elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Step climbing after departure from ZZZ. Commenced climb from FL230 to FL330. Passing FL250; in climb power; approximately 20 minutes after takeoff; noted 'confirm engine out' MCDU scratchpad message. Scanned instruments and noted all throttles physically matched in climb power position; all throttle carets on climb power position on N1 display; but number 2 engine indications for N1; EGT; and N2 were well below normal. Auto throttles were on; no other engine indications were abnormal; all systems were verified in auto (especially fuel system); fuel pumps showed normal; and no other messages were displayed. Asked ATC to level off FL260. Moved number 2 throttle and received no response. RPM continued to decay and finally received level 2 alert for ENG 2 RPM LO. Followed QRH. Engine 2 did not restart. Followed QRH and shut down engine. Autopilot disconnected and we got 300 feet high while stabilizing aircraft and changing to autopilot 2. ZZZ was nearest suitable airfield; requested a return to ZZZ. Attempted engine restart--no success. No fuel dump needed; messaged [dispatch] regarding situation and intentions; returned to runway 22L CAT 1 engine out autoland. Total engine windmill time approximately 40 minutes. Had fire services inspect number 2 engine. They requested number 3 engine be shut down for inspection; and noted fluid leaking from number two engine. Decided tow in was safest course of action with fire services following us to parking. Because of location of fluid; decided not to start APU; left number 1 engine running; coordinated with duty officer on this plan and he contacted ZZZ ops on our behalf for tow in.


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


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported the number two engine failed in climb; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot flying was landing the aircraft in gusty wind conditions on Runway 26 at ZZZ. The runway was dry and 3000 ft in length. The wind was reported from 250 at 16kts G26kts. The approach was normal and stabilized at 200 feet except for the airspeed which was approximately 5 kts fast as briefed to compensate for the gusty conditions. The aircraft crossed the airport fence at 95-100 kts and touched down at 90-95 kts in the first 1/3 of the runway. After touchdown a wind gust caused the aircraft to become airborne again. A go around was considered but not possible due to the low airspeed and insufficient runway remaining. The aircraft touched back down at the intersection of runway 20 and 30. The aircraft was forced onto the runway and heavy braking was applied. The aircraft came to rest approximately 30 feet beyond the end of the runway. Passengers were calm and no injuries report to the crew. ZZZ Ops was notified and came to assist with passengers. [Company] was also notified by myself while the PF (Pilot Flying) was assisting passengers and Ops personal. After a quick inspection the aircraft; there was no significant airframe damage. The 2 main tires were flat at the left gear door was struck by a runway end identifier light.


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


Synopsis: Aircraft landing with adverse crosswinds exited the runway end on rollout resulting in slight damage.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On a relatively calm and clear day at ZZZ1; I departed southbound toward ZZZ. The takeoff was uneventful; I contacted Approach for flight following. Throughout the climb to 9;500 ft.; there was constant light to moderate turbulence; typical for this segment of flight throughout this area. Upon reaching cruise the severity increased to consistent moderate turbulence; again not abnormal for the route of flight; the aircraft was slowed. I reported the ride conditions to Approach; and they stated that a Cessna 208 had reported similar conditions and opted for lower. The airplane began to experience downdrafts; exceeding over 1000 fpm and airspeed fluctuations of +/- 20 knots. I elected to descend to 7;500 ft. based on the ride conditions reported by the aircraft in front of me. At 7;500 ft. I experienced consistent moderate to severe turbulence; with consistent up and downdrafts; accompanied by fluctuations in airspeed. Occasionally; I nearly hit my head on the ceiling of the airplane. I queried [ATC] and they stated that the aircraft had reported a better ride at 6000 ft.; at that time I descended to 6000 ft. At 6000 ft. the ride was much more manageable; and I was able to make it to ZZZ safely. I made the decision that the airplane did in fact fly through severe conditions and required an inspection. I wrote the airplane up and contacted Maintenance Control. The unstable nature of the valley I was flying over and the absence of weather reporting in the valley make it difficult to gauge the ride conditions. I should have slowed the airplane down; and descended to more manageable flight conditions.A solution would have been flying the airplane above the valley to avoid possible severe turbulence. I talked with my pilot supervisor and he advised that flying at 15;500 ft. over the valley is a viable option. This particular route is very abnormal; with respect to mitigating risk. This is a prime example of how quickly things can change when flying. The more we can do to try to mitigate these risks as a whole; the safer it will become.




Synopsis: Beechcraft 99 pilot reported flying through severe turbulence.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Eagle (F-15)
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had a southbound F15 at 24;000 ft; which was at the floor of my sector. He was in a relatively unusual spot for us; as he crosses 4 departure streams. I put a 5 mile J-Ring on him to keep track of his position; and as the low altitude controller was climbing aircraft to 23;000 ft. and then handing them off to me; I leveled 3 aircraft and called traffic. As I had just taken a handoff on an unknown B737; my D-side asked me about how I was holding up with the lack of pay. We had a quick discussion about it; and how my wife was teaching music lessons in order to offset my salary; which was nowhere near the money we needed. The low altitude sector climbed the B737 to 23;000 ft; and handed him off to me as he was leveling. Distracted from my conversation about my lack of pay; as he checked on; I climbed him to 31;000 ft. The F15 was at his 1 o'clock and 3 miles and 1;000 ft. above him. I didn't get a response. My brain; still on the conversation; didn't recognize the conflict. I didn't get a response from the [B737] pilot. I radioed him again and told him to climb to 31;000 ft. He came back and said; 'Uh; center; there's an airplane right above us.'Embarrassed; I quickly responded; '[Aircraft Y]; maintain FL230… Sorry about that.' I called the traffic; the traffic passed; and I climbed the [Aircraft Y]. This would never happen in normal circumstances. This HAS never happened to me under normal circumstances. I had already previously to this mentally told myself that I wasn't going to let the shutdown distract me; but apparently I'm more susceptible to it than I thought. It's absolutely 100% my fault; a distraction caused me to miss the traffic; that I normally would not have.




Synopsis: ZMA ARTCC Controller reported assigning an aircraft a higher altitude even though there was converging traffic 1;000 feet above them.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Rejected two takeoffs attempts at 80 KTS for cockpit head windshear indication. Successful departure on third attempt. Winds were down the runway at 15 KTS gusting to 25 KTS. Uneventful landing at destination. [We need] better windshear monitoring equipment with ATC.

Callback: The Reporter stated that he believed the windshear warning system was functioning normally and that the alerts were accurate. The crew did raise and then lower the flaps after the second rejected takeoff to reset the system and the third takeoff was successful although conditions were turbulent.



Synopsis: A DC-10 crew rejected two takeoffs for what they believe were valid windshear warnings but were successful on the third attempt.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to descend via [the] arrival. Cruise altitude 12;000 FT. (Suggested by [ATC] as better ride than 14;000 FT due to weather.) Arrival previously modified at gate in accordance with Company recommended VNAV altitudes on descent of 14;000 FT at Waypoint X and 6;000 FT at Waypoint A; with all other altitudes removed to insure smooth descent. Altitude gate at Waypoint X listed as between 15;000 FT to 12;000 FT. Upon receipt of clearance reset FMS Waypoint X altitude from 14;000 FT to 12;000 FT; reset altitude preselector from 12;000 FT to 6;000 FT. Engaged VNAV VTO to Waypoint X with a level leg. Aircraft began descent at Waypoint X. Crossing Waypoint Y; ATC queried our current altitude; (approximately 9;600 FT-9;500 FT); noted gate altitude was 10;000 FT minimum. Aircraft's direct flight path angle between Waypoint X at 12;000 FT and Waypoint A at 6;000 FT had placed it below intermediate minimum crossing altitudes at Waypoint Y and (incipiently) at Waypoint Z. Stopped descent. ATC outer approach then handed us over to final; who almost immediately issued a clearance to descend to 3;000 FT.  Encountered a booby trap by removing FMS altitudes and inserting recommended altitudes; then being given a different cruise altitude to initiate the process; throwing the whole plan slightly off. High workload flight reducing ability of pilot not flying to monitor. Pilot flying had cockpit lighting well dimmed; requiring effort to read charts. Deviation angle was very shallow; not becoming evident until call by ATC. Failed to cross-check current altitudes against next crossing restriction altitudes.




Synopsis: During an RNAV coupled approach this Bombardier Q400 crew descended slightly below a VNAV waypoint crossing restriction.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter Textron Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operating as an air ambulance; I was en route at 2;000 FT MSL in cruise flight heading south to the hospital for a patient pickup. I was following an advancing cold front with thunderstorms well to my east. I had just made contact with Approach informing the Controller of my intentions of landing at the hospital. I was flying under NVG's and noticed that I lost outside visual reference. I called Approach and told them I had entered IFR conditions. The Controller immediately gave me vectors for a GPS Approach to the local airport. I never declared an emergency. I started a right descending turn and broke-out of the cloud/fog layer at approximately 1;600 FT MSL. I notified the Controller that I was VFR again and would like to continue my flight to my destination. I was in IFR conditions for no more than 2 minutes. I had no further incidents after that encounter. I would say that the lightening flashes from the thunderstorm to my east were distorting my view in the NVG's; causing me to not see the cloud/fog layer.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reports entering IMC inadvertently at night while using NVG's. Lightening flashes from a thunderstorm ahead had prevented visual detection of a fog bank.
Date: 201809
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We at Stores are receiving Tooling form West side Tool Crib at ZZZ with request for us to ship them out. When we receive these items and we clearly ask the Tool Crib Attendant if the shipment contains anything that can be considered as a hazardous material and they will state no and their paperwork will reflect the same. But; too many times we are finding that these shipments do contain hazardous materials and my concern is that one day we may find ourselves in a situation of an undeclared shipment. Too many times we find that the Attendant cannot identify the part and leaves us with the item blindly. We do our best to assist our coworker as much as we can; but in this position we are being put in a bad place of liability. As Storekeeper's we all know what the consequence are for an undeclared shipment for us and as well for the company. This practice needs to stop before the unfortunate happens. It is apparent that this may be caused by a lack [of] training or lack of due diligence by the West side Tool Crib Attendants at ZZZ.




Synopsis: Storekeeper reported additional HAZMAT training is required for storeroom personnel.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were sitting on the ramp; immediately adjacent to the [local] flight school. It was a cold; fairly low IFR day so we were expecting to enter icing conditions immediately after takeoff. With the brakes locked; we started to add power to test the Anti-Ice/Deice Systems. Then we realized we were still on a very tight ramp; with small fixed-wing aircraft on the ramp behind us parked with their tail to our tail. We brought the power back to idle; however the jet blast may have caused damage to one or more of the small trainer aircraft parked behind us. In the future; we will ensure there is nothing behind us when increasing power above idle; and we will be moving our operations at this airport to a location that is well separated from the flight school's fleet of trainer aircraft.




Synopsis: The pilot of a corporate jet reported an increase of engine thrust while on the ramp to test the anti-ice system; then recognized that light aircraft were located relatively close behind the aircraft.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp STL
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Noticed upon landing rollout; bright lights positioned on the [other company] hangar. These are new and recently installed hangar lights. We taxied off A3 and onto Bravo taxiway. Ground gave us Bravo; cross Runway 24; Sierra Charlie to the ramp. Taxiing down Bravo the hangar lights were so bright they washed out any taxiway stripes and as we approached Runway 24 to cross the lights washed out the blue taxiway lights making it difficult to see the taxiway. We turned onto Sierra and away from the lights and I asked Ground about the lights on the hangar and they replied you mean the ones harvested from the sun. These are a distraction especially during wet conditions and are in my opinion a blinding safety concern.  Remove or dim lights as not to be directed out onto the airport operations area.




Synopsis: Air Taxi pilot reported bright lights from a hangar made it difficult to see the taxiway lights and markings at STL airport.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had [a Slat Channel] MEL. During clean up and acceleration; the slats were slower than normal to retract. We hit wake turbulence from the aircraft in front of us causing a momentary exceedance of the max flap/slat speed while the slats were still retracting. The event lasted 2 or 3 seconds. Normally the slats retract quicker than with this MEL. Company policy is to retract slats and flaps and accelerate to 250 KIAS. There was no caution in the MEL information concerning the risk of potential overspeed. Also the wake turbulence we encountered added airspeed rapidly assisting in the speed exceeding maximum for configuration.A note of caution in the MEL notes would have been very helpful.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a momentary slat overspeed resulted during clean-up after a wake turbulence encounter. A slat channel MEL; which causes the slats to retract slower; was cited as contributing factor.