elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arriving the previous night; crew had unsuccessfully tried to obtain a hangar for the night. Upon arrival at the airport the next morning; crew observed that the engine inlets had snow in them. Crew elected to ensure that the engine fan blades were not frozen into place from the snow that had accumulated over night. Upon startup; the right engine fan blades started without incident. The left engine fan blades did not spool up and we discontinued the startup. Crew called the Acting Chief Pilot to keep operations informed on our progress; and that we were looking to get the airplane into the hangar. ACP indicated that he has had success with other crews with throwing a bucket of warm water into the engine and starting it right away; freeing up the blades; and blowing residual water out of the back of the engine. I indicated that I was not comfortable climbing up on a snow and ice covered wing. Although not discussed; I am unaware that this is an approved procedure with the manufacturer. I also feel like I was being pressured to do such a procedure to get the trip completed.If such a procedure is approved by the manufacturer; it would be beneficial for the company to distribute such information. It [would have been an] unsafe operation to climb onto the wing with snow and ice on it.




Synopsis: The Captain of a CE-750 refused his assigned aircraft when the left engine fan blades; frozen in place after an outdoor overnight; wouldn't turn during start. He subsequently also refused to attempt a start technique advocated by a Chief Pilot but for which there was no approved documentation approving or describing the associated methodology.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X (a CRJ); a Runway 26L departure; advised that he was deviating left of course for wake turbulence. This conflicted with Aircraft Y (a B717); a Runway 27R departure. I told Aircraft X unable left deviation due to traffic and approved a deviation right of course. I informed Aircraft X that he was 6 miles behind a B757. Aircraft X stated he wanted to try to get out of the wake turbulence and said he got a 90 degree roll. I issued a 3-1-0 heading to Aircraft X to ensure separation with Aircraft Y and provide diverging course from the wake turbulence from Aircraft Z (the 757). The pilot of Aircraft Z inquired on the frequency if that wake turbulence was from him and wanted to verify the 90 degree aspect also. I alerted the Watch Supervisor.This may be connected with RECAT; however without analyzing the data; I am not sure that wake turbulence separation wasn't even provided under the old standard.




Synopsis: Support Specialist at A80 reports of aircraft entering wake turbulence and asking for a vector to the left. Controller cannot issue a left heading due to traffic; and issues a right turn.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after rotation; we noticed a smell that seemed to be electrical in nature. Shortly after the smell [was noticed] and a turn to assigned heading; we noticed a light colored smoke filling the cockpit. Before the turn that allowed sunlight into the cockpit; the smoke was not noticeable. We completed memory items and notified Tower that we would need to land. We were handed off to Departure who started to vector us toward [Runway] XXR for an immediate landing. Once leveling off we noticed that the smoke seemed to dissipate. After speaking with the Flight Attendant; we learned that there was smoke in the cabin as well. After learning this the Captain and I both agreed that we would land overweight. After landing and clearing the runway; Fire and Rescue advised that there was no visible smoke or fire coming from the aircraft. The Flight Attendant said that the passengers were not in need of assistance either. We elected to taxi back to the terminal.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported smoke detected in cockpit and passenger cabin shortly after takeoff resulting in an uneventful return to departure airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Crew departed with hazardous material on board; but our paperwork showed no Hazmat. We received our DG Manifest very early; before any freight was loaded top-side; which we found a little odd; but since it did say there was no Hazmat aboard; I did not think to question it. Enroute to ZZZ1; Operations Control sent ACARS message: '[…] update: agent advising that in 9L there is Hazmat unknown to the crew (toxic; radioactive; & dry ice) 3848 lb Hazmat; but not showing up on the weight and balance...being advised that there is something wrong in the auto DG system.' I do not know how or why this happened.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported Hazmat was loaded prior to departure without crew notification.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sport 19
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to landing; I was cleared to land. On a 2 mile final; I attempted to reduce power and the throttle had no effect. I attempted to adjust mixture; which dropped engine RPMs. I had enabled carb heat during my approach checklist and did not have any large power reduction with it enabled; so I disabled carb heat. I attempted to put in flaps at about 1 mile final; but power was still near full and I was at about 90 knots. I requested a go around from the Tower; which they cleared me for the go around. Near the end of the runway at about 300' AGL; I started losing power and speed dropped quickly. I [requested priority handling] and started my turn for [a different runway; and] informed the Tower of my intentions to land [immediately]. They diverted [another aircraft] that was doing touch and goes. I saw the [other] aircraft about 1/4 down the runway opposite direction start its ascent as I was crossing the numbers. I floated down the runway as I didn't have any flaps and bounced the landing 3 times until I was able to finally land. Upon landing the engine stopped completely and I was not able to clear the runway. I pulled the aircraft off the runway. The aircraft had a recent engine overhaul in the last 3 hours of flight.




Synopsis: Beech B19 pilot reported a successful landing following a loss of engine power on approach.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I conducted a flight ending at a private airfield. Prior to the initiation of the flight; I visited the airfield and evaluated the condition of the weather; airport; and its environment as it pertained to the safety of flight. I immediately returned to the [originating] airport and relocated a Piper PA-32-300 to the private grass strip approximately 6 miles east. The closest reporting weather was [the originating airport]; where field conditions were reported as 100% wet. Due to its proximity; it was interpolated that the conditions of the private field; which had no weather reporting station; would have comparable runway conditions. The landing distance available at the airstrip was greater than the landing distance required for the flight given the aircraft weight and conditions. I made a normal approach to landing. After touchdown; I used appropriate braking procedures. The aircraft did not respond as expected and subsequently overran the end of the runway.




Synopsis: PA-32 pilot reported a runway excursion during landing at a private airport.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While operating a reposition flight to ZZZ an unstable approach and EGPWS sink rate event occurred. We were cleared for the visual approach for runway 14. As we were approaching from the south on a right base the captain said he was going to execute a close in approach and flaps 22 landing. We were inside the final approach fix when we intercepted the final approach course. The captain continued the approach as we were configured by 1000 feet AGL. I made the 1000 feet call and I received no stable call from the captain. He continued the approach and we turned final at about 500 feet. We were above the normal glide path to the runway. The EGPWS sink rate sounded 2 times as the captain descended and we also got the 'pull up' message. We touched down in the touchdown zone and landed about 15-20 knots fast. No damage or any other event took place. After we taxied off the runway I felt uncomfortable with that approach and landing. I know that I should have been more questionable to the captain on continuing the approach. While I was the pilot monitoring I followed company procedures up until the 1000 feet call. I should have made a go around call to the captain.The threat was that we were slightly high and close in to the runway. This caused the captain to become unstable toward the end of the visual approach. The errors by me were that I did not make the Go Around call to the captain since we were unstable. The errors by captain were to continue the approach even though it was in the procedures to make a go around in this case. The undesired aircraft states were unstable approach and EGPWS event.In the future as a First Officer and Pilot Monitoring I will be more assertive in the event that I am not comfortable with the state of the aircraft or any other threat to safety. Also I will be more assertive even though it is a ferry flight and there are no passengers on the plane.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported the Captain flew an unstabilized approach that featured EGPWS alerts for 'sink rate' and 'pull up' that were ignored by the Captain who continued the approach and landing.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tower called Approach and asked for an opposite direction release on Air Carrier X departing Runway 4 on the Nevue1 Departure. I advised Tower released and Tower read back 'released; runway heading.' The SOP dictates all opposite direction releases will be issued runway heading unless the departure will not be in conflict with arrivals to other runways. Air Carrier Y was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 26 and was on Tower frequency. Air Carrier X departure roll was indicated by the strip dropped from the Tower and the strip marking indicated runway heading. When Air Carrier X 'tagged up' and contacted radar it was observed Air Carrier X was not flying runway heading but instead was flying the Nevue1 Departure; at which time I turned Air Carrier X left to heading 040 and issued traffic on Air Carrier Y. After the conflict had been resolved and Air Carrier X was turned away from Air Carrier Y and out climbed the CRJ; Air Carrier X was turned direct NEVUE and advised to resume the departure. Air Carrier X was asked after traffic was no factor if they had been issued runway heading and if they were aware of the aircraft on final for Runway 26 and the pilot advised that he was not aware of the aircraft and was not given runway heading. Tower advised they were maintaining visual separation as they had Air Carrier Y on frequency. Departing traffic should have their clearances amended to take them off of departures that are in conflict with arriving traffic to other runways prior to the departures taking the runway.




Synopsis: ELP Approach Controller describes a conflict between a B737 departing Runway 4 and a CRJ200 landing Runway 26L. The B737 should have been advised of the traffic and given runway heading; but was not; and turned into the traffic on the previously assigned SID.
Date: 202105
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was assigned to perform the multiple tasks for aircraft return to service after extended parking. During accomplishment of the tasks had to open the engine cowls and more specifically the thrust reverser cowls. The station currently has hydraulic cowl pumps using XXXX oil. The AMM procedure gives the tool number of a cowl pump which was correct for equipment on hand and also gives the different mil-specs of oil that can be used. The oil from my understanding is consistent with X specifications however the opening actuator for the cowl state on a placard to 'use engine oil'. The engines on that particular airplane are serviced with YYYY oil which also falls under the X specification. There was some confusion about which oil was appropriate to use for this situation since the engines use YYYY oil but cowl pumps on hand had XXXX oil and the  specs were the same for both oils. We ended up taking a XXXX oil cowl pump to the tooling department at ZZZ; draining it; cleaning/flushing it; replacing the filter; relabeling it with YYYY oil and servicing it with that oil for use on the aircraft. There was just some confusion about the proper oil.




Synopsis: Technician reported confusion in reference data during return to service maintenance on B737 MAX stored aircraft.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Received intermittent ATC Fault and right GPS EICAS message when crossing the military range of New Mexico. Notified ATC and complied with QRH. After exiting the military airspace; both messages disappeared and system worked fine.


Second narrative: Apparent GPS jamming near military airspace over New Mexico. Received ATC Fault and right GPS EICAS messages.  Selected radio updating for FMS.  Indications went away after clearing the airspace.  System then worked as designed. No human performance issues present as causal.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported possible GPS jamming over New Mexico and near military airspace. After leaving the area the GPS returned to normal operation.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Landing aircraft was clearing [the runway]. We were holding in position and subsequently cleared for takeoff as the landing aircraft was clearing. Landing aircraft failed to clear the hold short line before stopping after exiting. The aircraft was clear of the white runway edge lines. At more than 100 kts we recognized the possibility of a runway incursion. Per standard brief; it was prudent and SAFE to continue since we were above 80 kts in the high speed reject phase of takeoff. We rotated about 1000 ft prior to the intersection.




Synopsis: ERJ-190 First Officer reported continuing takeoff during a potential runway incursion event.