a chronic issue with the fleet and that the Inspection was not properly conducted per the AMM. I created a log entry to have the EEC interrogation accomplished to see if the faults still existed. I made the decision to stop the aircraft in ZZZ1 to be repaired. The EGT system on the 737 is a chronic known issue with the fleet. In retrospect; I should have locked the log item. This would have prevented the mechanic from clearing the item without getting Maintenance Management concurrence. Any item that needs Maintenance Management follow up should be locked by the Controller in charge and not unlocked until there has been verification that all the necessary steps have been accomplished.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported an aircraft with an engine exceedance departed before the appropriate inspection could be accomplished.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Pressure Ratio Indicat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When applying power for takeoff; the Number 3 EPR did not reach target. We were doing an ATS Off takeoff for IOE training. Prior to 80 knots; the engine fail light illuminated on the glare shield. Both of the [Relief Pilots] called 'Engine Failure' and I took control of the plane and rejected the takeoff. We taxied clear; stopped; ran the Rejected Takeoff Checklist; and then taxied back to the gate. The callouts from the [Relief Pilots] were very helpful. The [Relief Pilot] sitting behind me worked hard to observe the engine instruments and speed and was very helpful with his callouts; including the 60 knot call to remind me to get the reversers stowed.The Number 3 Engine EPR did not reach target power.Engine run-up by Maintenance for previous write-up rather than just changing an EEC [Electronic Engine Control].




Synopsis: During takeoff roll engine indications were not normal and Number 3 engine failed. The takeoff was rejected and the aircraft returned to the gate.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the BACHR1 STAR to Dallas Love field. Fort Worth Center told us to descend and maintain 24;000 feet. We complied and leveled off at our assigned altitude of FL240. Shortly before the ANGST fix we were given descend via the arrival. I then set the lowest altitude on the BACHR1 (RNAV) STAR IN the Altitude select and activated the VNAV I then slowed to the crossing speed restriction of 280kts @FL240. My attention was diverted for no more that a minute. When I saw we had started our descent prematurely and passing below our hard alt of FL240 AT ANGST I disengage the autopilot and stopped the descent. The autopilot and FMS were reset and after that all other fixes were crossed at the appropriate altitudes... (THERE WERE NO TRAFFIC CONFLICTS)..After landing we as a crew discussed what could have been done to prevent this and keep it from ever happening again.




Synopsis: An air taxi jet crew leveled at FL240 on the BACHR1 RNAV to DAL and when cleared VIA before ANGST; the lowest STAR MCP altitude was selected. The aircraft began a descent before the crew realized the error but they recovered to FL240.