elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We taxied out and we're on the ramp with Ground when ALL flight instrument and ECAM screens along with Control Panel lighting went out for approximately 4-5 seconds. Power was restored and; after evaluating the situation; we accomplished the QRH procedure for a #1 generator failure. It would not reset so we returned to the gate after notifying Ops/maintenance. Maintenance deferred the #1 generator; but I let them know that I felt the aircraft did not properly switch power sources. Cockpit should not have lost 'all' power (screens; instruments and lighting) for that long. With summer thunderstorms along the whole route I did not feel that taking this aircraft was a smart/safe thing to do. I refused the aircraft. Dispatch had another aircraft available.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a #1 generator failure on taxi with no reset and no automatic switching of load. Captain refused to take the aircraft and flight was switched to another aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: To the best of my ability I will describe what I remember. I had just sat down to train. I was getting a briefing from the previous controller that did not mention the first impending traffic situation which was caused by Approach launching an aircraft out of the arrival gate directly at an aircraft coming in the arrival gate at 12000 feet. I sit down and see the departing aircraft turned about 60 degrees right to barely miss an incoming aircraft at 12000 feet. This was a stupid situation caused by Approach Control. Then the Radar Controller cleared the departure direct turning him into another arrival. I was still trying to get my bearings on the sector as there was a lot of data block overlay. When the Radar Controller did so it became a separation problem. I was told to get higher on an aircraft by my trainer and while that was going on the Radar Controller never de-conflicted the aircraft and a loss of separation occurred about 160 feet. Interesting is that as the Radar Controller left he said 'that was a close one.' He almost had a separation error. I saw a separation error happen; but the Conflict Alert never went off so I believe he thinks it was not a conflict. This needs to be investigated as to why the alert never went off and no color of red or any that I know of ever showed up on the display.




Synopsis: Center Developmental reported that Approach Control and Center Radar Controller created traffic conflicts by routing departures through the arrival routing.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Pitts S-2 All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Canopy Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Within the first 100 feet of the takeoff roll; the canopy of the aircraft departed. The canopy exited to the right side of the fuselage and contacted the runway. The canopy did not impact the airframe. I closed the throttle and brought the aircraft to a stop; then taxied back to the ramp. Bystanders recovered the canopy from the runway. No injuries resulted. I performed a 'Canopy Closed and Locked' callout and visual check during the pre-takeoff phase. I did not reach up and test the knob with my hands to see that it was in the proper position. Doing so might have prevented the occurrence. This was also my first flight of the season in this aircraft. Normal jitters about the flight (the first aerobatic flight of the season after not having flown aerobatics since the previous summer) might have distracted me from performing the touch verification suggested above.




Synopsis: Following the pilot's failure to do a hands on security check prior to departure the canopy of a Pitts S-2B separated and blew clear of the aircraft early in the takeoff roll.  No other part of the aircraft was damaged and no one was injured.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The floodlights on the [SEA] North Satellite between spot 55 and spot 66 that (I think) are intended to illuminate the ramp are instead creating a safety hazard because they are totally blinding to pilots that are trying to taxi on taxiways B and W. The usual terminal floodlights are bad enough but these are bright and blinding. It makes me angry to think about it. These lights need to go away before they cause a serious accident.

Callback: The reporter stated the lights in question appeared to be temporary and are mounted on the commuter extension of the North Satellite near the N12 series gates. He was directed to taxi around the North Satellite's north end and because of the light contamination had difficulty seeing the taxiway centerline. He was unintentionally cutting slightly inside looking for the line and realized his aircraft was approaching a commuter aircraft pushed far back from the terminal which he was not advised of. Had he actually cut inside the taxiway; he may have struck the commuter aircraft's tail. Night operation in that area is hazardous and the reporter believes ATC; the Ramp and all involved should communicate more actively about night time aircraft movement in that area.



Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the ramp lights on the north end of the SEA North Satellite are blinding while taxiing on Taxiways B and W between Spots 66; over Spot 55 and beyond.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This report is NOT meant as a joke. Following an uneventful flight to SJU; on the return flight (with the same aircraft) we received several 'VERIFYPOS: IRS-IRS' (Inertial Reference System) scratch pad messages. Checking POS SHIFT page three/three; we confirmed that our IRS position errors were significant. During this flight; the L IRS position error varied from two to five NM; the R IRS error varied from three to eleven NM. This did not cause any operational problems because our ANP stayed below 0.07 with very tight GPS and RADIO cross tuning accuracy. This defect was recorded in the aircraft logbook at [destination]. I did not think much more about it until I got home and my wife asked 'Any issues today flying thru the Bermuda Triangle?' I never thought about such a coincidence during the flight; but we were within the southern edge of that area. If anyone is seriously tracking empirical data on navigation errors in that area; please pass on this report. I wonder if (Company) has any data on other navigational issues between CONUS and SJU; MDPC or MYNN? I have never seen such IRS accuracy errors in 22 years of operating this aircraft.If anyone is seriously tracking navigation anomalies within the 'Bermuda Triangle'; please forward this report.




Synopsis: B737-NG Captain reported his IRS navigation system showed significant position errors in the area of the 'Bermuda Triangle.'
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to weather we had a higher volume than normal on the midnight shift. The Center started flashing arrivals at us. It is normal to take a handoff expecting the Center to at least de-conflict the traffic from our departures. They should arrive at the corners while the departures go out through the middle boxes. I took two handoffs and the Center immediately shipped them to me direct the airport and descending out of flight levels. I had to turn them to avoid our departures. I thought it was a fluke. No harm no foul. Then they did it several more times with arrivals to other sectors. At this point I was talking to a climbing B737 who was a Departure. I saw that the Center was flashing an arrival at me that would be a conflict for the climbing B737. I called the Center and said 'I can not take a handoff on a descending B737 with him pointed right at my departure'. The Controller took the handoff on the climbing B737 so I shipped him figuring that they would at the least separated their own aircraft. I noticed that the descending B737 and the climbing B737 were still converging. I called the Center and said 'you need to turn the descending B737'. The Controller wanted to argue with me. The Controller would not take action and would not take any responsibility for the situation. The Controller finally turned the aircraft but it was much too close for comfort. You really have to watch the playback and listen to the tapes to get the full picture. The thing that really scares me is that two airplanes where pointed at each other and the Center Controller was unwilling to take action.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a developing conflict event when the Center Controller failed to take timely action on two aircraft converging.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON EGLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I have seen a lot of mistakes on every flight since we changed procedures; but this was by far the worst. For most of the entire seven hours each of us had a different way of doing new procedures. Like many First Officers; mine didn't know when or what to respond to checklist items. After waiting; I would have to prompt him to get him to say his required responses.The absolute worst occurred when we were cleared for the approach at 4;000 FT and intercepted the glideslope he said; 'Set missed approach altitude' and I said; 'No; you say that at 1;000 FT' and the Relief Pilot said; 'No; I just came from training and you set touchdown zone elevation.' I had to stop the conversation that ensued and said; 'We have the runway in sight; just forget it and set missed approach altitude now.'The Relief Pilot was the worst during the flight because he constantly told me I was doing everything wrong because he just came from his training where the Instructor told him all the new things we are supposed to do. BUT HE HAD NOTHING IN WRITING! Yet he constantly insisted he was right even though I would tell him and SHOW HIM IN THE BOOK where it wasn't changed yet so we still have to follow the book. He would not accept that as an answer until after six hours I finally said; 'I don't want to hear any more challenges unless you can show them to me in print.' But he then stated; 'You don't understand they are not going to put it in print; you will just do what you think is the right thing and that's how we will operate from now on.'I could write a safety report on every single flight about everyone's different interpretation of the printed SOP since they were changed but just don't have the time.




Synopsis: The Captain of an international flight crew reported ongoing difficulties encountered when crew attempt to comply with poorly trained and uncertainly understood SOPs which are the result of a recent merger of two large air carriers.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MPTO.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MPTO
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: MPTO Ground cleared [us] to push back to 'Spot R-1.' Spots are not depicted on MPTO Commercial Chart pages. Luckily the Ground/Tug Driver knew where the SPOTs were located. Spots R-1-6 is behind Gates 25-22 and is clearly painted on the ramp. However; this information is not on the MPTO Commercial Chart pages. This is a REPEAT complaint from at least 1-2 years ago and no action has been taken.




Synopsis: A pilot was cleared to pushed back to SPOT R-1 at MPTO but because it was not on his airport diagram did not know where the SPOT was.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBBS.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SBBS
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising at FL410 we became aware that ADC 1 and ADC 2 we're giving erroneous airspeed indications. After discussion with company and maintenance we decided ADC 3 was providing accurate information. During descent in the mid 30's the yaw damp began applying left and right inputs causing oscillations and both engines went into ALT CONT.  We selected the yaw damp off causing the autopilot to disengage and the flight director cues disappeared.  We tracked slightly off course and corrected back onto the arrival.  We asked Brasilia and Rio control for relief from crossing restrictions and continued on the approval path to an uneventful landing.




Synopsis: Gulfstream Captain experiences the loss of ADC 1&2 in cruise at FL410. ADC 3 is determined to be reliable and the flight continues to destination.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Departure; Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A B737 was at 110. His Data Block had a trailing R; which is supposed to indicate the aircraft is on an RNAV SID; in this case the CEEME1 Arrival. This aircraft was supposed to be on the FERNANDO5 Arrival; due to an equipment issue with their fleet. When I inquired as to which arrival the B737 was on; the pilot replied the FERNANDO5 and that they were issued 'a screwed up routing to get there'. I reported the anomaly to my FLM; who contacted ZLA. The response was 'The B737 cannot get rid of the trailing R and ZLA will not remove it either. The SCT Controllers will need to verify that the B737 aircraft have the appropriate arrival. A bad situation gets worse with the CEEME1 Arrival. We now have aircraft tagged with one arrival; but on another arrival; but we also need to verify which arrival they actually are on. Turn off the CEEME1 arrival completely until it cannot be fixed. It is a safety hazard in its current form. Tag aircraft that are on a non-RNAV SID appropriately.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: SCT Controller described a route discrepancy and incorrect Data Block information associated with one company that is causing this anomaly.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon climbing through 50 ft. I experienced engine roughness and a noticeable loss of thrust. I then elected to make a precautionary landing on the remaining runway. During the landing roll the plane exceeded the runway limits and came to a stop in the grass with no damage to the plane or surrounding runway environment.

Callback: Reporter indicated they were flying in a Cessna 172 and had no further details to share.



Synopsis: C172 pilot reported they suffered power loss immediately after takeoff. Pilot immediately landed and rolled off the end of the runway.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On my third touch and go of the morning taking off from [Runway] XXR at ZZZ; just after turning crosswind; there was a tremendous bang followed by vibration from the engine. I [advised ATC] and believe I requested landing on XYR. I reduced power to reduce the vibration and left the engine running at approximately 1600 RPM. The Controller wanted me to go to [Runway] XYL but I didn't think I had the power to make it so continued to XYR and completed the landing. I was able to taxi to the hangar and shut down the engine. I inspected the aircraft airframe and found nothing wrong. I removed the cowling and discovered the starter ring gear had separated from its mounting position on the alternator rotor. It was still attached by one bolt; but had destroyed some wiring and ventilation SCAT tubes.




Synopsis: Zenith CH 750 pilot was performing a touch and go when a loud bang and associated airframe shudder caused an immediate return to the airport for a precautionary landing.