elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
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: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A high-speed rejected takeoff occurred due to a red ENGINE FAIL alert.  The reject was made around 145kts with a V1 speed of approximately 157kts.  Planned takeoff weight was 564;000 lbs. The ENGINE FAIL light flickered several times before the reject was executed with no other indications or alerts.   Once clear of the runway; the Captain called for the REJECTED TAKEOFF QRH procedure and then coordinated our return to the gate.   Soon after clearing the runway; a Level 2 BRAKE OVERHEAT occurred.  The Captain called for the QRH and complied with the procedure.  The brake temperature peaked at approximately 599 degrees C.  During the taxi back in; a vibration was felt when taxi power was applied with an engine #1 compressor EVM (Engine Vibration Monitor) amber indication of 5.0.  As more power was applied; the worse the vibration was felt.  The Captain then decided to secure the #1 engine and continue the taxi.  At block in; maintenance was briefed of the incident. They inspected the #1 engine and found the rear portion of the turbine compressor destroyed. Maintenance then coordinated a FOD check of the runway given the amount of damage.  There was evidence of damage to the #5 main tire that was possibly caused by the high-speed rejected takeoff. Among the three of us; none had ever experienced a real-life engine failure this close to V1. Given the fact of not having any noticeable yaw or banging sounds; the only evidence of an engine fail was the flickering red ENGINE FAIL light on the glare shield.  The event proved to be quite different from the V1 cut exercise experienced in training.


Second narrative: At 145 knots; red Engine Fail light flickered on then off. At that point in the takeoff prior to V1; I made the decision to reject the takeoff. Stopped well before the end of runway. The aircraft weighed about 570;000 during takeoff and we had a stop margin of around 1600 ft.


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported a high speed rejected takeoff due to an engine fail alert light.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While enroute [the] PICs PFD; MFD; TCAS; Autopilot; yaw damper; ground Prox; and FMS failed. Crew ran checklist for an IAC [Integrated Avionics Computer] failure; and [the recovery] of instruments [was] successful. With no autopilot; yaw damper; flight director and FMS available; and with the lack of knowledge of why the IAC would fail; crew declared an emergency and requested vectors to...the nearest suitable airport with VFR conditions while most of the region was covered with thick clouds; low ceilings and rain. Descent; approach; landing and roll out were executed with no further issues.




Synopsis: When multiple avionics and instrument displays failed the flight crew of a C560XL declared an emergency and ATC provided vectors and assistance to a safe landing at the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp PHL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had just pushed off of [the] gate in PHL and were completing the After Start Checklist. The nose of the aircraft was still facing the gate (west) when I noticed a company aircraft making its way around the corner of the north side of the ramp turning southbound and headed toward us. Once we were ready to taxi I called for taxi instructions. Ramp didn't mention anything about the traffic behind us and I did not find that to be out of the ordinary. I assumed the aircraft was going to give way to us since our tail was partly blocking their path. As we made the left hand turn toward my Captain upgrade having a better view first noticed that the oncoming aircraft was not giving way to us. He immediately stopped the aircraft and we watched as [the other aircraft] came dangerously close to us. I made a call to the aircraft over the ramp frequency however they did not hear as they had already switched over to ground frequency.Poor judgment on the part of [the other flight crew] to continue taxiing with a moving aircraft in front of them; that was clearly taxiing out and not parking at the gate. I personally spoke with the Captain of that flight and he said he knew we were taxiing out but assumed we were just turning the airplane. Even if this were the case there would not have been a sufficient margin of space between the aircraft. He also admitted that he didn't know we'd been given taxi instructions from ramp meaning they switched to ground frequency far too early; losing situation awareness to the movement of other aircraft on the ramp.[The other flight crew] claims that ramp didn't tell them about us however I don't find that to be the problem. Seeing us in front of them [they] should have given way and not pushed through next to a moving aircraft. They had full view of us however we had no view of them until the last minute. Ramp could have paid a little more attention as well to tell the other aircraft to give way; or held our taxi instructions until they'd passed.




Synopsis: Medium Transport Captain reported a near collision on the ramp at PHL.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wingtip
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other on landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Student reported: 'At about 8 miles out I got the ASOS and it reported winds 050 at 7 so I set up for a 45 degree downwind for Runway 09 however once I got closer and tuned to the Unicom the pilots in the area were reporting shifty and gusty winds and that 09 was the best for landing at that point on approach everything seemed normal. Then at 5 feet above the ground I got a sharp crosswind gust of at least 15 knots which caused the right wing to strike the runway while trying to save the plane from flipping the prop struck the ground.'Right plastic wing tip broken. Prop on both sides bent.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 instructor reported that during landing the student encountered a sharp crosswind causing damage to the wingtip and propeller.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Level at FL340 on the RNAV arrival 15 miles from the ZZZZZ fix with a steady power setting; we felt a shudder and instinctively looked at the engine parameters. The Number 1 engine was about 2% below the Number 2 engine and increasing to match it. The EGTs were within normal tolerance and all other engine indications were within the normal range. We were unable to isolate the exact cause of the unusual vibration. The APU was started as a precaution. Descending through 7;000 MSL the aircraft began to vibrate. We were still unable to isolate the source of the vibration. [ATC was notified] and we requested RWY XXR. As we leveled at 6;000 MSL the vibration increased and we were able to confirm the source of the vibration was the Number 1 engine and that it was compressor stalling. The power to the engine was reduced to idle; the engine was operating without compressor stalling; and the vibration ceased. The engine was left in idle power for the approach. After landing the engine was shut down; the aircraft was inspected by the emergency response team; and we taxied to the gate.As a footnote: The [ARFF; Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting] team was not able to immediately come on to the runway. When I asked them for the inspection of the left engine they were still holding short of the runway and needed to get permission from tower before coming to inspect the aircraft.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported high engine vibrations during descent.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FA44.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZMA
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Local training flight departing home airport of Willis Gliderport (FA44). After takeoff from Runway 9 climbing through about 600 feet Instructor noticed traffic on ADSB display which appeared to be directly on top of our aircraft. Zoomed in the display and found traffic about 300 feet above and just to the right of us. Had student lift right wing and gained visual of a Cessna 172 inside of half a mile and just above us. Turned right 90 degrees to go below and behind traffic which appeared to be enroute to LNA at 1;000 feet MSL. We were transmitting position calls on home field UNICOM. Traffic went through our pattern at pattern altitude and was not transmitting or monitoring Willis Unicom. This report is submitted to highlight a recurring risk of mid-air collision over FA44 which I have repeatedly encountered in the last several months due to training aircraft from LNA transiting to or from training areas to our west. These aircraft typically fly through the Willis pattern at 1000 MSL and frequently can be reached still monitoring 122.7 which is the Lantana UNICOM frequency. I've spoke with instructors from Lantana who admitted that they use Willis as a waypoint to avoid antennas just to the north but disregard the hazard of aircraft in the pattern at Willis. At a minimum the flight schools at Lantana need to either utilize Willis UNICOM when transiting or offset north or south to avoid the pattern. As a further indicator of the danger; we had another aircraft fly through the pattern as we returned to land less than an hour after the first occurrence noted above. This aircraft flew west to east directly over the runway at 1;000 MSL again not talking on UNICOM as we were entering the pattern to land.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported an NMAC while in the traffic pattern at FA44 with an aircraft transiting through the pattern. Instructor noted that traffic from a nearby airport frequently transit through FA44 traffic pattern posing a recurring risk of mid-air collision.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVP.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D AVP
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the downwind leg for runway 22 in AVP; the First Officer (FO) reported the field in sight and ATC cleared us for the visual approach. ATC advised us of the ridgeline that parallels the downwind leg. I selected 2800 ft and we began a gradual descent from 4000 ft while maintaining visual separation from the terrain and towers. We delayed our base turn to align the aircraft with a valley in the ridge outside of the FAF. On base; at approximately 3100 ft; we received an aural terrain warning. I executed an escape maneuver and climbed to 3700 ft. The warning subsided and we continued the approach hand flown to a normal landing.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported on visual approach to Runway 22 at AVP they received a terrain warning while turning a left base.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Glider operations were in effect and announced over frequency that aircraft were moving onto the runway for a glider tow. I was an Observer Pilot in the Cessna 152 and helping out with the radio communication. Both the glider (bright yellow in color); and tow plane were on the runway when a Cessna Citation announced a 5 mile straight in final. I again announced that glider operations were in progress and aircraft on the runway. No response came from the Citation. The Citation then announced a one mile final and we again announced aircraft on the runway. Again; no response from the Citation. When the Citation was about 50 feet above the runway; our safety/ground officer told the Citation to go-around and the Citation finally acknowledged and announced a go-around. The Citation overflow the centerline of the runway and went over the tow plane; glider and ground personnel at about 50 feet. No offset was flown by the Citation. All of the radios used by all glider; tow ship and ground personnel were operational and functioning and checked prior to taking the runway for glider operations.




Synopsis: Cessna 152 observing pilot reported a Cessna Citation performed a go-around to avoid the aircraft on the runway.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Four times in the last month or so; I have had issues with VNAV performance across all fleet models when altimeter settings are relatively high (30.30 plus); even with proper forecast programming. The crossing restriction on our arrival is 17;000 feet and with high altimeter settings; VNAV PATH will not stay engaged and reversion to MCP Level Automation is necessary to comply with the charted restriction. The decoupling of VNAV PATH often occurs right at the transition level; leaving very little time for Pilot intervention to even be successful. (This time the local altimeter was near 30.60 leaving 700! feet to make up. Luckily; since I was looking out for this issue; I was able to get involved about 10 miles from the fix.) As I said; I have seen this fleet wide and believe a limitation of our VNAV software is to blame. I submit this report for general awareness.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported that while descending with very high altimeter settings of 30.30 plus; the FMC VNAV PATH reverts to VNAV SPD at the transition altitude requiring pilot intervention to comply with altitude constraints.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EIDW.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon the arrival at the gate at Dublin; Ireland airport we were met by three Irish Aviation Authority personnel. Their stated purpose was to conduct a safety inspection of the aircraft. As the Captain I assisted by providing the inspectors the pilot licenses and medicals of the flight crew and access to all the aircraft documents to validate our airworthiness. All documentation was found to be in order such as our Airworthiness Certificates; Operational Specifications; Jeppesen publications and aircraft logbook. What the inspectors did find to be unsafe were loose heavy objects in the cabin. Specifically numerous large carry on bags that belong to the PSR's; which they had stowed behind their seats at row 39L. In addition there were numerous loose cases of energy drinks stowed aft of row 40R; which were brought aboard by the customer. I assured the inspectors that these issues would be remedied before the next flight and I documented the discrepancy in the aircraft logbook. The inspectors documented these discrepancies on a SAFA Proof of Evidence of Inspection form which they had me sign and was given a copy. I believe this to be a fleet wide issue. We need to provide our cabin crews with additional training on safe item storage and greater access to overhead bin space so we may stow extra items in a safe manner.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reports being inspected by the Irish Aviation Authority upon arrival in EIDW and informed that all paperwork is in order but that some heavy items in the rear of the aircraft are not properly tied down or stowed in a compartment.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
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 Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While level at 7;000 MSL; and without any prior warning the right engine fire warning system activated. The memory items were called for and the right engine was shut down IAW the QRH. No airframe vibrations or abnormal engine indications were noted. An emergency was declared with ATC and the number one Flight Attendant briefed. An emergency landing was made IAW the QRH. Landing weight was approximately 192;000 LBS and a normal touchdown; with a low sink rate was accomplished. Approximate single engine flying time was seven to eight minutes. After clearing the runway a PA was made to advise the passengers to remain seated; and ARFF was requested to inspect the aircraft for hot spots or evidence of fire. None was found. ARFF was requested to follow the aircraft to the gate; as a precaution. A normal single engine taxi was used to taxi to the gate.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: Upon receipt of a fire warning in the right engine the B757-200 flight crew performed immediate action items; shut down the engine per the QRH; declared an emergency with ATC; briefed the flight attendants and returned to their departure airport for a safe landing; a CFR inspection and a taxi back to the gate.