elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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 Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When I was adding power for takeoff; the plane began to pull to the right. I realized the right engine was spooling up slowly; and initiated a reject. We taxied clear of the runway and stopped. After making a PA announcement; we checked for indication of why the engine had spooled slowly. We found no secondary indications of a problem. After discussing the matter with [maintenance]; we decided to give it another try. We made a PA that the issue was resolved; taxied to the runway and made an uneventful takeoff and departure. During the climb out the purser called and told us we had failed to make a departure announcement for the second takeoff.


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


Synopsis: An A320 crew reported a rejected takeoff due to a slow spooling engine. Upon attempting a second takeoff the crew reported that they failed to notify the Flight Attendants to be seated for departure.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Evacuated; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Accelerating down runway and after the 80 knot call out; we heard a loud bang and a yaw to the right. It was immediately followed by ECAM messages. The take-off was aborted and we stopped on the runway. ENG 2 FAIL was the top ECAM that was noticed. As we were assessing the situation the F1 called and stated there was smoke coming from ENG 2. There was no indication of fire from the cockpit. An aircraft behind us stated they saw a puff of smoke before the abort and also saw smoke coming from ENG 2. At this point ARFF arrived. We conferred with them and they stated they saw no fire from ENG 2 and that the wheels looked fine. The decision was made not to evacuate. We continued with all the applicable QRC QRH ECAM and normal checklists. Eventually we configured for a one engine taxi and had ARFF follow the aircraft to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 rejected takeoff due to indications [loud bang; right yaw; number engine smoke; right engine fail EICAS] of engine fail. Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting [ARFF] confirm no active fire; escorted to gate.
Date: 202110
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This is a general concern of safety regarding the (Company) vaccine mandate.  After the mandate was announced on (date); I noticed many employees were distracted by the impending decision between their livelihood and a permanent medical decision.  On the push back during one flight; a ramp crew member stated their concern.  Other crew members stated their concern about this mandate and this could lead to distractions at work; which could in turn lead to unsafe conditions. If employees were given a choice or an option for this mandate; I believe the distractions would be eliminated.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported that pushback ramp crew members have expressed concern about being distracted due to the company's vaccine mandate which could lead to unsafe conditions.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Signed in at Sector 10; ERAM was in Channel B. All of my altimeters were stacked in the upper left hand corner. The relieving specialist showed me a route display for a C130 that had the plane going to a GFS radial. I was redistributing my altimeters and asked all aircraft to standby; after I finished; I made a couple of transmissions before I noticed had turned east toward a hot restricted area and hot MOA R2507/Kane East. I asked the C130 where he was going. He said to work in Kane East. I asked him if he was cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR as the area was currently hot. He responded; no I'm on a flight plan. At this juncture the plane had already passed about 1 mile from R2507; and was heading toward Kane East. The specialist at 09 jumped on the line with Yuma; while I turned the C130 back to the West. The route display was entirely incorrect from the filed flight plan of this aircraft and it created a very dangerous situation. I'm informing you of this dangerous situation that ERAM creates with peoples settings! My attention is on setting my scope up; not with the planes. I have to drag about 12 altimeters from the upper left hand of the scope to their positions. Take ERAM offline. Do not bring ERAM back up until it can be demonstrated these and many more issues are fixed. I thought we worked in a safety first environment; not one that pushes flawed new systems through with words like; 'they're working on that; or; it'll get fixed on the next update; or there's a work around for that'.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller voiced concern regarding ERAM anomalies; suggesting ERAM be taken off line until some of the identified flaws are changed.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BZN.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While doing a DME arc to ILS 12 to BZN we were cleared to descend to 11;000 feet. During level flight we received a GPWS 'PULL up' oral warning. I immediately complied with the oral warning and engaged in a GPWS escape maneuver. Once we leveled off at 14;000 feet it became evident that we were clear of terrain. We immediately advised ATC of our GPWS escape maneuver and return to the previously assigned altitude.




Synopsis: A large transport's EGPWS alerted PULL UP on the BZN ILS DME 12 at 11;000 feet. The First Officer took the appropriated action and the alert ceased at 14;000 feet. The terrain beneath the aircraft rose to about 9;400 feet which may have activated the terrain closure feature.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Icing
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were assigned holding at CAMRN at 12;000 feet. Determined that our target maneuvering airspeed was 182 knots so decided to hold at 200 KIAS. After starting the outbound turn; we were assigned a descent to 11;000. Almost immediately after we entered heavy precipitation which caused the ice light to illuminate despite the Total Air Temperature being plus 12. We also immediately encountered moderate turbulence. Captain (CA) was heads down sending an ACARS to dispatch about the hold. As the aircraft (on autopilot) rolled to the right to fly the outbound leg; another good jolt of turbulence caused a 15-20 knot loss in indicated airspeed. This combined with the bank angle; and engine and wing anti ice being turned on caused the stick shaker to momentarily activate disconnecting the autopilot. By the time the CA was 'heads up' the First Officer/Pilot Flying had over corrected the recovery and was climbing through 12;800. We notified ATC and were told to continue to 11;000 when able. There were no secondary stall notifications.


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


Synopsis: Regional turbojet flight crew reported experiencing a brief stick shaker after entering heavy preceipitation while situated in the holding pattern.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: AH-1 Huey Cobra/Modern/Super/Combat Scout
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SLI
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X went IFR into SLI on a TACAN approach. SLI GCA is operating out of a temporary building so for now we have no direct shout line to the tower or GCA. I called the inbound on Aircraft X and shipped him to the tower. He goes missed still on an IFR code. I have no way of knowing if he is IFR or VFR. So I ask him; verify you went missed VFR? He says yes and requests a PAR approach. I ask him if he is GPS equipped as he must be to do a PAR per our LOA (Letter of Agreement) with SLI. He says no; so I ask him to say intentions. He says he wants to cancel IFR and go VFR to NFG.This has happened multiple times. We have no way of knowing if these aircraft are going missed IFR or VFR; (if they cancelled with the tower). We have no shout line to find out and the number we have to call you have to call from the desk or you can't hear them. The reason this is a major safety concern is because when an aircraft goes missed off SLI it goes right through our LGB final; which we protect for by making a hole. However; if I have an aircraft like Aircraft X that says he is VFR only to have him say he is IFR I am now vectoring him below the MVA. We have had aircraft do multiple approaches and said VFR over and over only to go missed the final time and say they want to cancel IFR. I am not sure if it is the tower not explaining things or the aircraft not understanding but it happens every single day and with no shout line is totally unacceptable. Tell SLI; that aircraft are not allowed to go missed unless it is needed; like for FOD on the runway. Or make it a requirement for them to call us on the phone and let us know exactly what the aircraft going missed is doing.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reported that there was confusion whether an aircraft that went on a missed approach was on an IFR code. Controller did not know if the crew were IFR or VFR and asked. Pilot stated VFR on the missed. More confusion ensued when the pilot then said they wanted to cancel IFR and go VFR to another airport.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Runup on ramp revealed no problems. Everything was normal. I called departure; runway 24. Takeoff was normal. During ascent from runway; all electrical began flickering; and finally died. Total electrical failure. Began orbit in left downwind 24 to troubleshoot. No communication with CTAF in spite of working handheld. No verification of landing gear down possible. Entered left base and final. Executed normal approach. Aircraft landed smoothly on belly No injuries; and no fluids on ground. Aircraft was towed to parking. I believe electrical failure was due to failed alternator or relay. I failed to engage the emergency gear down lever; nevertheless; the emergency gear down extender arm on the empennage failed to drop the gear as well. Also recycling the master switch may have reset the electrical as well.


Second narrative: Aircraft had in flight electrical failure with cause unknown. Pilot stated that the emergency down landing gear system did not work. Pilot landed with landing gear retracted with minimal damage to aircraft. There were no injuries. Maintenance facility raised aircraft off runway & operated emergency gear down system. Landing gear came down & locked. Aircraft towed to hangar for repairs. I performed an annual inspection on [early that year]. Landing gear operated normally on jacks with normal & emergency down system. Log book entries were made to reflect this test. [Weeks before; the] aircraft owner requested that a new battery be installed. I serviced; tested & installed a new battery on that date. Aircraft owner did not supply aircraft log books until [after the incident] to make battery installation entry.


Synopsis: Pilot of PA-28 experienced complete electrical failure after takeoff. Landing gear failed to extend. Pilot made gear-up landing at departure airport with minimal aircraft damage.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Main Frame
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 FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This report is being submitted in order to bring attention to the third recorded Airbus 320 keel beam re-work damage.  This Aircraft is currently undergoing a maintenance visit at our Maintenance Base.  During the inspection of the Keel beam area; it was found to have numerous mis-drilled/mis-located holes into the structure.  It is believed that this damage occurred during a previous maintenance visit by an Outside vendor. The reason this area was worked previously; was to comply with an Engineering Authorization (E/A) to strengthen the Keel beam areas that were manufactured prior to Airbus using a stronger Keel beam structure currently being used today. The original Keel beam modification was covered on numerous Aircraft during maintenance visits at Airport ZZZ.  Aircraft / Cabin potential damage caused by other damage. Contracted Maintenance. [Recommend] to have a fleet directive assigned to all Airbus Aircraft that had this modification performed at the Outside Vendor (OSV).

Callback: Reporter stated that so far; three out of four of their A320 aircraft with serious keel beam damage occurred during a keel beam modification intended to beef-up; strengthen the earlier A320 aircraft Keel beams. Instead; the Airbus Service Bulletin (S/B) the outside vendor had signed-off as accomplished at the repair station during a previous maintenance has now caused extensive maintenance delays and an engineering nightmare for obtaining approved repairs to the keel beam mis-drills and mis-located holes for the main landing gear door fittings. His air carrier has decided to issue a fleet directive to try and identify just how many of their A320s are affected. He and other mechanics at his air carrier are not encouraged by what they have found so far.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports another company A320 aircraft was found with numerous mis-drilled and mis-located holes in the aircraft's keel beam. Damage was believed to have occurred during a previous maintenance visit by an outside vendor who had signed-off for accomplishing an Airbus Service Bulletin to strengthen the earlier model A320 keel beams.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During taxiing in for the gate; at A4 Taxiway; the position sign is in between the taxiway and the vehicles entrance making it confusing. So we started the taxi a little soon and then corrected it after we advised ATC. The area needs better lighting and markings.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft flight crew taxiing into the ramp at IAD Taxiway A4 turned early because the Taxiway signage position coincides closely with a ground vehicle access road.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: R90.TRACON, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C OMA
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Being vectored for visual approach to Runway 32R at OMA; was starting a left base turn when cleared for the visual to [the] runway when copilot stated drone; my head was turned left looking at airport environment when I looked forward a drone went over the right wing end just above aircraft.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported that while on approach to a Class C airport; they observed a UAS pass over the right wing of the aircraft. The aircraft landed safely.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had just taken off from ZZZ ferrying to ZZZ1 for a revenue flight. When after level off I went and turned the aft coffee maker on to brew some coffee. When not even 10 seconds after the power was turned on; I heard a loud pop come from behind the coffee makers. When I looked at the circuit breakers I noticed that they had popped. I immediately went to the cockpit and the pilots immediately asked what happened. Because they received multiple messages indicating a power surge coming from the galley equipment. After explaining what had happened; the pilots immediately disabled all power going back to the galley and cabin. They contacted [Company] Maintenance and were advised to divert to ZZZ2 for further maintenance with this occurrence. I have noticed on these particular coffee makers on the Gulfstreams that the coffee makers are on a slide out drawer to help put water in the brewer. When pulling out the drawer; the wires that connect to the coffee maker backing drag along with the drawer. So when the drawer is slid back in place it connects to a latch. The wires tend to get caught in the latch. This is where I believe the problem was with the above mentioned issue. Having those wires where they don't risk getting pinched in the latch would be a good idea to look into.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant on G450 aircraft reported coffee maker circuit breaker popped inflight.