elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were approximately 2;000 AGL and Controller requested us to slow to minimum speed. We were at approximately 190 with flaps at 15. I requested flaps 20 and gear down and also had put out some spoilers. At approximately 160 I requested flaps 25 our landing flaps for the day. The Captain had to wait for all 3 gears to get down. As he was selecting flaps 25 airspeed was at approximately 145. Vref + 5 was 147. At the same time we got a momentary stick shaker. I pushed up the power; clicked off the autopilot and checked the configuration. The spoilers were still; partially extended. I stowed the spoilers and returned to glide path. We were still 1;500-1;600 AGL. We landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: B767-300 First Officer experiences a stick shaker during approach when the aircraft is slowed below Vref+5 before final flaps are selected and with the spoilers partially extended.
Date: 202107
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: FADEC / TCC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Take Off
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after setting the takeoff power with the auto throttles the airplane veered hard to the left due to the auto throttles commanding the left engine to reduce thrust to well below commanded EPR setting. Takeoff rejected at approximately 50-60 knots and all checklists and procedures accomplished per SOP. Returned to Gate in ZZZ; notified hub maintenance; Dispatch; Maintenance Control and left a voice mail with the Chief Pilot outlining the events which caused the rejected takeoff and subsequent gate return.




Synopsis: Captain reported auto throttle system reduced thrust below commanded on the left engine resulting in a rejected take off and a return to the gate.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was VFR on top; enroute to 8B0. It was time to start my descent into the airport however; there was a solid cloud layer below me. I requested a 'pop-up' IFR flight plan into my destination with the GPS-D approach. I advised them that I had the weather at BML as the AWOS at my destination was unavailable. The approach clearance I received was as follows; '...proceed direct to SHINY; descend and maintain 3;600 FT; cleared for the RNAV-D into Rangely.' According to the approach plate; you are required to be at 6;000 FT while holding over SHINY. I should have questioned this; but did not. I quickly noticed I was too low when the terrain advisories started to sound. I leveled off; and at that moment; in a very broken transmission; heard the Controller tell me to climb and maintain 6;300 FT; so I expedited my climb and continued in the hold. Once reestablished; I proceeded with the approach and successfully landed at my destination. Don't assume you heard correctly. Don't assume the Controller is always correct.




Synopsis: DA40 pilot reports being cleared direct to SHINY; descend and maintain 3;600 FT; Cleared for the RNAV-D into Rangely. Descent is initiated before noticing that the minimum altitude at SHINY is 6;000 FT. Very shortly terrain advisories begin to sound and the Controller issues a climb to 6;300 FT.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SDL.Tower, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D DVT
ATC / advisory: Tower SDL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Nothing dangerous; just a suggestion from a pilot on departure protocol. Yesterday afternoon; I departed SDL westbound. I was cleared for westbound departure; runway 21. Just to the west of SDL's Class D is Deer Valley's Class D; top at 3;999 Feet. So; a climb was planned to overfly Deer Valley at 4;500 Feet.  After I departed; the Tower Controller restricted me to 2;500 Feet; just as I was nearing leaving SDL Class D; and within just a few miles of Deer Valley.  I notified the Tower Controller; and her response was something like 'it's your responsibility to change frequencies.' So; basically; to comply; I had to maintain 2;500 Feet while in SDL Class D; and then; within approximately 20-30 seconds; reach Deer Valley Tower to obtain Class D clearance. With traffic on Deer Valley frequency; this was not possible; which then required a sharp deviation to the north. My suggestion is for tower controllers to consider the position in which they place pilots when they restrict westbound departures to 2;500 Feet; just east of Deer Valley Class D (which extends to 3;999 Feet.)




Synopsis: Pilot reports of being under flight following with SDL Tower and then being dropped with very limited airspace to maneuver and avoid DVT Class Delta airspace.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Cessna Single Turboprop Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training on final radar and we were working a C208 [Aircraft X] behind a [Boeing] [Aircraft Y] which requires 7 miles on approach. We had matched speeds but the spacing was slowly increasing. We had the C208 on the RWY 7L localizer level at 020 while Aircraft Y continued on the ILS approach to Runway 7R. When the 7 miles later was achieved and observed using the measuring tools on the radar scope; we cleared Aircraft X for the ILS to Runway 7L with the lateral spacing requirement achieved. We used more than the required recat 'directly behind' separation as well as altitude until we achieved what we needed for lateral 'on approach'. According to the live scope; we had no loss. ANC Tower Supervisor called to tell us they were breaking out Aircraft X because they didn't believe we had 7 miles. This is a common practice at this facility due to the extreme mix of aircraft types. This was not unsafe: at ZZZ; 5 increasing to 6 miles is required on that final. We did not clear Aircraft X until we saw 7.00 on the scope (using *t). 7 miles was achieved prior to Aircraft Y dropping off our radar. I believe non-radar separation standards were also achieved. - Either require recat everywhere or nowhere. We have three different set of separation standards to use in our airspace which is absolutely ridiculous. - Fire the Supervisor in the Tower for incompetency.- If equipment doesn't show what the live radar is showing; they need better equipment. Our data should be the most accurate; otherwise we shouldn't be able to legally use the tools we used correctly in this instance.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported a separation issue relate to wake turbulence separation and reclassification of separation.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Installation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When I arrived; the owner of the aircraft was already there waiting on me. The engines were shut down for only a short time so I preceded to start them using the 'hot start' procedure. The starter on the right engine was engaged for about seven seconds when the engine 'backfired'. I noticed that the battery was starting to get weak so I terminated the start on the right engine and tried to start the left engine. After about seven seconds the engine didn't start so I terminated the start on the left engine. That is when I noticed smoke coming from the air intake on top of the right engine nacelle so I preceded to emergency evacuate the aircraft. After everyone was clear I noticed that the smoke had turned black and was thicker so I used the onboard fire extinguisher to extinguish the fire. Upon inspection by a certified mechanic; it was found that the probable cause was the engine 'backfire' ignited the air filter which was determined to be the only damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: The BE55 pilot reported on starting problems which resulted in noticeable smoke from the air filter.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BLI.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower BLI
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing BLI; initial takeoff data showed a maximum allowable flaps setting takeoff. As departure time came closer; I wanted to get a new ACARS takeoff report with the load closeout and new ATIS information to see the required flap setting. As time compressed at push time; I didn't go back to get the updated takeoff data when the new ATIS arrived; by then we had started engines and were beginning to taxi. The Captain called for takeoff flaps and I selected the normal minimum. I briefed the takeoff and the Captain called for the taxi checklist. By now we were approaching the end of the runway and Tower cleared us for takeoff. The takeoff checklist was accomplished and we rolled onto the runway. I had an uneasy feeling as the power was advanced! I began a methodical scan of instruments to double check things. At approximately 70 knots I glanced at the Takeoff REF page and realized the flaps should have been set to the maximum allowed. I immediately verbalized to the Captain abort- flaps- configuration! The Captain performed the RTO procedure and we exited the runway. We stopped and set the brakes while we discussed what the correct flap setting should have been. I requested an ACARS takeoff report with the updated ATIS info and it was still the maximum allowable flaps. A call was made to Maintenance Control about the RTO and it was confirmed based on our weight; temperature and speed that we could continue with the flight.




Synopsis: A First Officer commanded a reject during a BLI takeoff after he realized he had not set the correct takeoff flap setting.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency

Narrative: During departure we were cleared to the intersection and climbing through approximately 6;000 FT when a red EICAS L ENG OIL PRESS LOW was displayed. Concurrently; the oil pressure reading in lower right corner of EICAS display was present and dropped quickly to low 20s; then fluctuated in the low 30s before it dropped to a 0 PSI reading. PIC called for the ENG OIL PRESS LOW QRH. PIC assumed duties of flying and communicating with ATC and SIC performed checklist items. Along with QRH; we decided to do a precautionary shutdown of the left engine. An emergency status was declared with ATC and we received vectors for a landing at [a nearby airport]. Once the QRH was completed with the left engine secured; the sole passenger was briefed. We landed uneventfully after a visual approach to the runway. ARFF was present and pulled up to aircraft once we cleared the runway. We requested an inspection of left engine to ensure no damage was present. Once they verified engine looked normal we taxied to the FBO. PIC notified Assistant Chief Pilot.


Second narrative: [No additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: Following the loss of oil quantity and pressure in the left engine the flight crew of a G200 performed the associated checklists; performed an inflight shutdown; declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airvan 8 (GA8)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway XXL; I was instructed to taxi via [Taxiway] XX; [Taxiway] XY to parking. In the airvan; my windshield and side window had frosted up on the inside after landing due to the extremely cold weather and two of us sitting in the front of the cabin. I took a moment to clear as much as I could on my side with my rag; but it was still quite frosted over. I was having difficulty seeing the taxiway center line with the blowing snow and darkness; but I could see the glow of the blue lights. As I turned from Taxiway XX to [Taxiway] XY; I didn't realize there was one missing taxi light at the corner and I had turned prior to the turn onto Taxiway XY. I immediately realized my mistake in turning prior to the turn in the taxiway and immediately initiated a turn back towards the center of the taxiway. However; the edges of the taxiway were icier than the center of the taxiway; and I was unable to complete a full turn before the aircraft slid off of the edge of the pavement about 4 ft. Due to several inches of snow I was in need of assistance from a tug to return my aircraft back to the taxiway before continuing to taxi back to parking.I believe there were many causes that led to the taxiway event. The darkness; blowing snow and frosted windshield/window made my visibility extremely limited. This airport and taxiways are still rather new to me; and especially during night operations. The iciness of the taxiway edges was the final cause; as I slid the last few ft. even after realizing my error.Completely stopping on the centerline until I had unrestricted visibility through my windscreen may have helped; in addition to the taxiway light being replaced and the taxiways sanded or de-iced in some fashion.




Synopsis: GA8 pilot reported a taxiway excursion during night operations.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: K90.TRACON, MA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The ASR-8 primary RADAR system was schedule to be OTS. The FLM decided to implement CENRAP procedures on the ASR-8 system. The 'normal protocol' in previous similar events is to utilize the ASR-9 RADAR/Beacon system. I explained to the FLM that expanded separation criteria and reduced display accuracy would be a result of implementing CENRAP operations. Utilization of the ASR-9 would not impact separation criteria or display accuracy to the degree evidenced by CENRAP operations. The FLM acknowledged my point. In my opinion; utilizing ASR -9 operations while the ASR- 8 system is OTS is not only more effective and efficient than CENRAP operations; it maintains a higher degree of safety. Recommendation; Utilize the ASR - 9 in lieu of ASR-8 CENRAP operations.




Synopsis: K90 Controller suggested utilization of the ASR-9 RADAR system in lieu of CENRAP operations when the ASR-8 RADAR system is scheduled out of service; noting the ASR-9 operation maintains a higher degree of safety.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On approach to Reno [Runway] 16R; encountered moderate turbulence; LLWS; shifting high winds with severe gusts and blowing dust.  Airspeed fluctuations on final with a shift to a tailwind necessitated a missed approach go around. While accomplishing the missed approach encountered strong moderate turbulence at flaps 3 and the gear up; atmospheric conditions created an airspeed gain in excess of 30 to 45 knots thus overspeeding the flaps for configuration. The pitch was immediately adjusted but the overspeed occurred with a massive airspeed gain. In reconfiguring to flaps one; a similar airspeed gain caused a second overspeed in the flaps one configuration. The pitch attitude was adjusted and no further over speeds occurred. Upon taxi to gate; overspeed condition was written up and reported to maintenance for inspection.


Second narrative: The winds were changing constantly gusting to 35/50 knots. The First Officer configured early to get the plane stabilized. At approx. 1;000 feet we were losing airspeed and altitude and showing a 15 knot tailwind while tower was still calling a 30 knot headwind. I could also see a dust line coming down the runway towards the landing zone. I directed a go around and while climbing we got the 30-40 knot headwind gusts. While getting the flaps from 3 to 1; the airspeed hit the bottom of the red line twice. The moderate turbulence and gusts made it difficult to read the speed tape and fly the plane. After landing on the second attempt; I called Maintenance Control and wrote up the flap overspeed.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew experiences turbulence and strong gusty winds during approach to Runway 16R; resulting in a decision to go-around. During the go-around; flap overspeed occurs; and again while configuring for the subsequent approach.