elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff after TOGA engagement the Number 1 engine accelerated to about 85% N1 which was about 10% less than the 94.1% achieved by the Number 2 engine and called for by the reduced thrust takeoff data message. The throttles were miss matched with the Number 1 engine throttle more than 1 knob width behind engine Number 2. As I advanced the Number 1 throttle to try and match thrust with the Number 2 engine I noticed the Number 1 N1 decreased while the Number 1 EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) increased which is the opposite of what should have happened. At that moment I made the decision to perform a low speed rejected T/O at approximately 70-75 knots. The runway was cleared about half way down using very little braking and the quick reference checklist; QRH and brake cooling tables were then consulted. I called and alerted [Maintenance] as to the situation and we returned to the gate. An ELB (electronic logbook) maintenance fault report was sent at that time.


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


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew reported that one engine did not make takeoff thrust resulting in a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a training flight conducted on an IFR flight plan in VMC conditions at 4;000 ft. another airplane appeared on the TIS (Traffic Information System) contained within our aircraft showing a heading that would cross directly in front of us at the approximate same time as us. The target showed to be 500 ft. below us and climbing. I began to make a call on Cleveland Center to request a climb for traffic avoidance but my instructor initiated a climb once we saw the TIS system report them 300 ft. below us and still closing on our track without us establishing visual contact of the aircraft. A climb was completed to 4;500 ft. and we then saw the light sport aircraft pass directly below us from right to left about 800 ft. below our aircraft while we were still at 4;500 ft. After the traffic had passed below us we immediately informed Cleveland Center of what had occurred and descended back down to 4;000 ft. During the entire situation we had received no notice of the traffic from the controller but were still in VMC therefore responsible for our own traffic avoidance. The alternate option would have been to continue at the same altitude as we had not been given an advisory from the Center Controller to climb; descend; or turn.


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


Synopsis: Instructor and student on an IFR training flight reported a traffic conflict that required them to deviate from their assigned altitude.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Over maximum gross landing. [I] used Captain's emergency authority FAR 121.557(c); 91.123(d). Landed at 215;000; maximum; gross for 757-200 is 198;000. Coordinated with Dispatch and Maintenance on performance and runway limit; all OK. We diverted for the loss of the right pack after takeoff.




Synopsis: A B757-200 diverted and landed over maximum gross landing weight because an air conditioning pack failed shortly after takeoff on an oceanic flight.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We parked at [the] gate in FLL. The nose signalman was new.  As I lined up on the j-line he began to wave his arms. None of the arm movements were recognizable as aircraft movement signal we use or that I have ever seen in my career anywhere in the world. When we finally got the aircraft into the gate the nose signalman use the release brakes signal to indicate the chocks were in.  To indicate the ground power was in the signalman pounded hard on the side of the aircraft but never stepped back to give a hand signal. Ground crew seemed unaware of the flight deck call button on the nose section of the aircraft.At the same time the right wing signalman did not have any lighted wands. To compensate for this he used some type of electronic device; which had a white light on it to indicate it was safe.  While I am glad he took the step to as least use something lighted; the station should have enough of the proper equipment for the ground crew.After the Jetway was pulled up to the aircraft; I had the Jetway operator step into the flight deck. I asked if she was a manager on duty. She was not; but I explained to her what had happened.  Her reply was that the crew was new and she would mention what happened to the manager.It is not uncommon for people to have a slight variation in their personal signal techniques.  However; these signals were so unrecognizable as to be dangerous. The signaler needed me to come to my left and started waving both arms overhead to the right.It appeared that the crew received inadequate training and they were unsupervised.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported he observed the ground crew deviating from SOP during the aircraft parking procedure.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Electronic News Gathering
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On date; flying for a news station while in a left orbit at 800 feet on the scene of an accident for approximately 10 minutes (no other aircraft in the area); I observed an EMS helicopter identified by Aircraft Y coming head on with me. I immediately descended and banked left due to already in the left orbit to avoid a head on collision. It appeared that the EMS helicopter didn't see me until I was about a 50 degree angle from them. I did notice that they did execute a left hand bank but this was after we had already passed each other. I was monitoring ZZZ Tower frequency and air to air at the time. Before the close call at no time did I hear the EMS helicopter make any radio calls pertaining to approaching the scene. Immediately after this; the EMS helicopter pilot told me to leave the area to which I stated to him negative and that he needed to make radio calls when he is in route to and approaching a scene (due to other aircraft (Law Enforcement; ENG; other EMS aircraft) possibly being in the area). During a further investigation I acquired information pertaining to the EMS helicopter Aircraft Y. The information shown at this time it was being operated by: Company 1 but owned by Company 2. I feel that better radio calls/communications would avoid future issues.




Synopsis: Pilot flying news helicopter reports near mid air collision with Emergency Medical Services helicopter.
Date: 201902
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The workload is too high; there are complex events such as crew MOT's; weather changes; ATC programs; and maintenance events that require close coordination from dispatch to crews. Maintenance and airport operations (all aspects of ops [loads; equipment coordinator; customer service; etc.])I have submitted several [report's] along with other with very specific detail; but that is very time consuming and taxing and with the multitude of issues I could not expend that time to track this previously and continuous problem of workload.Failure to meet model; company; union and FAA agreed that the workload would have a model to follow; then company and union set the parameters which were approved by the FAA. The model was set and built into a program; that program gave specific desk builds that clearly address all safety and operational concerns. Again all parties agreed; that this would be safest option and said they follow model output. However; when that output gave a number that the company did not like (i.e. flight releases per desk lower than 'allocation of budget for headcount') the company choose to ignore and/or change the output numbers that better fit into the narrative they are projecting in their account of headcount and covering the 'shortage' in Overtime callout; which is often too little too late and does not adequately provide for the highest safety scenario.We are asked to trust the process; and the process worked; however; the players that are implementing the process need to be changed or questioned specifically on how they are implementing the tools. I know how to slow down and just work flights and deal with the increased calls that come because of that decision and I am able to maintain operational control but if corrective action is not taken soon there will be an incident.Simply follow the agreed upon process to the safe solution; and the product that it sent out; which clearly states that the workload is too high.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported the company is not following the agreed upon 'dispatch workload model' and the workload is too high.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff at acceleration altitude I called for 'flaps 0; climb checks; pitch mode.' The PM (Pilot Monitoring) began the duties; however at the same time we were told to immediately turn right and level off at 3;000 feet as there was an aircraft that was not communicating with Tower headed straight for us. This diverted our attention from the task at hand. I suspect the PM omitted retracting the flaps accidentally and I failed to notice. Once we were clear of the traffic we were handed off to another frequency on which we were told to look for yet another aircraft in close proximity. By the time we were clear we were through 10;000 feet and due to the distractions we forgot to complete the climb check. I initially began accelerating and reached about 265 knots before I decided to slow to complete the second part of the ice test. Once the test was complete (at around 18;000 feet) I began accelerating and again reached about 265 knots before we realized the flaps were still set to 9. We slowed; retracted the flaps; contacted Maintenance and continued the flight without further incident.No real suggestions. It was human error on my part. I should have been more vigilant and will be in the future.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported the crew oversped the flaps during climbout when they were distracted by ATC traffic calls.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Sector 17 began handing off Aircraft Y at 27000 feet. I noticed an enhanced limited data block within sector 28 Low beneath sector 17; Aircraft X. I brought up the full data block and noticed it may hinder the ability of the arriving flight to descend; so I requested sector 17 to shortcut Aircraft Y to ZZZZZ intersection before accepting the handoff to allow sector 17 to safely climb Aircraft X. I descended Aircraft Y to 24000 feet as I am allowed to do by SOP. Aircraft X was handed off to sector 17 climbing to 23000 feet. Sector 17 gave a climb to this Aircraft X to an altitude above my airspace. Aircraft X came within 2.5 miles of my airspace at 26000 feet and was finally through my airspace approximately 10 miles in. No one called me with a point out for Aircraft X climbing through my airspace.It's me once again with yet another airspace violation from the Central Area at ZJX. I just sent one in on that area from [three days prior] and elaborated on how this Area has become inherently unsafe. I am going to fill out an ATSAP for every single one that affects the sector that I am working from this point forward. I understand us controllers are human and make mistakes. We all get in a bind from time to time and need an 'out' from fellow controllers. I have no issue on that. The issue is with many controllers completely disobeying our basic ways to move traffic safely and efficiently through the NAS. The basic ways are Point outs; APREQ's; etc. I'm actually very unhappy with how this has progressed in the time I have been hired by the FAA and at ZJX. I look forward to hearing from you and what steps are going to be taken for people to be accountable for not doing their job correctly and safely.




Synopsis: An aircraft was climbed through a Controller's sector without a handoff or point out.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi out for departure all systems and checks were normal and the Tower cleared us for takeoff. As we took the runway; I completed a positive transfer of aircraft control to the co-pilot. Takeoff power was selected and at about 70 KIAS there was a Reverser Unlocked ECAM that both pilots observed. At about 80 KIAS; I took positive control of the aircraft back from the co-pilot and initiated an abort. We brought the aircraft to a safe stop and exited the runway. There were no reported problems from the cabin crew or passengers. After contacting Dispatch and Maintenance Control we taxied the aircraft back to the gate without further problems.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew initiated a low speed rejected takeoff upon receipt of a Reverser Unlocked ECAM at about 70 KIAS.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: A similar call sign on the same frequency can be a potential for taking a wrong clearance; but when there are three similar call signs the potential just escalates for all involved. This was the case we encountered last week on departure. There was a Flight XA; Flight WA and we were Flight XWA. All our departures were around [the same time]. We all contacted Ground Control about the same time. While the Ground Controller gave instructions at a rapid pace to expedite operations; the similar call signs were mistakenly answered by the wrong airplane at various times. Even the Controller got confused at one point. Fortunately; the mistakenly answered call signs were quickly recognized and did not cause any clearance deviations.




Synopsis: B767 Captain describes and evening departure from a large hub airport with three of his company's aircraft having similar sounding call signs and the miscommunications that ensue.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Second narrative: On climb out from ZZZ; we experienced a very strong fumes; similar to burning tires. The Captain was the Pilot Flying and I was the Pilot Monitoring and autopilot was engaged. Passing through 18;000 [feet]; I walked around the supernumerary area to see if I could detect a source or see smoke. I saw nothing but the fume smell continued to get worse; so I returned to the cockpit and got back in my seat. The Captain and I both then said we could taste it and I started experiencing a burning sensation in my throat and mouth. We immediately donned the O2 masks; [advised ATC] with ZZZ Center and got immediate return vectors to the FAF for [Runway] XXR at ZZZ. We accomplished all normal checklists to an uneventful approach  and landing. We kept the O2 masks on until after engine shutdown and subsequent inspection by the CFR unit at the airport. After leaving the aircraft; both the Captain and I experienced a headache along with a burning sensation in mouth and eyes so we sought medical attention where we were examined and subsequently released.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported smoke in the cabin and advised ATC for return to departure airport.