elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other Flight Check
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Q400
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Flight Check (FLC) aircraft was doing approaches to XXR during a very busy period; both arrival runways were stacked with arrivals and departure runways were stacked with departures. I had to hit holes off 15 with arrivals to 9; the aircraft on final were compressing to the point that I could not get any departures out; so a line started forming; I had a good hole to get a few departures out so I did and then out of nowhere FLC appeared inbound and high doing his approach to XXR; either nobody told me; or I was too busy to hear that he was inbound. I had to vector to get separation but got altitude and switched a B737 to departure; behind him was a Q400; the conflict aircraft. I was told that Flight Check was going north; I assumed 360; on a missed approach; typically our missed approaches go out at 2;000; so I assumed he was going north and climbing to 2;000 my Q400 was on a 020 heading and I figured no big deal they are separated with diverging headings and altitude so I switched the Q400 to Departure. I then cleared another aircraft for take off; which wasn't in conflict at all. I then heard that Flight Check was put on a 040 heading and climbed to 3;000 which was right in front of that first Q400 and everybody panicked; we had separation laterally because FLC was VFR. Flight Check aircraft have consistently been approved to come in and do their work during some very busy periods. It seems it is very inappropriate to approve flight check requests but time and again it gets approved during very busy periods Flight Check was in the day before and told he could do his work at XA:00 which is actually one of the busiest periods all week. We have 'no fly days' mids and down time that we can work them but during a push [which] is very task loaded; and presents a very serious safety risk in my opinion; as far as I know these checks had nothing to do with critical NAS components such as ILS.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a near separation event between IFR traffic and an FAA Flight Check aircraft; the reporter claiming the flight check operation should have been sceduled a less busy/complex traffic period.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was Pilot Monitoring as we were being vectored on arrival. The First Officer had turned off the autopilot. I went heads down to program the FMS and pull up a message on ACARS.  Shortly thereafter I heard the altitude alert sound and the First Officer was correcting altitude to return to our assigned altitude.  He said he had looked at something else and didn't notice he was losing altitude. We immediately returned to altitude and no mention or query was made by ATC. This aircraft had a configuration where the FMS was full aft on the center pedestal which makes it impossible to program the FMS and also keep an eye on the PFD/MFD. I didn't notice the altitude loss until the horn went off. I debriefed the First Officer regarding obligations while hand flying.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reports an altitude deviation by the First Officer who is hand flying on vectors for approach. The Captains attention was diverted by FMC work which is physically located on aft end of the center pedestal.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were performing a training flight and were looking to practice takeoffs and landings in the pattern. We were practicing short-field takeoffs in a PA-44; and the Tower stated that we were cleared for takeoff and to follow a Cessna on upwind. As my student took off into the traffic pattern and made the crosswind to downwind turn; I heard another pilot on the radio stating that another aircraft had just come in close contact with his own; at which point I realized I had lost track of the Cessna we were told to follow. The Tower then reiterated that we were following a Cessna and wanted us to verify that we had the traffic in sight. I saw that our TIS showed us in very close proximity to another aircraft; and from the ensuing radio transmissions; it seemed that the Cessna was now slightly behind and above us; which is where I looked to track down the traffic. With traffic behind us still not yet in sight; we were cleared for landing by Tower. The other pilot in the Cessna told the Tower that we had flown to within 50 feet of his position.This near miss could have been avoided if I had kept my eyes looking outside for traffic and had I maintained proper situational awareness. My focus was instead more directed inside for training my student on a certain maneuver. Usually; when we perform a normal takeoff in a Cessna and follow another Cessna in the upwind; separation is not much of a factor. But being in a higher performance aircraft this time and performing a high performance takeoff; I should have known to be more vigilant of aircraft separation.




Synopsis: PA44 flight instructor reported a near-mid-air-collision on after takeoff due to a lack of attention to preceding traffic separation.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; MEL; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An A321 aircraft had an MEL for a disconnected IDG that was applied in November 2013. About an hour into flight; while doing standard ECAM check; we noticed that the IDG on the Electric Page was pulsing due to a High Temp 140 C and climbing. [We] contacted Maintenance Control thru Dispatch; using onboard phone. Was instructed to disconnect IDG again and the temperature started to drop after peaking at 155 C. Somehow the IDG got reconnected in ZZZ




Synopsis: Flight crew was instructed to accomplish another disconnect of an Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) on their A321 aircraft after they noticed the IDG on the ECAM Electrical Page was pulsing. The IDG had previously been deferred and considered disconnected.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right after takeoff Runway XX at ZZZ about 1;300 feet MSL; 95 kts indicated airspeed; we had a significant thrust lost on the right engine; PFD (Primary Flight Display) indicates both right engine's ECU (Engine Control Unit) failed simultaneously and RPM drop down to about 1500 RPM; but we can tell the right engine is still producing some thrust (feels like 30-40%). We thought it might be a dual ECU failure. Copilot did the checklist on both ECU failures; didn't work; so we proceed back to ZZZ immediately; we were clear of the Runway after landing; and towed back to hangar afterward; from intersection Taxiway 1 between Taxiway 2 and Runway XX.




Synopsis: DA42 Pilot reported dual ECU failure resulting in power loss shortly after takeoff resulting in an immediate return to the departure airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
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: DA40 Diamond Star
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At XA:34; after holding short at ZZZ Runway XX; Taxiway XX; I announced on CTAF frequency that I was departing with my Skylane C172S; Aircraft X; from Runway XX for left closed traffic. The AWOS-3 weather observation was for variable winds; 3 KT. One other airplane in the vicinity reported their position in response; stating they would fly left downwind in the pattern for Runway XX and land after my departure.When [I was] aligned with runway centerline and applying full power for takeoff; I noticed another aircraft coming in to land on the opposite runway end; ZZZ Runway XY; with no radio communication. My ForeFlight software through ADS-B input; Sentry; gives me an audible collision warning that traffic is observed 0.6 NM from me on the same altitude; heading my way 12 o'clock; a Diamond DA-40; Aircraft Y. I took immediate preventative action by pulling back power; releasing the brakes and making an emergency taxi maneuver onto Taxiway XY; west; via point XZ. The other pilot landed using full runway and passed behind me on the now vacated Runway XX; with the collision narrowly avoided.It seems the other pilot was unaware of the preferred calm-wind runway being XX at ZZZ; and made no attempt at reporting position or intentions on CTAF. I approached the pilot after he had come to a full stop on the west ramp; and he claimed he had been communicating intentions on UNICOM frequency; being unaware of the existing CTAF frequency. With the intensity in traffic on many Class D/Class E after-hours airfields; it would be better if position and intention reporting on agreed CTAF frequencies were made mandatory.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported executing a rejected takeoff and taking evasive action on the runway to avoid a collision with another aircraft that was landing on the opposing runway without established communication.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Other Fire Extinguishing System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was assigned a Task Card on Aircraft X; this is an expiration date check of the lower lobe. While checking the date of manufacture of the squibs I noticed all 5 cargo fire extinguisher bottles hydrostatic tests were expired in 2018. The hydrostatic test due dates are not part of the card's criteria. I referenced [the procedure manual] to check the procedure for an expired hydrostatic test. According to the [manual] the bottle must be removed 3 months prior to expiration. Apparently Company has lost track of the hydrostatic testing of the 777 fire bottles; if not the entire fleet.




Synopsis: Technician reported finding all of the cargo fire suppression bottles 3 years past their hydrostatic test due dates during a routine maintenance inspection to check the squibs.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Luscombe Model 8/Luscombe 50
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Incursion Ramp
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Post flight the aircraft was parked at the unmanned self-service fuel station to be refueled before returning it to the hanger. After the aircraft was refueled the parking brake was checked; the throttle was set; and the aircraft was hand prop started; this aircraft has no electrical system. The throttle setting was too high; over powered the brakes; and the aircraft began to roll quickly. An attempt was made to redirect the aircraft away from the building (FBO) and in doing so was looped back at the fuel station where it struck steel/concrete poles; and the fuel pay kiosk. The prop and engine directly struck one pole while the leading edge of the right wing tip stuck the other.I believe human factors were the cause. An additional check of the throttle setting; additional wheel chocking; or anchor the tail wheel would have likely prevented this.There were no injuries; also there were no passengers or crew aboard.




Synopsis: Pilot reported aircraft began moving during a hand prop start and struck object before regaining control.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
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; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal departure; level at FL310 began to experience surge and stalls on the left engine. Performed engine surge checklist and reduced power at which time the problem stopped. Started the drift down checklist and had the relief pilots return to the cockpit and alerted the cabin crew of the problem. At this point considered a diversion airport and chose [departure airport]. Received a direct routing from ATC. Contacted Dispatch and Maintenance. All in agreement to return [to departure airport]. Fuel dump was initiated and [ATC was advised]. Jettisoned approximately 130;000 LBS to land below max structural. Return to [departure airport]; approach and flap 20 landing were uneventful. Taxied under own power to gate. Completed parking checklist. Checked on cabin situation and no problems reported. Was debriefed by Captain to his satisfaction. Contacted Duty Manager to provide any additional information required.


Second narrative: The left engine was retarded to idle; we started drift down procedures; and we commenced fuel dump. ATC and Dispatch were advised all along the way. Maintenance confirmed the surge/stall; recorded the data; and wrote up the engine. The Captain [advised] Center; we stopped dumping with about 15 minutes of flying time left; landed on the longest runway available; and taxied to the gate.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported they returned to departure airport after experiencing compressor stalls on the left engine.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed; retracted landing gear; transit light stayed lit and handle never returned to Up Neutral position. Nacelle mirror verified that the nose gear was only midway up. Tried recycling gear but it didn't lock down either. Put handle back up; reported to ATC 'gear wouldn't retract and returning to land'. On downwind for the approach (IMC) I used the checklist to perform 'Emergency Gear Extension'. Three green indicated; reported this to ATC and landed without further event. Post flight revealed a simple mechanical failure of nose gear actuator.




Synopsis: PA31 pilot reports failure of the nose gear to retract after takeoff and also to extend to the down and safe position. The flight returns to the departure airport and the 'Emergency Gear Extension' checklist is employed to successfully extend the nose gear prior to landing.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After our arrival into RNO and observing the rotor clouds [as] an ACSL clouds from about 90 miles south of RNO to the airport; we discussed the best plan to depart RNO. It appeared to be a clear area west of the airport that would lead to the most trouble free routing out of Reno. Our filed route on the ZEFFR Departure would take us directly into a rotor cloud due south of the airport. After being cleared for departure; we had requested an immediate right turn for weather avoidance. The RNO Tower denied our request and told us to ask Departure Control. We departed and were given an early handoff to Departure Control. We contacted them and again asked for an immediate right turn for weather. The controller responded with 'it will be a couple of minutes before you can turn '. It was at this point my First Officer told Departure Control; without asking or telling me anything; 'we are turning using our [Captain] Authority'. I heard him and was flabbergasted; but I was busy trying to control the aircraft as we had begun receiving heavy moderate turbulence. We went through what I estimate was about 1 minute of this turbulence until we were in the clear and could continue with the published departure route. This incident was caused by weather conditions beyond our control that were changing very rapidly and First Officer usurping Captains authority [advising ATC] on his own. Better familiarization of dispatch personnel with what severe weather looks like and can do even though the METAR talks about rotor clouds in all quadrants.




Synopsis: Embraer jet Captain reported encountering turbulent weather conditions beyond their control that were changing very rapidly and FO usurping Captain's authority and advising ATC.