elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 100 KTS right engine started experiencing compressor stalls. I took the aircraft from the First Officer and rejected the takeoff. The First Officer reported to the Tower that we were aborting the takeoff and we cleared the runway and taxied back to the gate. Maintenance came out and inspected the engine and reported that a number of compressor blades were damaged and the aircraft was taken out of service.


Second narrative: On takeoff roll at around 100 KTS we felt/heard 2 bangs and a loss of thrust on aircraft. Captain made the decision to abort.


Synopsis: MD-83 flight crew reported experiencing compressor stalls in right engine on takeoff roll at approximately 100 KTS. Captain made the decision to reject the takeoff; and after maintenance inspection aircraft was taken out of service.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Approximately X years ago [Company] must have fired the call sign de-confliction team. It has been a nightmare ever since. If I were to file an FSAP every time I have a conflict with a call sign; I would have to file one on every leg. Today on approach control with the call sign of Aircraft X; I was advised there was an Aircraft Y on frequency. We had to follow them all the way in. Then Aircraft Z came on frequency to add to the confusion. Someone is going to get violated or worse. Unfortunately; it's going to take a major incident to fix this. If you don't think this is a problem; just try talking on a conference call with everyone using a number and then make the numbers similar. [Company] Please bring back the old call sign de-confliction team!




Synopsis: A Pilot reported confusion on the frequency due to similar sounding call signs.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 140
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure
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: Engine lost RPM's during flight to ZZZ. Could not maintain altitude. [Notified ATC]. Was in contact with [TRACON]. Landed in a hayfield with no injury and no damage to aircraft.




Synopsis: C140 pilot reported engine losing power and landing off-airport.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a 45 degree entry to the traffic pattern for RWY XX at ZZZ. A Cessna was on downwind around midfield.  As I approached downwind; I didn't see an Arrow on crosswind until we were almost head-to-head at a short distance. His profile from my perspective was head-on and relatively hard to see; and he may have been behind the a-pillar of my windshield.  I don't believe he made a radio call for takeoff from ZZZ.Factors were:1) Distraction by the need of maintaining distance from the Cessna in front.2) Inconspicuous profile; possible obstruction by my airplane; and background clutter made him hard to see.Solution:Keep head on swivel in pattern.  Possibly check ads-b display for at least a count of traffic in the air near the airport.




Synopsis: M20J pilot reported that while making a 45-degree entry to the downwind leg in traffic pattern; a near midair collision occurred with a departing aircraft in the crosswind leg which had not announced its takeoff.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HYI.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HYI
ATC / advisory: Tower HYI
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was #3 to land Runway 26. There was a runway change; and I had departed Runway 17 and was told to enter left downwind Runway 26. I had a shortened downwind due to switching runway and while on downwind I saw a plane on very short final and another about 2 mile final for Runway 26. I did not see the relevant #2 traffic; the Cessna 172 that I cut in front of. I never saw the Cessna 172 due to the angle of approach and the low wing / nacelles of my aircraft. I was focused on spacing my aircraft on what I thought was #2 traffic; now #1 to land and my spacing put me directly over the relevant #2 traffic; the Cessna 172.I never saw the near miss; my miss distance estimate is from him. He told me that I rolled out on final for 26 from above and in front of him 500 feet.A contributing factor was cockpit workload getting the 310 configured for landing. The gear was up and I dropped it late on base (normally I drop gear at the downwind; but I was still climbing in downwind on this landing.) I was heads down for a few critical seconds that I might have caught the traffic while on base leg.I continued the landing on Runway 26 as directed; and the Cessna 172 was told to go-around. I was on speed at 105 mph when the incident occurred; so I was overtaking the C172.




Synopsis: C310 pilot reported a NMAC in the traffic pattern.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After taking off and passing roughly 10K in the climb; the FA called up to inform us that we had fuel coming out of the right wing. Deadheading crew members and passengers noticed it. Also; when we were handed off to Center in the climb out; we were informed that airport operations had been notified that our aircraft was observed by someone on the ground that said they saw what looked like smoke coming from the aircraft after takeoff. They had called Center and told them to tell us. The 'smoke' must have been the fuel leaking from the right wing. We were probably not more than 50 miles from [departure airport] at this point. We made the decision to air return back to the airport. I was PF and talked to ATC while the FO (PM) handled all the landing preparations; and sent messages to Dispatch and MX to make them aware of our return. We noticed that we would be about 2000 lbs over landing weight; we informed Approach. We held for approximately 20 minutes at the outer maker for the ILS to burn enough gas to be under the max landing weight. I don't feel that we as a crew made any errors. We communicated our plans and were on the same page as far as an air return; getting the aircraft ready to land and make all preparations to do so. The threats could have been a relatively high workload situation initially when being turned around to [the departure airport] and making all the preparations and contacting company about our situation. Which was managed appropriately.




Synopsis: EMB-145XR Captain returned to the departure airport after a fuel leak was reportedly observed by passengers and airport ground personnel.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I had flight following from ATC for the entire flight. As I approached I went into the Class B airspace before getting a clearance to do so. I should have asked if I was cleared into the Class B.A few days before when flying I asked the controller if I was going to be cleared into the Class B. He said he was arranging the hand off to the Class B controller. So I expected the clearance to be given on this flight.A few miles into the Class B a controller asked me if I had received a clearance. I replied 'No; I'm waiting for one.' They immediately issued the clearance. No harm done but next time I will ask a few miles before crossing the boundary.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports a Class B airspace incursion event.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Equipment / Tooling; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The national weather service (NWS) and in turn the Enroute Automation Modernization PVD radar reflects an area of extreme weather in the northwest section of Area 4; sectors 35/75/80/99.  I solicited 15 PIREPS and all aircraft reported 'There's not a cloud in the sky.'  I informed the FLM and she told the SOC (System Operations Center) and the watch desk.  The NWS says its Doppler effect from the Wind Farm near Brookston and Chalmers; Indiana; spreading over portions of White; Jasper; and Benton Counties in Indiana.  The wind farm currently has four operational phases; with 303 turbines.  There are tentative plans to develop additional phases of the Wind Farm.  The farm will expand and may cause even further interference.Immediately cease all further development of said wind farm until the problem can be assessed.

Callback: Reporter stated this happens a couple times a week; usually when there is a low cloud layer from approximately 0600-11:00; and stops when the sun is out and the ground heats up. Weather is displayed on ERAM which completely blanks out a 100 by 60 mile area west of Lafayette and North of Springfield Illinois; covering over 500 acres.NWS also sees this as a red color on their displays. NWS told them it is a Doppler effect from the wind farm. Currently the farm is running at phase 4 out of 8 and are building more every day to reach level 8.



Synopsis: A ZID Controller reported a wind farm that is giving a weather presentation on Enroute Automation Modernization at the center. The display was showing weather over an area of about 100 by 60 miles. NWS was also getting the display on their equipment. Controller's aircraft data tags are not highly visible when in the area.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During single engine training; my student and I shutdown the right engine for practice. When we attempted to restart; the engine failed to respond. We tried the starter and increasing airspeed. Neither worked. We decided to declare an emergency and land back at base. After receiving vectors and descending; we made a fourth attempt at restarting. This time it worked and the engine seemed to be operating normally. So we canceled the emergency and landed with no further incident.




Synopsis: PA44 instructor pilot reports shutting down the right engine at 5;500 feet for training then being unable to restart it after three tries. An emergency is declared but during descent a fourth attempt to restart is successful and the emergency is canceled.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When I came back to the airport for landing; I was cleared to land on 4L. [This airport] has two parallel runways 4L-22R and 4R-22L. On left base for 4L; Tower advised me that 'We wanna prior departure to your arrival'; but I couldn't hear it so asked Tower to 'say again'. Tower advised me once again; but still I couldn't understand. I'd like to try to confirm again; but couldn't because ATC was busy. I thought that Tower gave me the traffic information so I started searching. While I was searching the traffic; I lost situational awareness and delayed to start turning to final; so I lined up with wrong runway; 4R. At the same time; I mistakenly assume that the runway in front of me was the runway given a clearance to land and continued. As a result; a very near miss with a King Air on final for 4R. Tower called for immediate correction and instructed go-around and I followed it and returned to the pattern for 4L and landed.I thought that there are mainly two reasons why this event happens.1. I concentrated on searching traffic excessively because I got scared that I couldn't hear the advisory that Tower gave me. I wrongly prioritized what I should have done.2. Although I read back the clearance '4L cleared to land'; I was convinced that Tower gave me the clearance for 4R somewhere in my mind because my parking spot is near Runway 4R.To prevent a recurrence; it is important for me to correctly prioritize what I have to do and be convinced and always confirm carefully. In this case; I should have turned to final instead of concentrat[ing] on searching [for] traffic and I should have identified and confirmed the runway more carefully.




Synopsis: A student pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision while attempting to confirm ATC instructions which led to lining up for the incorrect parallel runway.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Slow flare in gusty crosswind conditions with a heavy aircraft. Vapp was 160 kts. Aircraft touched down firmly and bounced. I took control of the aircraft and executed a go-around. This reaction was swift and decisive thanks to my runway safety training. The maneuver was easier in the jet than in the simulator. Credit to Tower for immediately recognizing the go-around in progress and issuing runway heading and 3000 feet. The approach was stable and the aircraft was in proper position to land except in the last 30 feet. The slow flare was OK until the pilot flying stopped the flare. At that point in time it was going to be counter productive to call for more flare. Too late. As I said; the touchdown was firm. It was the bounce that was the critical event causing the escape maneuver/go-around.Pilot flying was under 100 hours. He had been doing no real flying during military duty for many years while flying drones. It was a challenging set of conditions considering the high landing weight; fast approach speed; and a gusty crosswind. 240/13G18 on 18L[The company may want to] consider the lack of real experience when doing IOE when returning this type of individual to line flying. More IOE would have been beneficial to this person and others like him.




Synopsis: When a low in type First Officer failed to flare adequately and bounced a challenging landing the Captain took control and executed a rejected landing.  A contributing factor was the lack or recent experience for the First Officer who had been piloting drones for the past several years.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the descent checklist; I mistakenly thought I had set the landing data. Once we were cleared for the approach I realized this was not the case. To make sure we had the data; I sent for the numbers which came back in time. My First Officer and I were distracted by this. The 1;000 feet callout was made by my FO (First Officer) as I finished setting the landing bug speeds and my FO responded to the call with the appropriate response. Shortly thereafter we received the GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) warning 'too low; flaps.' I then called for a go-around. My FO executed the go-around; we contacted ATC. Came back and landed uneventfully. I then contacted Maintenance to inform them of the go-around.I allowed myself to be distracted by bugging the landing speeds and the departing traffic ahead of us. This oversight led to a compressed workload on short final which distracted both my FO and I.We discussed the event after landing and what we had learned from it. I was disappointed that the error made it by both of us as long as it did. But we discussed the importance of verifying checklist items such as landing data in the descent checklist and more and how that oversight led to this error. I believe this was a good learning opportunity for both my FO and myself.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported an unstable approach and go-around resulting from other errors in the cockpit.