elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We rejected our takeoff at approximately 120 knots after an uncommanded nose up pitch at 115 knots. Our bugged Vr speed was approximately 143 knots. I was the pilot flying and when the nose started to pitch up uncommanded; I felt the aircraft was not in a normal flight configuration; being approximately 30 knots below Vr and initiated the reject. The Captain took control of the aircraft as we rejected straight ahead. At a safe taxi speed; we exited the runway while I made the 'Remain seated' call. Once we came to a stop on the parallel taxiway; we ran the Rejected Takeoff checklist. We then referenced the Rejected T/O (Take-off) Brake Cooling chart in the QRH and determined we had a brake cooling time of approximately 57 minutes with the taxi in. We elected to return to the gate and coordinated as such with Operations and Maintenance. It was during this time that we noticed the T/O trim setting was in a nose up trim configuration that was near the limit of the green band. We had run the Before Take-Off checklist and had not caught that incorrect setting; and since it was still within the takeoff band did not get a takeoff configuration warning when tested as part of the Before Take-Off checklist. Upon return to the gate; we wrote up the rejected takeoff and discussed the event with maintenance personnel. The Captain kept the passengers informed of the situation and also contacted the [Chief Pilot]. One side note; when we began our take off roll we did get a Speed Brake Lever Do Not Arm light. However; it went out and we deemed it spurious. All other operations up to that point had been normal.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff at approximately 120 kts when the aircraft began to pitch up. It was later determined the stab trim was incorrectly set to an excessive nose up setting.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After [we] took off from ZZZ RWY XX; positive rate was checked; the plane was airborne; and the First Officer called positive rate; and I answered landing gear up. He tried to move the landing gear lever to 'up' position and he couldn't do; then we got a squat and stall ident lights. We proceeded as per abnormal procedure check list and requested to fly back to the airport and made a safe landing.


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


Synopsis: Hawker 800 flight crew reported landing gear would not retract after takeoff.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Routine Inspection; In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight had just finished boarding. I did my PAX count and handed it to the pilots; just as I was about to head back to the rear of the plane the gate agent stopped me. He then handed me two; what looked like boarding passes and said that I needed to upgrade YYD to ZZD; as she was next on the upgrade list; and also pointed out that the other paper was an interrupted travel itinerary for PAX XXD. He then told me that the PAX in XXD may have had a bit too much to drink earlier so keep an eye on him. I asked the agent if he was going to be an issue and he said that he should be fine but wanted to give us a heads up just in case. I then upgraded the PAX in YYD to ZZD and checked on the PAX in XXD and he appeared to be fine. I had no issue with him and he did not cause a scene or anything else. I then went back the aft galley and called the FA-A and told them to make the CA aware of the situation of the PAX in XXD; but to also let him know that there were no problems and we felt fine taking him with us on the flight. The PAX slept for most of the flight and did not want any snack or beverage during flight. Once we landed the PAX in XXC told FA-A as he was deplaning that the PAX in XXD had urinated in the seat during landing and was wiping the seat down as he left. FA-A told the CA and the CA called for hazmat to come clean the seat. When cleaning/doing seatbelts both I and the other FA did not touch seats XXC/D and also warned the incoming crew.My main concern is not the possibly intoxicated PAX as he was fine there were no issues at all. I'm mainly concerned about how the gate agent handled this situation. He never made the crew or CA aware of this PAX until just before shutting the main cabin door. We as a crew never had a chance to discuss the situation until it was thrown at us right as the Main Cabin Door (MCD) was being closed. These type of situations should be brought to our attention as soon as possible. Again I want to say my main concern is with the gate agent not handling this situation properly.




Synopsis: EMB175 Flight Attendant reported being informed by the Customer Service Representative as the main cabin door is closed; that a passenger they boarded is intoxicated but shouldn't pose a problem. He did not; but the passenger seated next to the possibly intoxicated passenger informed the Flight Attendant during deplaning that the possible intoxicated passenger urinated in his seat during landing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a position leg all was well; we were issued a visual approach and then a clearance to land. While completely configured and below 1;000 FT MSL (estimated 600 FT AGL) with power at approximately 60 percent; I noticed the ITT climbing and going red. I informed the NFP. Very shortly afterwards we felt the aircraft shake and yaw hard to the right. I executed the memory items for engine failure on approach and landed without [further difficulty]. When landing was assured I had secured the right engine into the cut-off position. I then informed Dispatch and Maintenance. No emergency was declared as time did not permit.




Synopsis: LR-45 Captain experiences an ITT exceedance on short final and lands safely after securing the engine with the landing assured.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Potable Water Storage; control; indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Water in aft galley had a dark yellow green color. The smell was so bad burnt nose when smelling. The color and smell was that of anti-freeze/ deicing fluid or transmission fluid. This is very disturbing since this is the water that we served to passengers with coffee/tea. I consumed three cups of coffee and have stomach issues all week. I'm still waiting for a description of what was in this water.The planes water tank should be tested immediately and whomever was in charge of filling this tank should be accountable. I have never smelled anything so toxic as what came out of the water spout. The water that was left on the front galley by our crew should have been tested immediately. Please provide a detailed report of what was found in this tainted water; why and how it managed to get into the water tanks.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported the water in the aft galley was contaminated; had a dark yellow green color and smelled like anti-freeze/deicing fluid.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PNS.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PNS
ATC / advisory: Tower PNS
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Primary runway in use was Runway 8. We (C-172 in closed traffic) were cleared for low approach #2 following air carrier on straight in approach/landing on Runway 8. An air carrier had been cleared for landing several miles north of the airport on Runway 17. At least 3 Skyhawks were in close traffic for Runway 8 and 2 air carriers were holding short Runway 17. During our approach to Runway 8 and near/past the threshold the air carrier executed a go around Runway 17 and we executed steep left climbing turn following Tower instructions in order to not overfly Runway 17 and avoid the Air Carrier. Wind 100/9.Sequential landing and approaches on intersecting runways by aircraft with differing performance and visibility characteristics (air carrier vs. high wing Cessna with limited side-upward see and avoid during low approach) should be considered ONLY if adequate separation can be assured and if traffic density in the primary runway closed VFR pattern is light. That was not the case in this circumstance and the air carrier should have been vectored to Runway 8 or we should not have been cleared for low approach to Runway 8 until after the Air Carrier had landed.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor with student is cleared for a low approach only while an air carrier is cleared to land on the intersecting runway. The air carrier elects to go around resulting in an airborne conflict at the runway intersection with the C172 taking evasive action.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I departed in IMC on a TEC (Tower Enroute Control) IFR Route. I climbed out through marine layer into clear skies. Got ATIS enroute and it said ILS in use. I reported receipt of the ATIS to TRACON. TRACON said Information Delta now was current so I obtained Delta and notified TRACON. I received a 'vector to final approach course' which I assumed was for the in-use approach; i.e. the ILS. I do not recall ATC using 'VOR Alpha' approach terminology. TRACON switched me to Tower who said airport was IMC and not available for VFR traffic. I responded I was IFR and just had the handoff from TRACON. Tower sent me back to TRACON who had me turn right immediately as a 737 was climbing out. It was in sight in clear visibility and no factor to me; but may have compromised IFR separation requirements. I estimate separation was about 3 miles. After the turn I explained to TRACON I had been expecting vectors to the ILS and he said I had accepted the clearance to the VOR-A in my readback. I do not recall doing this; but do not deny that it could have happened. I immediately apologized; however; in case that indeed did happen. TRACON vectored me to the ILS approach course and asked me to call a phone number once on the ground; which I did immediately after I had shut down the engine. The controller who answered the phone was extremely polite and said they were just reviewing the situation. In retrospect I should have queried TRACON when vectors for the ILS approach didn't look right and he transferred me to Tower 'prematurely'. I was surprised; however; that Tower apparently were not expecting me on any IFR approach; even though I was on an IFR Clearance flying a TEC route to their airport.




Synopsis: BE36 pilot reported not receiving the correct approach clearance from the TRACON.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 90 KIAS the Captain rejected the takeoff due to an EICAS message of L ENG OIL PRESS and the associated L ENG OIL PRESS light. The abort was handled professionally and in accordance with procedures. There was moderate rain at time of the rejected takeoff which occurred on a 12;000 FT runway. We taxied back to the gate after completing all the checklist and procedural items and the aircraft was subsequently grounded by Maintenance.




Synopsis: After the flight crew performed a rejected takeoff due low oil pressure warnings in the left engine the B757-200 was grounded by Maintenance.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CID.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E IOW
ATC / advisory: CTAF IOW; TRACON CID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Cab Radar controller also the Controller In Charge. Aircraft X called for their IFR departure. I issued the IFR clearance with 'Hold For Release' due to an IFR inbound on RNAV Runway 25. The aircraft acknowledged. The aircraft inbound was a PC-12; the PC-12 cancelled IFR at 4-mile final Runway 25. I then called for Aircraft X with a release for departure with clearance void in 15 minutes. I also informed Aircraft X there is traffic 4-mile final Runway 25. Aircraft X said copy; I'm departing now Runway 07. Both aircraft were on advisory frequency. Aircraft X made a couple of calls on my frequency eventually stating he had to abort takeoff due to an aircraft in front of him. His voice had a tone of anger and asked why I cleared him for departure with an aircraft in front of him. I immediately asked if he was off the runway (safe before any explanation since it appears he did not know uncontrolled airport rules). He said he was off the runway and again asked why. I briefly told him it is an uncontrolled airport and I only released him but did not clear him for departure and told him I advised of the traffic and any further conversation we should talk on the phone. My phraseology seemed to be correct and it appears the pilot may not know the rules of IFR operations at uncontrolled airports. To prevent this from happening again; a conversation with the pilot should take place to see where the miscommunication took place.




Synopsis: A Tower Radar Controller reported an IFR aircraft departing a non towered satellite airport rejected its takeoff due to an opposite direction arriving aircraft.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after engine start; we noticed an odd smell in the cockpit. We finished our checklist and began taxiing and the smell became stronger. Shortly after; one of our jump seaters came forward and said they had smoke in the supernumerary area. Then we started to visually see the smoke in the cockpit with a very strong odor. I selected off the galley power shed switch (with no apparent result in decreasing the smoke) and we received a clearance to taxi back to the gate and asked for assistance. The fire folks at [the airport] responded quickly; the stairs were moved to the airplane after we shut down and we exited the aircraft normally.


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


Synopsis: An A300 returned to their departure gate when the flight crew noticed smoke and odors during initial taxi. No report of findings.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was given a deviation from an IFR flight plan that included landing at an airport; with which I was unfamiliar. The time from the deviation directive to entering the instrument approach was short. My airplane had just undergone the insertion of a new panel with a complete reorganization of placement of the instruments; the insertion of a new/used COM radio; plus a new VAL VOR. Additionally; we had added a new stratus ADS in/out transponder to which we had attached Foreflight. I was trying to use Foreflight for weather information/flight information; IFR maps and approaches. It was difficult for me to fly in moderate to severe turbulence; and strong crosswinds; continue an effective scan; manage new electronics and new placement of instruments and stabilize my approach. Approach control asked me to abort my first approach and on my second approach recommended a diversion to VMC conditions at ZZZ; which I accepted. I continued the flight to ZZZ and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot reported an IFR flight after an avionics upgrade including a new panel with a complete reorganization of placement of equipment. After the second instrument approach; ATC recommended a diversion to a VFR airport which was accomplished.