elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot 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 Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On downwind leg vectors for the ILS we experienced a #2 Source Off light. I directed the First Officer to run the QRH. After the read-respond-do process; the #2 Generator switch was bussed back on. Instead of coming back on the attempt actually tripped off the #1 Generator; leaving no generator powering the electrical system (down to battery power). The crew then ran the Dual Generator Failure checklist and started the APU; however; initially it would not bus to the L or R side. After some delay and ATC vectors; the crew was able to get APU to bus to the left side. Upon regaining sufficient systems and instruments. We ceased checklists and troubleshooting and elected to land with the Captain flying the ILS. An emergency was declared with Approach Control and some priority vectors were offered to final. After landing; the flight was uneventful.I suggest that we look at QRH Electrical SOURCE OFF procedures and possibly add a bullet to check volts/amps on the disconnected circuit prior to attempting to re-bus the generator. If out of tolerance readings are found; consideration should be given to 'NOT' attempt to bus the failed system. As in our case; it made a minor problem major in nature. It appeared that the tripped generator actually kicked the good generator off-line as well when we tried to re-bus it.


Second narrative: [No substantive additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew ended up on battery power only when one bus failed and the second tripped off when the crew attempted to return the failed system to the bus.  They ultimately were able to regain one functional bus and made and uneventful landing.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Today while doing my walk around; I saw 30 laptop computers being loaded into the belly. Each of these Computers had a Lithium Ion label printed on the box. There were several questions asked and no one seemed to know if these computers were okay for passenger aircraft. They were removed and reshipped via the freighter. The reason in writing this; is it's not the first time and I have seen everything from camping stoves; bear spray; to road flares being loaded in passenger aircraft. There is a growing trend of material getting through all our checks. NoneThis is a result of contracting; high turnover; and poor training. We need to train vigilance and make better observations when handling cargo or baggage.




Synopsis: First Officer reported Lithium Ion battery powered computers without required documentation being loaded in cargo compartment.
Date: 201405
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Aircraft Marshalling
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was dispatched and incurred Number (1) engine generator issues and needed to RTBL (return to blocks) for maintenance. We went back out to marshall plane back in and were short the second (2) wing walker because the rest of crew was sent to other assignments. We activated the (Accu-Park) red stop lights and were waiting on the second marshaller when the crew spooled up the engines and proceeded to pull into the gate. At NO time was the green light on (Accu-Park) activated or a manual hand signal given to pull in to gate envelope. The aircraft proceeded to pass its stop mark by thirty (30) plus feet and stop nose gear almost to inner VSR. This also brought the wing and Number one (1) engine within ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet of striking second jet bridge. Refer to Supervisor's pictures from all angles to get perspective needed to reference this incident. Once the crew decided where they wanted to stop we chocked aircraft and waited for direction from the Company. After taking pictures we proceeded to push aircraft thirty feet back to the appropriate stop mark for a B767-400.




Synopsis: Aircraft Marshall reports a B767-400 returning to the gate for maintenance but with insufficient manpower the Captain is instructed to wait. The Captain elects to self park; missing the stop point by 30 feet with no other ill effects.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MYF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I flew into Montgomery field for the first time to drop off two friends. After refueling I called ground for an IFR clearance. I was told Taxi instructions which I repeated back correctly. As I started to taxi; she started to give me my IFR clearance. I advised the ground controller I would prefer stopping to write down the instructions but was told to keep taxing. I thought perhaps she would wait until I taxied to the hold short area; but the IFR clearance was delivered while I was taxing. As I was attempting to write down the clearance I failed to turn right on Hotel and started down taxiway Delta toward runway 28 Left. The ground controller saw my initial movement down Delta and asked that I stop immediately; which I did. This all happened while we were still trying to give me my IFR clearance. I stopped immediately; about 100 feet before the hold short line of runway 28L at Delta. I never crossed over the hold short line and was well behind it; at least 100 ft. The ground controller asked if I could turn a U-turn and exit on Delta onto Hotel. I stated that I could not. After a few minutes wait she cleared me to back taxi on Runway 28L and exit on Charlie; then proceed down Hotel to Alpha to depart 28R. I proceeded to do so. I was given the tower phone number and asked to call the number. I choose to call the number before taking off from the hold short area.




Synopsis: Part 91 turbojet committed a taxiway incursion aggravated by ground control insisting that the pilot accept IFR verbal clearance while continuing to taxi.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on [Runway] XXL in ZZZ. As pilot flying; I advanced the throttles to 40% and heard the Captain call 'stable.' I started hunting for the TO/GA button and was sure I found it. The autothrottle arm switch disengaged. The Captain reengaged the switch twice. It disengaged twice as I tried commanding takeoff power. We canceled takeoff clearance; taxied clear and called maintenance which resulted in an MEL for autothrottles. After all paperwork and communication was complete; the departure was normal. Once we were at altitude on the transit; I started thinking through the scenario in greater detail and realized that I may have pressed the autothrottle disengage button rather than the TO/GA button.This flight was my first at the controls in almost two months. I have less than a year of experience on the plane. I reviewed many things prior to my first day back; but TO/GA switch selection was one that I didn't specifically think about and it caught me off guard with less than ideal muscle memory.


Second narrative: FO was pilot flying. On takeoff autothrottles did not advance thrust levers when TOGA was pushed and A/T ARM switch clicked to the off position. I reset the A/T switch twice. Again the switch clicked to the down position. We then taxied clear of the runway and contacted maintenance to MEL the A/T system.At cruise the FO realized that he probably had been pushing the A/T disengage button instead of the TOGA buttons.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported the FO may have pressed the autothrottle disengage button rather than the TO/GA button during takeoff roll. The flight crew rejected the takeoff and cited the FO's lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B TPA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While training a student in steep turns at 1;500 FT MSL and below a Class B shelf of 3;000 FT MSL; we were approached by an ultralight aircraft headed directly for us. We turned to avoid him and he also turned toward us. We came with 300 FT horizontally of him and at the same altitude. We climbed away from him to the south to evade his flight path. This caused us to stray into a lower Class B shelf that began at 1;200 FT MSL. As soon as we realized this; we reduced power to idle and descended rapidly as we turned back north to exit the airspace and reduce altitude at the same time. A northerly wind contributed to the speed with which we deviated into the Class B airspace. The problem was caused by fixating on avoiding this ultralight aircraft and we lost positional awareness. We should have assigned one person to fly and the other to track traffic; instead of both of us trying to watch the traffic maneuvering wildly; and loose positional awareness. In the future; I as the instructor will fly the plane and have the student track the traffic.




Synopsis: A flight instructor and student maneuvering at 1;500 FT reported taking evasive action from an ultralight and so entered TPA Class B at 1;200 FT during the avoidance maneuver.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On 60 KTS on the takeoff roll we received the following EICAS warning messages. E2 A/I Fail ENG REF A/I DISAG. We immediately aborted the takeoff and exited the runway safely. Once stopped; we ran the appropriate QRC and QRH items; we were directed by Maintenance to return to the gate. Soon after our gate return; we deplaned the passengers and swapped aircraft. The threat to this flight was an Anti-Icing System on the takeoff roll when the flight would be conducted in winter conditions. Any error that presents itself on the takeoff roll should be taken seriously and this was no exception. We executed the aborted take off and following the appropriate checklists in a safe and efficient manner. The outcome was satisfactory as we received a new aircraft.




Synopsis: An EMB145 EICAS alerted E2 A/I FAIL ENG REF A/I DISAG so the takeoff was rejected and the aircraft returned to the gate where an aircraft change was made.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Wing Leading Edge
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passenger found delamination; damage and dent to the area behind the slat on the top part of wing. Maintenance could not guarantee that area would not continue to tear or peel back. Satcom voice also inoperative.


Second narrative: Right wing damage or dent/deformation/delamination after inboard slat retraction. Reported by business class passenger sitting at window next to damage location.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported that a passenger in business class on their B777 aircraft noticed damage; dents and delamination of the right wing upper surface behind the inboard slat; after slat retraction. Aircraft returned to departure airport when Maintenance could not guarantee the damaged area would not continue to tear or peel back.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9 Knot Crosswind; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While practicing landings I had an event. It happened on my second landing right after touchdown. The aircraft veered to the right leaving the runway; traveling through the grass and coming to a stop on the taxiway. I was told by the tower to taxi to a nearby tie down area. After parking the aircraft I got out and inspected the aircraft for damage; found that the left main wheel pant; and right main wheel pant fairing were damaged.I was the only person onboard and was not injured. I contacted the flying club after securing the aircraft in the hangar. Tagged the aircraft grounded until the club's maintenance personnel inspected and returned it to service.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported losing directional control after landing resulting in a runway excursion that did minor damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Emergency Light
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: MEL; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: On Preflight; discovered the forward dropped aisle emergency lights were out of position; shifted forward. To make sure there weren't a bunch of burnt out bulbs and it was actually out of position; I counted the bulbs. There were 18 illuminated. The MEL says there are 24 installed and 18 required. When I checked the aft aisle emergency lights I counted 24. The MEL says 18 installed and 14 required. It appears that the two light strips were installed in each other's position. When we called Maintenance Control; he said he knew the MEL to be incorrect. Reference the picture of the emergency lights under MEL 33-20-01. Maintenance Control said to count the number of asterisks on that picture. The picture matches what was installed on the aircraft (except for the forward left light being shifted forward out of position; that was sent in AOG) but is contradictory to the text written in MEL 33-50-03. So; our aircraft had 18 forward; 24 [aft]. This is opposite the text; but matches the diagram. Maintenance Control said the diagram is correct and the text is wrong. We don't know which it should be. Is the diagram in the MEL just advisory or do the asterisks count as good information? If so; either the diagram or text is incorrect. This could mean that possibly all Excels are out of compliance with the MEL and/or Maintenance Control is mistaken about which is correct in the MEL. The data given is contradictory. [Recommend] grabbing two light strips; count the bulbs; correct it in the MEL.




Synopsis: A First Officer questions the contradiction of text in MEL 33-50-03 for the number of emergency lights that must be illuminated at the forward and aft aisle emergency light strips compared with the light diagram in MEL 33-20-01. Maintenance Control says the diagram is correct and the text is wrong. Concern that numerous CE-560XLs may be out of compliance were also raised.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing pattern work in calm wind with excellent visibility. During my first landing; I felt the airplane pull to the left when rolling out; but otherwise nothing was unusual about my landing or taxi back. During my second landing; the plane pulled hard to the left. My efforts to correct the course back toward the center line and slow down using rudder and brake made the roll out feel erratic and out of control. With no other aircraft on the parallel and drifting toward a short stretch of flat grass without obstacles; I chose to go over the grass and onto the parallel rather than exit at the appropriate taxiway. There was no damage to the aircraft or property (Only my pride.) I expect that the cause of my unusual runway exit was being distracted by thinking about a complicated day of work ahead and; although the wind was calm; there must have been enough of it that I should have been doing more to correct for it.  I had a discussion and flew with the Chief Pilot of the club after this. It's all been a good reminder that even after nearly 1;300 landings; there's NO time to be distracted or complacent in aviation.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports a runway excursion during his second landing in 'calm winds'; ending up on the parallel taxiway.