elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: All was standard and normal while taxiing out for Runway 31 at LGA. Due to weight and balance; we had some ballast added in the back and needed to burn about 400 lbs of fuel to be below out ACARS calculated max takeoff weight. Once we burned the required amount of fuel waiting on the taxiway; we joined the line for departure on Taxiway B. Upon being cleared to line up and wait we did just that. Once cleared for takeoff; I; the Pilot Flying called 'Runway 31; Set thrust' while applying slow continuous thrust to less than our required thrust of 91.5.The First Officer; while trying to slowly achieve the required thrust setting called 'ITT' when she realized she could not acquire the required amount of thrust and during this attempt the #2 engine exceed ITT limits (indicating by turning red) at approximately 900 degrees Celsius. I called abort and executed the Aborted Takeoff items; thrust to idle and braking as necessary. Once reducing the thrust; the temperature did lower into the green range. We had not even reached 80 kts. at this time.I immediately notified the First Officer to notify the Tower; I made a PA informing passengers to remain seated with their seat belts fastened. I then called the Flight Attendant and notified her of the situation as I cleared Runway 31.  I called for the Rejected Takeoff Checklist and we executed as in accordance with QRH. Tower asked for reason of abort and if we needed assistance to which I responded no and advised them of the temperature exceeding limits. I then asked the First Officer to see if there is a 'Non-EICAS' QRH checklist for ITT exceeding limits which we could not locate. At this time; I called Dispatch and Maintenance and coordinated with Operations a gate return while keeping the passengers informed as I received the updated information. The event was written up and narrated to Maintenance. We switched planes and continued the flight on another tail number.




Synopsis: CRJ200 flight crew reported an engine overtemp indication; resulting in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Other Non-Profit Conservation
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Other Non-Profit Conservation
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After aborting a hard landing at another airstrip (ZZZZ) I flew back to the point of departure; ZZZZ1 airstrip.  Upon landing at ZZZZ1 the nose gear collapsed; the prop struck the ground and the aircraft veered off the runway coming to rest at the tree line along the airstrip.  There were no deaths or injuries.I believe the hard landing was caused by an unexpected downdraft at the touchdown point at ZZZZ.To prevent a recurrence the trees at the threshold of the airstrip should be cleared.




Synopsis: Pilot of a small aircraft reported that following a hard landing; a landing at another airport was made which resulted in a nose gear collapse; prop strike; and subsequent departure of the aircraft from the airstrip.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At around 60 knots we got an E2 A/ICE FAIL caution. We promptly aborted and cleared the runway. A logbook entry was made and Maintenance was notified. After a few checks of the system and the logbook entry cleared per Maintenance we attempted the departure again. The exact same thing happened again. This time we gate returned. Thankfully a spare aircraft was brought over from the hangar and we continued on [after swapping aircraft].




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reports rejecting a takeoff for an engine anti ice caution message. Maintenance is contacted and the fault is cleared; but the next takeoff attempt produces the same result.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The FO (First Officer) performed the flight control check of the before takeoff checklist and noticed an unusual vibration/burble when the ailerons were operated. I confirmed this and we blocked back in and wrote up the issue as a vibration/burble in the control column when the control wheel was turned to the right. After trouble shooting with MX the issue appeared to be most severe when the right inboard aileron was operated with the flaps at 15. MX inspected the right inboard aileron and reported that one of the actuators; which appeared to have recently been installed; was almost completely lacking any lubrication. After lubricating this actuator the control operation improved.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported aileron problems during the Before-Takeoff Checklist.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About one hour into the flight at 16;000 FT the aircraft pitched down approximately 10 degrees below the horizon. Immediate action was taken; but 250 FT of altitude was lost before correcting back to 16;000. The Center Controller gave me the current altimeter setting 30.11 and my assigned altitude of 16;000. After correcting; I determined the flight could be continued without the autopilot with any safety issues. Additionally; there is a number 2 autopilot that was operational. Both autopilots were tested and found to be functioning properly on the ground prior to this flight and had no recent history of adverse issues; but the aircraft will be sent to maintenance for further inspection of the autopilot. I plan to have the issue diagnosed before the next flight in the airplane. From my experience this could possibly be a pitch servo failure. To prevent recurrence of this situation I plan to continue my pre-flight checks of the autopilot and to closely monitor altitude and headings at all times to be ready to manually correct issues that may arise as quickly as possible.




Synopsis: King Air pilot at 16;000 feet on autopilot experiences a pitch over losing 250 FT before manually recovering. ATC takes notice.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
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: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft had 16 MEL; [Maintenance Discrepancy] and NEF (Non-Essential Equipment Furnishing) items in logbook which I had to verify; plus a sign off on brakes being completed. I made sure all the proper placards were in place. Was told the exterior inspection was complete and no anomalies. Pushed back started engines and asked Ramp for taxi to [the runway]. They said contact Maintenance. We were advised to come back to gate for book related issue. Maintenance Supervisor asked me to follow him and showed me the tire and the brakes on the aircraft left. The outboard brake line was not hooked up and the tire I was informed had 107 PSI.


Second narrative: I had done the preflight walk around on the aircraft. The brake line on the Number 1 brake was resting on top of the connection cap and it had not been tightened down and I did not see it in the darkness. The Number 1 tire also appeared to be under inflated.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported that critical maintenance items were not completed resulting in a return to the gate after pushback.
Date: 201709
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Over the past two years; [VIP] Services has offered customers gate-to-gate transfers via the [VIP vehicle]. However; with recent events; I have begun to question the training and outfitting that equips a Customer Service Agent (above the wing) to operate in the ramp environment.On one occasion; one of my high heels became stuck in the jet bridge stairs and I nearly fell down the rest of the stairs. Additionally; Customer Service Agents are not trained to operate on the ramp. Specifically; there is no training regarding the hazards (operating aircraft/engines/ground service equipment; ramp markings; operational safe zones; etc.) associated with working in the ramp environment.In closing; [VIP Customer Service] employees are neither trained nor do their required uniforms protect them from the hazards associated with working within the ramp environment.




Synopsis: Customer Service Agent reported company VIP duties had them working on the ramp without proper safety training for the ramp environment.
Date: 201902
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We have just started using these gates approx. one month ago. The lead-in lines and envelope markings are non-existent. There is a great deal of confusion exhibited by the inbound pilots since they cannot tell where to line up the aircraft on arrival. The lack of markings of the envelope also creates a safety hazard since it is unclear where it is safe to park equipment.




Synopsis: Air carrier ground personnel reported confusion about aircraft parking spot lead-in markings.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When we broke out below the overcast [and] the recently installed PAPI on the right side of Runway 25L was not visible but the PAPI for 25R was shining like the sun. As we got closer we could see that the Runway 25L PAPI was very dimly lit. Tower tried to adjust the brightness for both the left and right PAPI without success. It was not a problem for us as we were VMC well above the ground but in an environment of very low ceilings[in] the proximity of the runways and the PAPIs might lead a crew to attempt to land on the incorrect runway. Also; I am not sure why the PAPI is on for a runway (25R) which is used almost exclusively for takeoff and only rarely is used for landing.




Synopsis: An Airbus Captain flying a morning; daylight VMC approach below an overcast; reported the LAX Runway 25L PAPI dimly lit while the 25R PAPI was very bright. Tower was unable to adjust either PAPI's illumination level.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: MBB-BK 117 All Series
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During cruise flight at 3;000 ft. a traffic alert was issued by Approach Control. He stated 'Crossing traffic at 11 o'clock 1 mile; 200 ft. below you at 2;800 ft.'. He also stated unverified since he had no two way communication with the traffic he had pointed out to me. Again; he called 'traffic at 11 o'clock; 1/2 mile; 200 ft. below you at 2;800 MSL'. At this point the TCAS started alerting me to a potential collision and since we have no RA capabilities I took the evasive action of a cyclic climb until I was approx. 3;300 ft. I still did not have the crossing traffic in sight. Shortly thereafter; a small single engine Cherokee airplane flew directly underneath us. I am convinced he never saw us and since he was not talking to Approach Control he had no idea he had become a conflict for us. ATC had no way to verify if he had the correct altimeter setting and I am convinced had I not initiated a climb we would have had a potential collision at cruise speed. ATC did everything they could to warn us; and our equipment gave me another clue of a potential problem but until corrective action was taken; the conflicting traffic was not spotted until it would have been too late. Always use Approach Control and the radar service they provide even if you are not landing at their primary airport. If this crossing traffic had simply been on frequency and been radar identified; this event would never have happened. Trust your equipment and know how to interpret the data that is being presented. Since we do not have RA capability; you must determine altitude of the traffic by looking at the target displayed altitude and making a decision about a climb; turn or descent. The system will not present the solution on the VSI as a RA system will do.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported a NMAC with a VFR aircraft after Approach issued traffic alert.
Date: 201903
Location: CHA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CHA
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored for the visual approach to Runway XX; I intercepted the localizer and glide slope for the ILS XX and was cleared for the visual approach.  About halfway down the approach; the Tower called and said that they had received a low altitude warning.  I stopped the descent and then started down the approach again.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft flight crew reported receiving a Low Altitude Warning during approach for landing at CHA airport.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had a] pneumatic leading edge flap-drive failure. On approach; during flap extension; received FLAPS PRIMARY and LE SINGLE DRIVE EICAS messages. Slight yaw and bank experienced; followed by EICAS display. Captain was able to visually confirm left outboard Leading Edge Devices (LEDs) had not extended. Secondary (electric motor) mode successfully extended LEDs; followed by normal EICAS display; and slight yaw which had been induced was removed. Trailing edge flap operation was normal. Once secondary mode had extended LEDs; remainder of approach was uneventful with normal configuration. After landing; all flaps appeared to retract normally. [We] debriefed with mechanic on arrival. The Irregular Procedure Action items deal with Trailing Edge Flap (TEF) operation in secondary mode. Time for flap operation was not applicable to our situation. Suggest splitting action items into two parts; trailing edge with the present applicable time delays; and leading edge with time required for LED extension (unless accompanied by TEF in secondary mode; once the LEDs are extended the remainder of flap operation will be normal). I do not believe the 160 KT speed restriction is applicable with only a leading edge drive in secondary control mode.




Synopsis: B747 Captain experiences pneumatic leading edge flap-drive failure on approach. Secondary (electric motor) mode successfully extended LED's; followed by a normal landing.