elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took the runway for departure; set lights for takeoff; brought hands down to the thrust levers and just as I started to move them; 'Ding EICAS MSG RUD SYS 1 INOP' I closed the thrust levers; exited the runway and called Maintenance. We reset the system; operations check [was] good. Then took off for ZZZ.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported rejecting takeoff due it EICAS rudder system 1 inop message.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed [after] following other aircraft in the pattern to runway 01. I observed one aircraft in the pattern for 19 while having lunch and observed this aircraft taxi to parking. I observed another airplane taxi in the direction of the departure end of 19. I made a poor decision to depart as planned on 01. While completing my run up checks I heard a pilot report he was taking runway 19 for departure [6;000 foot runway]. After observing this aircraft depart I called 'Cessna XXXX taking runway 01 for a straight out departure'. There was no reply. Upon entering the runway and beginning takeoff roll I observed another aircraft taking off on 19 towards me. I continued to accelerate; lifted off and immediately maneuvered to my right off the east side of 01. The other pilot executed a similar maneuver to his right; we passed approximately 100 ft AGL separated by little more than the runway width.Someone (I believe an FBO employee on the ground) said on the radio 'That was close gentlemen' I replied that I had made departure call and had observed the only other aircraft that had announced its presence depart prior to entering the runway. Some minutes later a pilot asked for a radio check; he was loud and clear. I asked if he was the second pilot involved which he confirmed and stated he had a radio issue and was not transmitting although he indicated he had received our transmissions. I did not inquire where he was when or if he heard my departure call.I feel both pilots share equal responsibility for this close call. I should have changed my departure plan and followed the flow of traffic. The other pilot should have ensured he was transmitting and responded differently if he did in fact hear my departure call.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a NMAC during takeoff with an aircraft taking off in the opposite direction. Evasive action was taken by both pilots after lift off.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO; Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: This new STAR has a big design problem. The DYAMD 2 STAR altitudes conflict with the RNAV visual approaches which causes:- confusion- extra automation workload for pilots- extra radio communication for ATC & pilots- increased potential for automation errorsThe STAR has ARCHI at 7;000 and CEDES between 12;000 & 10;000But; the FMS Bridge Visual and Quiet Bridge visual have ARCHI at 8;000 (FMS bridge visual also has CEDES at 11;000)As a result when a flight crew tries to build the approach and arrival in the FMS; they have to connect the path and the altitudes are 50% wrong whichever the pilot chooses in the FMS.This leads to more workload for controllers and automatic tactical modification of published routes and it can lead to automation errors.The operational solution is to clear pilots to descend via the DYAMD 2 (with the ARTCC) and later (with approach) to modify the clearance to 'except after CEDES maintain 8;000.'The controller mentioned that they were going to 'fix' this with a NOTAM soon but that leads to more issues:1) NOTAMs that attempt to 'fix' RNAV procedure design problems are themselves a non-conformance factor because they are hard to read; find and remember; and2) A NOTAM does not fix the original problem of the chart design flawI am reading FAA Order 7100.41 Performance Based Navigation Implementation Process to try and figure out why and where in the process this design error was made and if it was intentional or unintentional. Both are bad.Also; the 'DYAMD' name is a poor choice in my opinion because it is hard to read and say. I think it is pronounce 'diamond' but it is difficult for me and I am a native English speaker. How would you pronounce that if you didn't speak English well and did not know that it was called 'diamond'?




Synopsis: A B757 pilot described the design error and conflict between the SFO DYAMD RNAV Arrival 7;000 foot ARCHI constraint below Class B and the FMS BRIDGE Visual and the QUIET BRIDGE Visual 8;000 foot ARCHI constraint.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: MMMX airport. Cleared and flying ILS 2 05R. Everything coming together wonderfully for approach; crossing PLAZA on GS on Loc. Missed approach altitude set flaps 2 gear down. We received a wind shear latest from Tower prior to PLAZA; and change from flaps full to flaps 3 configuration. Switch to Tower and Approach gave us the wrong frequency. At that time I called for flaps 3. As Pilot Flying I was focused on maintaining GS; pitch; and approach speed. And preparing for a wind shear event. I asked for a the FO (First Officer) to adjust me to 143 kts; for V ref; as I was close to the hook. Passing 1;000 ft. I called; stable; we were trying to get the correct Tower frequency and run before landing checklist. At 1;000 ft.; we realized; before landing checklist had 2 blue items. To include flaps not set. We thought maybe the land flaps three button had not been pushed we checked and saw it had. I was still strongly focused on possible wind shear event; and finally at about 400 ft. the FO realized the flap handle and flaps had not been configured to 3.Fatigue for FO. End of a long 3 days; and 0300 wake up. I was mid sequence replacement; for his original Captain. Tower frequency miss assignment at critical spot on challenging approach. Wind shear warning; issued by tower which caused confusion during final stabilization phase. And lack of assertiveness and direction from me the Captain to know and instantly realize the improper checklist verbiage; and how to instantly correct and interpret the ramifications. Checklist and configuration should always be done prior to intercepting final approach course. Way too busy from that spot inbound. Especially when something extraneous like a potential wind shear is forecast.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a 'TOO LOW FLAPS' alert; an unstable approach condition and crew fatigue.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was doing my ETOPS PDC and found forward and aft ELT's with date of next inspection 5 plus months out of date. The people doing inspections on emergency equipment are not doing their job. Have the equipment checked more often and done by people who are more qualified.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported finding two ELT's out of date during a routine inspection.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
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 Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll First Officer called '80 KTS'; [then] around 130-140 KTS he called 'no airspeed'. [I] had normal indications and elected to continue takeoff. At approximately 300 feet AGL [I] lost flight director attitude information. Had no autopilot or auto throttles; [and no] control over FCP. First Officer had no information on his side. Notified ATC; climbed to 5;000 feet MSL on heading vectors and worked QRH checklists for multiple Level 2 alerts. During that process I asked the First Officer to switch to Captain CADC at which time I got all FLT information back [and] was able to get autopilot and auto throttles back. All Level 2 alerts cleared so I had the First Officer build an approach back to [departure airport]. On approach airspeed low end foot appeared unreliable. Made Flaps 35 landing with approximately 165 KTS airspeed; normal landing roll out.


Second narrative: On takeoff roll; airspeed indications only displayed 'Taxi' with digital readout and no ladder/tape or green A/S trend line. At approximately 100 KTS the indications froze and V-Speed cues were no longer displayed. I told the Captain that I had no airspeed indications; he said we were passing V1 and that he had good indications and we continued for an uneventful takeoff. Once airborne; the ladder/tape on my side returned and remained approximately 100 KTS with a red 'zipper.' Neither side had a FD displayed and ALT window on the FCP displayed dashes and we could not dial in an altitude. There were no magenta balls on either the A/S or ALT scales on the displays. The event was during a busy departure window; their vector for troubleshooting was over water with no horizon and we were trying to troubleshoot and coordinate with radar. We eventually got the First Officer CADC on Captain; which restored the Captain's FD; the First Officer's airspeed information and FD. We coordinated for expedited sequence back into [departure airport] arrival flow and the Captain performed an uneventful landing.


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported loss of First Officer air data computer on takeoff roll. Captain continued takeoff since they were near V1; and after selecting the Captain's ADC they returned to departure airport.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other departure climb
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed ZZZ prior to tower opening. Calm wind with fog forming east of the field and no other traffic talking to flight service or VFR common; so I elected to depart Runway XX. While taxiing to the runway a Cessna Caravan called departing Runway X. The Caravan turned downwind to the west and reported us in sight and that he would pass behind us when we departed. We departed Runway XX on the ZZZZZX RNP (Required Navigation Performance) (and announced such on common) departure with the Caravan in sight the entire time. Commencing the turn departing XX it was clear that we would pass behind the Caravan not vice versa. I maintained visual contact and adequate clearance. Climbing through about 1;000' I got a traffic alert followed by a descend RA. There is terrain to the left and below at that point in the departure. Since we never lost visual contact with the traffic and we were at his 6 o'clock position; and therefore there was no maneuver he could make that would cause a collision; I felt that the safest course of action was to increase my rate of turn away on the departure (increasing lateral separation) and continue to climb. We rapidly climbed away and above the traffic and the RA resolved. At no time did the situation meet the criteria for a near midair collision report.In hindsight I realized that the Caravan pilot was probably not familiar with the RNP procedure (nor would he have reason to be) and didn't know I would be turning to the left (south) after takeoff. He probably assumed I would be departing straight out on the Runway X localizer (non RNP procedure) which is why he stayed south of the extended Runway XX centerline instead of crossing over as I expected. Had I thought of this in advance; instead of after the fact; I would have either given him more time to depart or informed him of my RNP procedural turn.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported choosing not to follow TCAS RA alert due to terrain.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on ILS inbound the left engine failed to respond to throttle inputs by the flying pilot.We observed the following readings for the left engine over the next minute or so - *N1 - 22%*EGT - 723 degrees C*N2 - approximately 71-72%We decided to shut down the left engine to prevent further damage to the engine; even though the engine did not exceed any limitations. We were established on the LOC and GS in VFR conditions (last reported ATIS was light winds; 34 degrees C OAT; and QNH 1013). Because of the good weather; and since we were established on the ILS; [we felt there was no] emergency. Subsequent landing and taxi to parking area were uneventful.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information]


Synopsis: B767-300ER flight crew reported precautionary shutdown of left engine that was exhibiting stall conditions.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After nearly 2 hours of flight during the descent to my home airport the engine began to shake violently and had a very loud slap/knock. A reduction of power reduced the noise and vibrations. A power setting of about 1300 RPM or more the engine began to shake so violently that it was a concern in my opinion to the airframe. I decide to divert to a nearby airport because it was closer; had more favorable crosswind; and the terrain was lower. The engine instruments and tachometer were normal the tachometer was not indicating a change in or unstable RPM. After landing I check oil level it was still at 6 quarts during the preflight the oil was at about 6.75-7 quarts. There was no obvious external damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: A PA28-181 Instructor reported a violent; very loud slapping noise during descent with the engine instruments indicating normally so he diverted to a nearby airport for a safe landing.
Date: 201505
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On this arrival and every arrival the ramp procedures require us to preplace the chocks in a location in front of the engines of arriving aircraft. This presents an ingestion hazard for ramp personnel as the aircraft often leaves engines running for minutes after arrival; and requires ramp personnel to traverse the area of ingestion hazard without a sight line of the engines to know whether or not they're running. The previous procedure required placement outside of the operational safety zone near the wingtips of arriving aircraft and aft of the engines of arriving aircraft.




Synopsis: A Ramp Service Employee reported new procedures require chock prepositioning on the ramp in front of the engines which is an ingestion safety hazard for both personnel and chocks when the engines may be left running for minutes after gate arrival.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OMA.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I blocked out flew back to base with the tailstand attached to my [aircraft]. The checklist alone didn't help because I was quite certain that I had removed it! I must have been thinking of one of the previous 18 times that week. I tried to submit a report that night; but I was unable to log in. I then sent [personnel] an immediate e-mail describing the event.After blocking in at the ramp in Omaha; I climbed out of the airplane and that's when I saw the stand still in place. I'm at a loss to see how this happened - oddly enough I felt especially rested so if it was fatigue related; it was awfully insidious. I was also early and was making a point of taking my time! I have dwelled on it and there are a couple of contributing factors; and I do have a couple of ideas for improvement:




Synopsis: Twin turboprop pilot reported leaving the tail-stand on during preflight and flew to destination with it still attached to the aircraft.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAY.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DC-9 10
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C DAY
ATC / advisory: Tower DAY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During visual approach Tower advised us of a low [altitude] warning alert. We climbed back up to get on glide [path]. Normal landing occurred.




Synopsis: A DC-9 Captain reported he was alerted by ATC during a visual approach of a low altitude deviation.