elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT; Tower ONT
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Descending through 10;000 and with the airport in sight; So Cal said we were following a Boeing 737 3 miles ahead and 3;000 feet below. They asked if we had the airplane in sight; which we did. They then cleared us for a visual approach and ended the clearance by stating; 'Do not descend below 7;000'.  They then cleared the Boeing for the visual and told them not to descend below 5;000.  This caused confusion in our cockpit because it seemed like a conflicting clearance.  We either assume responsibility for our separation from clouds and airplanes ('cleared visual approach'); or not. But an altitude restriction when cleared a visual began the cone of confusion. After reaching our respective altitudes (5;000 Boeing and 7;000 us) both of us had to query the controller for permission for a further descent (confusion).  We were handed over to tower and were told the Boeing had a groundspeed of 116 knots.  I told the tower our approach speed was 160knots.  No response from tower.  We were rapidly gaining on the Boeing.  I asked tower if they were landing on the left or right side.  I was told they were landing on the right and we were cleared to land on the left.  We continued with rapid closure and the lateral offset looked very close.  I know ONT is not certified for simultaneous/independent parallel operations.     As we were approaching 1;300 feet; the Boeing stated he had a TA (obviously generated by our closure rate as we had a significantly higher approach speed and we were starting to overtake him (he was at approx a right 2:30 position at this point).     1. Immediately after the Boeing told tower he had a TA; we had a RA stating 'level off'.    2. I reported to tower; 'We have a RA'.     3. Controller came back; 'Do you have the traffic in sight?'     4. As Controller asked if we had the traffic in sight; RA changed to 'climb.'     5. I responded affirmative (he was abeam at this point)    6. Controller asked 'State intentions'    7. I responded; 'Aircraft X going around'.     8. We executed a go around.




Synopsis: A Pilot reports of an airborne conflict on final with traffic slightly ahead for parallel runway. Aircraft received an RA and the pilot elected to go around.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 10 miles northwest of ZZZ the engine quit at 2;500 ft. MSL. Announced to [ATC] that engine trouble was occurring and would land on road below. During emergency checks; the engine began running again. A climb to 4;000 ft. MSL was made immediately with a direct route to ZZZ. Over the threshold of Runway XX at ZZZ; a power-off circling descent was initiated. At 3;000 ft. MSL an attempted power advance was made and the engine had no reaction. Engine restart procedures were initiated and the engine never started up. On the power-off glide from downwind to final; the throttle was pulled out; mixture was pulled out; fuel was turned off; and ignition was turned off. A power-off landing was made on Runway XX and the plane rolled to a full stop on Taxiway X.




Synopsis: C-172 pilot reported an engine failure that resulted in a successful engine-out landing.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After opening the left engine thrust reverser on aircraft (to facilitate other maintenance) found tool (large pair of side cutters) that was left inside. It was hanging on one of the igniter conduits. Inspected the conduit and surrounding brackets and parts found no damage. Lack of tool control and a tool inventory after maintenance was performed. An inspection should have been done before closing the engine. Remind maintenance to inventory tools and conduct an inspection after completing maintenance.




Synopsis: Maintenance Personnel reported that they found a mechanics tool under the cowling of a Boeing 767.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was dispatched with MEL 'Ram Air Fan Primary Control inop.' During the takeoff roll a Maintenance message was auto sent to [Maintenance Control] causing a break in the [Maintenance Release.] The printer spit out the message DO NOT TAKE OFF then stating the reason for the message. 'Item: Ram fan primary R ram fan will operate in a degraded mode on the ground from motor controller failure or contact failure.' When the message came we were already passing 100 kts so the takeoff was continued. Once we reached altitude we contacted Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] and were informed that yes indeed the [Maintenance Release] had been broken. I inquired as to why a system on a Maintenance deferral would trigger an auto report and was inform there is a glitch in the system. If that is the case that needs to be addressed as it puts us in legal jeopardy.


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


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported Minimum Equipment List message during takeoff roll.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Check Ride
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was acting as Check Airman for a route check. The event occurred on final approach. At 4;000 FT we were asked if we wanted the visual behind another aircraft. We declined when we were unable to acquire the aircraft. I could see the airport behind us but was behind us at a steep angle and [we] were just below the clouds. We were subsequently cleared for the GPS 6R [and told to] 'Maintain 3;000 until crossing the IAF.' The intercept vector was at a steep angle causing the autopilot to overshoot final and was setting up for a very large correction. The Pilot Flying intervened and began to fly the airplane manually. By this time the airport was well insight. Inside of the IAF to FAF the minimum is 2;700 then [a] descent to MDA. I called the runway insight to Approach Control and was switched to Tower. A few miles prior to FAF the pilot flying began a descent for landing and said 'Visual.' Ultimately we passed the FAF about 400 FT below FAF altitude. I had made note that we had not gotten officially cleared for the visual approach and debriefed the event to standard. The FAA Inspector did not agree that this could be dealt with as a debrief item and altitude deviation may need to be further investigated.




Synopsis: A FAA Inspector objected to a CE-680 Check Airman allowing the pilot flying to descend below the GPS approach FAF altitude in VMC conditions because ATC had not yet cleared the flight for a visual approach.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aerofoil Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the descent; while in level flight in icing conditions at around FL180; an EICAS warning informed us that our wing anti ice system had failed. We did not immediately declare an emergency; but ran the appropriate QRH checklists and continued with our descent. While such EICAS messages are relatively common at low power settings; this one was unusual due to our relatively high power setting of roughly 86% N2. This struck us as odd and we took it as an indication of an actual system failure. We informed ATC of the situation; but still did not declare an emergency.Instead we opted to request an immediate descent out of known icing conditions. We were cleared down to 4;000 FT. After the Captain finished running the QRH; I briefed the approach to 22L with emphasis on the flap 22 landing with a Vref speed 30 KTS higher than usual as required by the emergency checklist. We informed ATC of our requirement for a faster approach than usual and requested greater spacing from the traffic in front of us. ATC turned us out wide and then through the localizer to give us that spacing. Just prior to turning on to the localizer; the Captain declared a precautionary emergency with ATC and requested emergency vehicles to meet us on the ground. He then briefed the Flight Attendant; who in turned briefed the passengers. I informed the Captain that due to the high speed approach and flaps 22 configuration; I would be using full reverse thrust and maximum braking upon landing. We landed the aircraft and exited the runway normally. Once we had checked the brake temperature we advised CFR could be released and we taxied in to the gate.




Synopsis: An E-145XR flight crew declared an emergency and landed safely following the failure of the wing anti-ice system in icing conditions.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence; Snow; Icing; Fog; 3
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Was flying a C208 on Amphibious floats. Weather for the approach (wind 350/30 gusting 35; 500 overcast; visibility 3 miles in light snow with possible moderate rime ice in cloud below 6000 feet).Approach fairly normal; broke cloud around 500 feet carrying a fair bit of ice. For this very reason I kept approach speed slightly over 100 kts. Flare and hold off was hard work in the strong and gusty wind; but on touchdown it was obvious that something major was wrong. When the aircraft stopped; I sat there for maybe a half minute; shut down everything; got out and noticed that the main wheels did not support the aircraft weight on landing though the two front wheels were down and locked. I cannot recall ever hearing the gear warning!




Synopsis: The pilot of an Amphibious C208 reported that while landing on a hard surface runway; the wheels had not supported the weight of the aircraft.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
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: Flight Dynamics
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 Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff; power was advanced to approximately 40% N1; engines stabilized with normal engine indications. Takeoff thrust was set. FO made '80 Knots' callout. At approximately 100 knots; the Takeoff Warning horn sounded and the TAKEOFF CONFIG light illuminated. I initiated a Rejected Takeoff. Tower was notified. Aircraft was safely taxied off of the active runway. ARFF was requested to assist -- thermal inspection accomplished. ARFF vehicles accompanied us back to the gate. Flap configuration was 1 per the TPS. Flaps were set prior to taxi and not changed. Flap lever fully seated in selected detent. Speed Brake lever fully in down position. Appropriate trim setting in Green Takeoff range.


Second narrative: At approximately 100 knots the takeoff configuration warning light illuminated and the horn was going off with speed brakes fully stowed; trim in the green takeoff setting around 6 units and flaps 1 per the TPS. The takeoff was rejected; notified tower and asked for fire/emergency trucks to look the aircraft over before proceeding to the gate.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew experienced an aural takeoff configuration warning horn at approximately 100 knots during attempted takeoff; which was aborted.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 20
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other 141
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Throttle cable became detached at the throttle body; cotter pin was missing from castle nut; Engine RPM was stuck at 1800 RPM. Engine was troubleshot according to the checklist with no improvement. Emergency landing was made at a Private airport. The engine was relatively new at 10 days old - around 20 hours of flight time. I circled the airport before setting up for an emergency landing and shutting down the engine short final. A safe landing was made; nobody was hurt and after being fixed by the mechanic the aircraft was flown back to home base.




Synopsis: A C172 Instructor Pilot experiences a loss of throttle control with the engine at 1;800 RPM. An emergency landing is successfully planned and executed.
Date: 201908
Location: SBA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SBA
ATC / advisory: Tower SBA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Night visual conditions in SBA landing Runway 7. The approach light system is extremely bright and disorienting to the point that it washes out any visual reference to the rest of the runway. Tower was unable to dim the lights; saying they could only dim the runway lights; which made it worse. Also makes it challenging to have an accurate and soft landing to a short runway.




Synopsis: Commercial Fixed Wing First Officer reported the SBA ALS being extremely bright and disorienting while landing.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PRC.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D PRC
ATC / advisory: Tower PRC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other post-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was just made aware of the event through emailed contacted from the aircraft involved. I have reviewed the tapes and created a FALCON (radar and audio replay) of the event. I was in a training class at the time of the event and the event was not shared with me until today. Local 1 controller cleared Aircraft X for touch and go runway 21L (established in left closed traffic). Aircraft X was on the go for upwind (assumed and unable to verify; approved separation). Local 1 then cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff runway 21L with 'left closed traffic approved'; no reference to the traffic ahead (on upwind or on the go from their touch and go). Aircraft Y (the trail aircraft) turned crosswind before Aircraft X and created a conflict. The Local 1 controller recognized the conflict and told Aircraft Y (the trail aircraft) to make a right 360 degree turn; which now put the two head on. The targets merged and would estimate they were less than 100 feet vertical. No traffic was exchanged. Both pilots sounded distraught. [The company traffic] is hesitant to state NMAC on frequency. Standard procedures are to issue a straight out departure for aircraft requesting closed traffic when there is 'traffic'. Once the aircraft is in stable flight common practice is to call traffic and instruct the aircraft to follow.Local 1 controller then confused Aircraft Y with Aircraft Z who was holding short of runway 21L ready for departure. It was reported that the Local 1 controller was not following local procedures in using Flight Progress strips which were written by Ground Control and passed onto them. This controller has recent events appearing to be blatant disregard for operational procedures introducing risk. I wish to provide a FALCON replay with audio of this event for review. Further recommend SET (Skill Enhancement Training) for this individual.




Synopsis: A Tower Supervisor reports that a Local Controller placed two aircraft head to head to each other at the same altitude and failed to take appropriate action to separate successive departures.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On our arrival into PHL; we were given a heading of 100 upon reaching BOJID and to maintain 4;000 MSL. After leveling out on this heading; we had 2 false GPWS Terrain warnings messages in the area west of the Tower [that there was a] cluster north of the departure end of [Runway] 35. This cluster shows as the highest point on the APCH for 17 as well as 27R. We were in level flight and over 2;500 feet above the highest obstacle.Terrain Terrain Pull UP warning message on two separate occasions within 30 seconds or so of each other. We were in very good VMC; familiar with the area and could clearly see all obstacles and terrain in level flight at 4;000 MSL; so we silenced the warning and proceeded without issue both times. It would be nice to solve the problem so pilots do not become complacent with these and fail to react when in IMC or night conditions or unfamiliar with the surroundings.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported continuing the approach to PHL after receiving a false GPWS terrain warning in VMC conditions.