elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other take off roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At XA:10 Local time; I made my communication to enter runway XX at ZZZ. I checked to make sure the runway was clear and there was no traffic inbound for landing that had not communicated on the field frequency. I was practicing a short field takeoff; so I rolled onto the runway without stopping and applied full power and pitched up. After I had rolled about 100 feet; I noticed a small; tricycle gear; experimental aircraft cross the hold short line and pull onto runway YY. I promptly aborted my takeoff and back-taxied to the beginning of the runway and exited on the taxiway. The other pilot also turned around and exited the runway. I taxied back across the hold short line and turned my aircraft around. I then attempted to radio and communicate on [frequency] to talk to the other aircraft and coordinate an order of departure. I made several calls and eventually they communicated on the radio. Their signal was somewhat broken; but we were able to resolve the scenario and safely coordinate who would take off first. The pilot of the experimental aircraft insisted that I take the runway and depart and first and apologized for entering the active runway without communicating. No injuries or damage occurred. The entire event could have been avoided by the pilot of the experimental aircraft listening to and communicating on the field frequency and looking for traffic on the runway before crossing the hold short line.




Synopsis: Pilot reported on take off roll he saw another aircraft opposite direction cross the hold short line and attempt to line up.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on a visual approach to Runway XX at ZZZ.  During the approach we received a GPWS Caution 'Terrain' or 'Too Low Terrain' just after the '500 ft stable' call. As the PM (Pilot Monitoring); I failed to call for a go-around.  The PF (Pilot Flying); Captain completed the approach and landing uneventfully. Everything about the approach was normal and I have seen it many times in my 3 years here. PF was stable at 100 ft above field elevation as well as at 500 ft above field elevation; the only exception was that the winds that had recently shifted and gusting were causing the airspeed to deviate by plus or minus 10 knots; but not dramatically.  The fact that we were visual with the runway; on path and speed and properly configured; made the GPWS caution surprise me. After hearing it; I reverified that we were within all our approach criteria and it appeared safe so I did not call for the go around. However; being that it was not day VMC; I should have called it. In the future I will be sure to comply with the GPWS alert immediately and call for the go-around.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a GPWS warning on final approach and elected to continue to land instead of calling for a go around.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After normal touchdown; tower told us to use Taxiway Y to exit the runway followed by another instruction to expedite due to traffic on short final. I immediately increased our speed but had to slow to make the 90 degree turn onto Taxiway Y; just as we were making the turn tower instructed [aircraft on final] to go around.


Second narrative: Upon arrival we were cleared for approach and landing. The Captain was flying. We configured for Flaps 30; Brakes 3. We landed before sunrise. Weather was partly cloudy. Taxiway X; the midfield highspeed exit; was closed and barricaded for construction. There was no reference to the closure mentioned on the ATIS. We were NOT notified that the spacing with the aircraft behind us was an issue. Approach and landing were uneventful. During roll out deceleration was normal. We approached the intersection of taxiway X at approximately 80Kts with the autobrakes OFF. Just prior to our arrival at Taxiway X; the tower advised us to expedite to Taxiway Y and exit the runway. We discussed that Taxiway X was closed; we saw the barricades and red lights as we approached Taxiway X. We proceeded to Taxiway Y. However; the distance between Taxiway X and Taxiway Y is significant. We adjusted safely speed to expedite our exit at Taxiway Y. As we approached Taxiway Y we heard the tower advise [aircraft on final] to go around. We exited the runway at Taxiway Y and taxied to the gate.


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported being told by Tower to expedite their exit off the runway well into their landing roll. Aircraft on final behind them was issued a go-around.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: An unusual TCAS indication on the takeoff roll resulted in aborted takeoff but this indication only lasted a couple of seconds. This situation resulted in aborted takeoff for safety consideration. Came back to Runway 26L and made normal departure to ZZZ airport.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an unusual TCAS indication on takeoff roll resulting in an aborted takeoff.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FNL.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D FNL; Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Tower FNL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was approaching FNL from the southeast with the intention to land. When 10 miles out and at pattern altitude; I called the temporary Tower to report my position and intentions. I was instructed to report 4 miles out. When 4 miles out; I reported and was instructed to enter the midfield left downwind for Runway 15. I was also informed to look for departing traffic headed to the northwest. Suddenly; my ADS-B traffic alerted me to traffic at same altitude; same position. I saw a low wing aircraft at the top left of my windscreen headed for me. The other pilot dived and passed approximately 300 feet under me and continued seemingly barely missing two water towers seemingly flying between them.  It should be noted that the tower at FNL is temporary and has no current access to radar but relies on visual observation from the ground level. Though; radar has been installed; it has not been certified for almost a year now due to FAA imposed Covid restrictions. Seems to me that having radar access would have avoided this situation and not having radar is likely to lead to similar such close calls.




Synopsis: GA Single Pilot reported an NMAC event with departure traffic while entering landing pattern. The temporary Tower without radar access was a contributing factor.
Date: 201511
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When the decision was made to divert the aircraft we were sent an amended release; which I accepted. But we never were sent NOTAMs or weather. The opinion that I get on the line is that we are very quick to make decisions to move aircraft and then once the aircraft is on the ground; 'Well; everything worked out fine. What's the next crisis.' How is it that we can divert an aircraft but there is no internal process that must be completed before the final decision is made? Why; in this day and age of electronics; do we rely on the Captain in an often times very dynamic environment; having to go through a mental checklist to make sure everyone else has done their jobs? Our Dispatchers are responsible for multiple flights and it is not any more reasonable to expect them to mentally remember everything that must be accomplished to divert an aircraft. Why doesn't it work more like this: 'Captain; this is your Dispatcher. There is discussion that the company wants to you to divert to ZZZ. I am sending you the NOTAMS; field weather; en route weather; anticipated flight routing and fuel burn. I have already reviewed all and the field conditions and they are... and I do not see any safety issues with the possible divert. No alternate is required. After you look over the information let me know your thoughts so we can jointly agree; or not agree to divert the flight to ZZZ.'




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain asked for more efficient and helpful input from the company when a divert decision is made.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was performing the inflight beverage service on a mildly bumpy flight from to LGA. The pilots had informed us we should be aware but no severe turbulence was expected. I got to row 18; served the CD side cups of coffee and was preparing to move to row 19 when there was a loud bang and the plane dropped. I flew up and hit the ceiling. I do not recall the moment of impact but this was relayed by the passengers to me after the fact. The cart topper and beverages went everywhere. I managed to get myself wedged between two seats on the ground as the plane dropped again. At this point the pilots called back to check on us. The other Flight Attendant answered that call and made an announcement indicating that the bumps would continue but should lessen in a few minutes. Once they did; I got up and finished the service while checking on the passengers. I specifically asked the couple in 18CD if they needed ice or medical attention as I had just given them coffee when the bumps hit. They declined. I made it back to the front of the aircraft where I told the other FA (Flight Attendant) what happened. Shortly thereafter I also notified the flight deck of my situation. They asked if we needed to divert; as I was still feeling the adrenaline I declined. They insisted I fill out the OJI (On the Job Injury) form when we landed which I planned to do anyways. The other FA also walked through the cabin several times to help me ensure all passengers were ok. Once we landed; I did go out on OJI.Unexpected severe turbulence caused the plane to drop about 200 ft. or so rapidly.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reported she was injured in turbulence while performing duties.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Agents filled seats X2 and X5 with upgrades on flight that wasn't full. Per social distancing guidelines these seats should have remained empty.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that agents filled seats that; per social distancing guidelines; should have remained empty.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Magneto/Distributor
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Other forced landing
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Our maintenance organization is based overseas. We had encountered 6 serviceable magneto failures - the latest was a twin mag failure - the pilot landed the aircraft just short of a runway and no damage to the aircraft and the pilot. Upon examination of the records I discovered that the aircraft engine had 30 hours since major overhaul - in theory the mags are new. Examining the other mag failure of the previous incidents demonstrated that those failures had taken place well within time life limits of the components.  Looking into those facts it appeared to me that the mag failure is attributed to heat - we removed 2 perfectly airworthy mags and requested a magneto shop to run them for few hours- the first mag failed after an hour or so and the second failed 5 min later. Corresponding to the flight time of the twin mag failure aircraft.  It appears that once the mag reach certain temperature a breakdown of the internal insulation take place - further investigation of records show that whilst the mags are new in the context of unused - yet they are old Russian military stock. I presume that calendar life of the materials used had been exceeded.  The aircraft Yak 52 is an old Russian military trainer that can perform basic aerobatic and has the appearance of a war bird hence its attractiveness - it is used by the owners generally for short duration flight (up to an hour or so)- hence the low reporting - the mags don't get hot enough for the breakdown to surface.  We raised a report with the UK CAA - and requested them to alert the industry- the above constitutes a real risk to human life - so far they had failed to notify the international community. As many Yak 52 aircraft are flying globally and under different registration including the N reg - and as the risk to life is real could you please advise us as how to progress our attempt to inform the global GA community on your platform.




Synopsis: Technician reported several instances of magneto failure causing engine shutdowns.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At about 4;000 FT in the initial climb the rudder trim went full left uncommanded causing the plane to yaw. The Captain then tried to correct and then the rudder trim went full right uncommanded. We immediately notified ATC and returned to our departure airport. The Captain was the pilot flying and the autopilot was not engaged.

Callback: The reporter clarified his report to advise the full scale deflections were 'momentary' and stated he 'believed' there was an actual full scale deflection of both the rudder trim indices and the rudder trim itself but was unable to describe the actual flight control response and the opposing input required by the Captain (the pilot flying) to maintain an in trim condition.



Synopsis: The flight crew of a CRJ-700 returned to their departure airport after experiencing uncommanded full travel rudder trim to both the left and right.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared to land on Runway 6 in TEB. The pilot flying landed the plane allowing the crew to take an exit on Taxiway Bravo. The clearance was; 'Turn left on Taxiway Bravo and hold short of Runway 1.' As we exited Runway 6 and were pulling up to hold short of Runway 1; the crew realized the separation between the clear line of Runway 6 and the hold short line of Runway 1 was minimal and too short for the plane to be clear of Runway 6. By the time I was able to apply full brakes and stop; the midpoint of the aircraft crossed the hold short line of Runway 1. There was an aircraft that had been cleared for takeoff on Runway 1 and due to our deviation; the departure clearance was canceled.I highly suggest that this taxi clearance be avoided in all circumstances. I think that anytime there is an airplane on Runway 1 that Taxiway Bravo shall not be used for aircraft exiting Runway 6. ATC should instruct all operations to taxi to the end of the runway and told to hold short of Runway 1. If Taxiway Bravo is to be used; the instructions should say; 'Turn left on Taxiway Bravo and cleared to cross Runway 1.' There should never be a clearance to hold short of Runway 1 because it is physically impossible for any aircraft to be fully clear of Runway 6 and to hold short of Runway 1. The distance is less than 3 feet between the two lines.




Synopsis: Civil Jet landing Runway 6 at TEB was instructed to turn off at Taxiway B and to hold short of Runway 1. During the attempt to clear the landing runway the flight crew crossed the hold lines for Runway 1 causing an aborted takeoff.