elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was PF; hand-flying.  On departure; we were cleared to 10;000 feet.  Northbound on the SID; climbing through approximately 7;500; I increased pitch to avoid a small build-up off the nose.  Climbing thru approximately 8;800 feet; I realized that I was going to have a difficult time leveling off by 10;000 feet.  I asked the CA to advise ATC of the potential altitude excursion and aggressively; but smoothly; reduced pitch to level off.  I exceeded our assigned altitude by 450 feet; and promptly descended back to 10;000 feet.  ATC did not seem concerned by our deviation and cleared us to 16;000 feet.This was one of my first sequences after a 6-month leave of absence.  The CA is new to the airplane and new to the seat.  These factors contributed to our poor altitude SA and slow cross-check.Our threat-forward briefing focused on our lack of recent flying.  We needed to be even more vigilant to trap decision and execution errors.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported overshooting an assigned altitude during departure.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Fatigue; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While level at cruise; the Captain discovered a crack beginning to develop on the inner pane of his front window. He began to run the QRH while I continued to fly the aircraft. We also called to have the on board Mechanic come up and take a look. We ran the QRH for an inner pane crack; which required us to don our O2 masks; begin a descent to 14;000 FT and to return to our departure airport. We were flying in and out of rain showers while at the some time deviating around cells and had occasional light to moderate turbulence. We declared an emergency; and had to coordinate with ATC for a descent to a lower altitude; while at the same time talking to company traffic that was below us in order to facilitate a descent. We then began a slow descent to 14;000. We had to communicate on HF which made transmissions hard to understand and caused a delay in getting what we needed.We were cleared to return and; as we watched the crack increase slightly; flew an RNAV approach while in and out of rain showers. We landed without further incident. Total flight was 2:50 minutes.After flying for 2:50 minutes and declaring an emergency; Crew Scheduling wanted us to swap aircraft and complete the flight. Our scheduled flight time for our round trip is blocked at 7:50. If we were to add the time already flown it would have but us at 10:40 of flying time for the day. That is longer then most TRANS-PACIFIC flights from the West Coast to Japan. Those planes are crewed with 3 pilots and have bunk facilities. This would have been 10:40 minutes of flying time and probably 15 plus hours of duty time. The Captain and I felt it would not be safe to continue on to the next flight and were told by Scheduling that our only option was to call in fatigued. We decided the safest course of action after having declared an emergency and doing an air return in weather was to call in fatigued.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: An international flight crew operating a round trip flight within the South Pacific discovered a growing crack in the Captain's windshield. They declared an emergency and returned to their departure aiport. They then refused to fly their turnaroud with another aircraft due to fatigue.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
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 D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a practice power off stall recovery; when the throttle was retarded from full power to cruise after the maneuver was over; the throttle cable broke; leading the engine to run at full power.  I took control from the student while bringing the [throttle] to idle to confirm we couldn't run at any less power.  The power continued to read between 2;500 and 2;700 RPM (redline for the prop).  I declared an emergency with [the TRACON]; whom I was already using for radar services; and diverted to [a nearby airport] with a longer runway than our home base.  At this point it became apparent I could not maintain level flight without overspeeding the propeller; so I allowed the aircraft to stay in a slow climb; eventually ending up near the airport at [3;500 AGL].  While on a very high downwind I contacted Tower; was cleared to land; and elected at that time to pull the mixture to idle to begin the descent to land.  I briefed the student on how I planned to land; using the mixture to add 'bursts' of power if necessary; and asked him to turn off the fuel and mags on my command.  The glide went well; I had the student secure the [engine] once I was sure we'd make the runway; and it was an uneventful touchdown; even managing to taxi clear of the runway before stopping.  Overall I feel everyone performed admirably; including my student; ATC; and airport staff upon landing.  This is a situation that could have been mishandled and end in disaster.  Further; a different student may not have been nearly as calm or helpful; which would have increased my workload dramatically.  As my student was completely collected; I was able to focus on getting us on the ground safely.  I don't have many suggestions for how this could be better; because it was about as good as it gets.




Synopsis: When the PA-28's throttle cable separated with the engine at full power after recovery from a training stall the instructor pilot assumed control; declared an emergency and; using excellent spur of the moment energy management techniques; landed uneventfully at a nearby airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: M54.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: CTAF M54
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was with a student pilot as we were taking off Runway 19 and departing to the south. At approximately 500 ft. AGL and 1/2 mile south of the airport Aircraft Y crossed our flight path at the same altitude. We had to nose down and make a right turn to avoid a collision.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported an NMAC event immediately after takeoff.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During the engine start procedure at a power-out gate we had a tailwind which resulted in a hung start on engine number 2. We ran the appropriate checklists and opted to start the opposite engine which also result in a hung start. While aborting this start and running the checklist we were notified from ground crew that there had been a tailpipe fire that had been extinguished during the aborted start procedure. We contacted maintenance and maintenance advised us to have the aircraft turned to face the wind and attempt another engine start. They advised us to continue if engine starts were normal. Subsequent engine starts were normal. No limitations were exceeded during any phase of the engine start/aborted start procedures and all checklists were complied with.Hung start due to a tailwind during engine start.Use of aircraft tug to face aircraft into the wind for engine start operations rather than power-out gate operations.


Second narrative: During start of engine #1 encountered a hung start; during the abort experienced a tailpipe fire. Completed the tailpipe fire checklist and aborted start checklist. Contacted maintenance for guidance; they wanted us to start the engine with the airplane turned into the wind. If engine started normally to continue the flight. Engine started normally continued flight.When starting engine we had a 30kt tailwindNothing could be done about the hung start or tailpipe fire. Next time I will write the discrepancy in the AML even if maintenance advises not to.


Synopsis: Pilots reported a hung start due to a tailwind on the ground.
Date: 201810
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CYYZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYYZ; Tower CYYZ
Second aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were being vectored to [Runway] 24R in Toronto. The Approach Controller was being very aggressive; and he turned us onto final 2.5 miles behind a Dash-8. At final approach speed; we had 40 kts of overtake. When we switched over to Tower; we had 2 miles on the aircraft in front of us; and unsurprisingly; Tower sent us around. We had been dispatched with little fuel for flexibility; so I immediately declared minimum fuel.Unfortunately; we were vectored back around by the same Approach Controller; and he did the same thing to us again. This time; it was 3 miles following a Challenger Jet. We landed out of that one; but I think it was only because the Challenger had a higher approach speed; plus the extra mile.This practice is dangerous; and that controller was too aggressive. How could any controller think that his set up was going to work? Just plain ridiculous. It was a set-up for failure.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported being vectored twice too close to following traffic and landing on the second attempt.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At approximately 1000 ft we got into some wake turbulence. We were on ref speed at the time. We got a 1 second or less stick shaker. We were still at Vref when I looked at the airspeed.


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


Synopsis: B747 flight crew reported a wake turbulence encounter during final approach to SFO Runway 28L from an aircraft landing on 28R.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
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: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon gear retraction; Green Hydraulic System failed. Left main gear stayed down and locked while right main and nose gear retracted normally. Green hydraulic fluid had leaked out and quantity was zero. Aircraft was cleaned up (flaps up) autopilot on and leveled above the minimum safe altitude. ECAM procedures were followed with loss of Green quantity; gear unable to retract and loss of Green pressure. Gear recycled to no effect; so gear emergency extended; with successful down and locked on all three gears. Consulted Dispatch and decided to divert to an airport with maintenance. Emergency declared followed by precautionary landing and after clearing runway; aircraft was towed to the gate. The night before upon landing; we got ECAM 'Eng 1 Reverser Low Press'. We noticed the Green Hydraulic quantity was low; but above the minimum. Steering and brakes were normal. We both looked at hydraulic quantity on our preflight checks; and neither noticed the quantity low. I checked at least once during flight and quantity was normal. Contract Maintenance was contacted by Maintenance Control to service the Green Hydraulic System. Upon arrival at [our diversion airport]; maintenance immediately found a loose hydraulic line in the left gear; where the Green System quantity seems to have leaked out. The departure airport was experiencing heavy rain and neither the First Officer; or the Contract Maintenance could detect any hydraulic fluid leaking.




Synopsis: A319 Captain experiences the loss of the Green Hydraulic System as the gear is retracted after takeoff. The left main gear remains extended after the right main and nose gear retract. ECAM procedures are complied with for loss of the Green Hydraulic System and the gear handle is cycled to no avail. The gear is gravity extended and the flight diverts to a suitable airport.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working the West departure gate with new RNAV SIDs in use; Air Carrier X checked on frequency climbing to 100 on the BAYLR SID. I RADAR identified the aircraft and instructed the pilot to comply with restrictions; maintain FL230 (standard phraseology according to Local Management.) Shortly after; the pilot asked me to verify he was cleared up to FL230 and he was again instructed to comply with restrictions. The pilot acknowledged the clearance and several RADAR sweeps later I observed the aircraft climb through 100 prior to HURDL (crossing restriction at HURDL -100.) Arrival traffic was issued and Air Carrier X reported them in sight; I instructed Air Carrier X to maintain visual separation with the arrival and continue his climb to FL230. Although visual separation was being applied; it didn't appear that standard RADAR separation was ever lost. I notified the FLM on duty and a RNAV SID Testing Tracker form was filled out. Several days later I was asked by Management to fill out a Controller Statement for a possible pilot deviation. I believe part of the problem is the crossing restrictions on the BAYLR SID. When departing South; the first altitude restriction is; +80 at YORVT to protect for BKF airspace; the following restriction is -100 at HURDL. I think the pilots may be concentrating on crossing YORVT at or above 080 not realizing they are restricted below 100 at the next RNAV fix. I have had other aircraft on this SID with the same deviation. Another contributing factor may be assigning the pilots 100 on their initial clearance; [and] then climbing them to FL230. I am not certain; but I have been told that if the pilot has the FMS in the cockpit set for 100 then changes the altitude to FL230 without saving the VNAV portion of the SID; all the crossing restrictions are dropped out. Perhaps it would be a more predictable operation if the aircraft were cleared to FL230 from the Tower to climb via the RNAV SID; thus eliminating an altitude change in their FMS.




Synopsis: D01 Controller described an altitude crossing event indicating the initial clearance issued by the Tower; phraseology and programming procedures might have contributed to the event.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The ramp markings in EWR are insufficient. The centerline striping for the 'inbound and outbound' lanes has been worn away to the point where it is unusable at night especially when wet. The max wingspan is listed on the 10-9 page as 118 feet and the aircraft is 117 feet. That's not much tolerance for poorly marked taxiways. Additionally; the reflective taxiway marking posts are not easily visible at night. The strong glare from the terminal is ambient light in the wrong direction to see the tight taxiway limits on Romeo Alpha and Romeo Bravo. New; brighter material or real lights are desperately needed.




Synopsis: Captain reported the taxi lines in ramp area at EWR are worn and need repainting.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had an APU problem. When we called Maintenance the Mechanic came out and looked up in the Aft Equipment bay and noticed that the APU Door was sitting between the Rudder and Elevator Cables. I don't know how long it had been that way since it was our first flight in the plane.I don't know the cause; other than the last time someone worked on the plane they did not put the door back on.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 APU was not operating properly and when Maintenance opened the Aft Equipment Bay they found the APU door sitting between the Rudder and Elevator Cables.