elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had just relieved a CPC at Ground Control. I was briefed that Runway 32 was active; and that Ground owned no runways. A PA32 was taxiing northwest on Taxiway Delta to taxi to the ramp via Delta and Golf. Aircraft X called from the ramp to taxi to the active. I issued 'Runway 32; taxi via Golf 5; Runway 19; and Delta'. Tower was rolling Aircraft Y on Runway 01. Aircraft Y rotated approximately 1;200 FT down Runway 01 (a little past G2 Intersection). Tower called out that he was rolling Runway 01; I said 'stop him'; but it was too late; so I stopped Aircraft X. Aircraft X stopped with the nose-wheel past the runway edge line; and the mains just short of the line. Golf 5 Intersection is 4;400 FT down the runway.We have runway ownership strips that are kept at the position that owns the runway; as per the SOP. For myself; the absence of the strip is not an attention getter. Years ago; before we were required to have the runway ownership strips; controllers would place a strip vertically across the bay as a flag to remind themselves that they don't own the runway. If it were required to place a strip across the bay; then the controller I was reliving would have done so. So even though I completely forgot that I did not own Runway 01; the sight of the strip vertically across the bay would have jarred my memory.I would recommend that the SOP be amended to require a positive memory aid; like a strip vertically across the bay. I find the runway ownership strip useless. The absence of the strip at the position is not an attention getter. We worked for decades without them; with no problem. Since they are mandated by national order; we are stuck with them; unless that changes. They don't do any harm; nor do they do any good in my opinion. Other memory aids such as 'RUNWAY CLOSED' is a positive flag that is hard to miss.




Synopsis: FRG Ground Controller issues crossing instructions while departure is rolling down the runway. Ground doesn't realize he doesn't own the runway. Memory Joggers were available to show who owned the runways; but not used.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: At AVL; there are two (parallel) runways. One is a temporary runway with an ILS and GPS approach. The other runway is new (under construction) with fresh asphalt pavement and markings. On a five mile visual approach; it can be confusing as to which runway is the active runway and which runway is under construction. During the daytime; the flashing 'X' at the approach end of the runway under construction is difficult to see until approximately a 2 mile final. Unless you are tracking the localizer or the GPS course to the 'west' runway; it is entirely possible to line up and land on that new runway. Also; there are no NOTAMs associated with the new runway except for some taxiway NOTAMs. Add to [the company's] release a note describing the two runways and to not mistake the east runway as an active/open runway. Also; there should/could be a NOTAM filed regarding the current runway situation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported there is not a NOTAM or company flight plan note regarding runway construction.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FAT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Letter of Agreement between NCT [NorCal Tracon] and FAT [Tracon] requires aircraft going from NCT to VIS airport be at 5;000 FT. Aircraft X was given pilot's discretion maintain 5;000 FT while the aircraft was at 7;000 FT. The aircraft did not descend for over 30 miles. Clarify that a 'pilot's discretion descent' does not meet the requirements of the LOA and requires coordination. Alternately; include PD descent as an option in the LOA to avoid the receiving Controller from expecting the aircraft to descend.




Synopsis: FAT Tracon Controller does not believe that NCT is meeting the requirements of a LOA for pilots inbound to VIS to be at 5;000 FT by issuing a clearance of 'pilot discretion to 5;000 FT' before turning them over to FAT.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Rain; Hail; Turbulence; Windshear; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Pilot was flying ZZZ-VOR-ZZZ1 on an IFR flight plan.  Pilot was flying with Sentry and XM radar weather. In communication with ZZZ Center; pilot was communicating heavy rain storm cells and asking for vectors to avoid the same. ZZZ Center authorized pilot to change course based on visual avoidance of clouds and based on XM weather. On heading of 269 south of VOR pilot was transiting through a line of light precipitation. Based on ATC guidance or XM weather no 'red' cells were observed on the radar. Pilot encountered significant hail and rain at that altitude and was having difficult holding altitude and advised ZZZ Center altitude errors and asked for a block hold. Upon trying to climb/vector to avoid thunderstorms pilot encountered a severe microburst that changed the heading of the plane from 269 to 090 in less than 15 seconds and pilot immediately reported the deviation and asked center for urgent assistance. Center authorized block altitude of 5;000-10;000 ft. and vectored the pilot back east away from the thunderstorms. Pilot flew back towards ZZZ and the transitioned north based on vectors from ZZZ. Pilot experienced loss in altitude and heading upon transitioning through the outer edge of the heavy precipitation cell.Pilot was concerned that XM radar data was outdated (>10 mins old) and was constantly inquiring about vectors from ATC. Sentry data was sporadic and difficult to load. Lack of quality data resulted in flight into significant thunderstorms resulting in change of heading and altitude. Pilot was flying on auto pilot and removed the autopilot hold after the direction change. Auto pilot worked fine for the duration of the flight.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported loss of control after the aircraft entered a microburst.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared to land on XXL. A PA-28 was cleared for XXR however got confused with ATC and understood 'Call your base' as 'Call my final' The aircraft proceeded across the final for XXR and XXL passing very close in front of me at the same altitude. In order to avoid the aircraft I rolled more than 60 degrees into a tight left 360. I proceeded around the 360 and landed normally with no damage to the aircraft. The other aircraft did not make any significant avoidance maneuvers despite calling out the conflict just prior to me seeing the plane come into view from below my wing. After I turned he started a very shallow turn and did not seem to understand the severity of the situation at all. Listening to the saved recordings of ATC; it sounds like ATC confused 2 PA-28s in the pattern and gave the pilot a 'Call your base' command while he was already on base but the pilot did not speak up or ask for clarification and assumed he meant 'Call my final' before proceeding across both finals and into my path.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC with another light aircraft in the pattern.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON 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)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; once above low level turbulence we noticed unusual and severe vibrations that appeared to be coming from the engines. We ran the QRH for Unusual Engine Vibrations which enabled us to isolate the problem to the #2 engine. The QRH then instructed us to proceed to the Engine Shutdown Checklist which was completed as well. At this point we declared an emergency with ATC and were turned direct back to the departure airport for an emergency landing. We notified the Flight Attendant of the situation; that we would be making an emergency landing and the approximate time to landing. We then called Operations; informed them that we were an emergency aircraft returning and asked them to let Dispatch know. The passengers were then told about the situation; that the aircraft flies just fine on one engine and that we would be landing shortly. ATC brought us immediately back [landing]. We shot the visual approach and landed without further incident. After exiting the runway the emergency vehicles met us and inspected the aircraft for damage or fluid leaks before allowing us to taxi to the gate under our own power. We returned to the gate and deplaned the passengers. A brief inspection of the number #2 engine led to the discovery of a loose prop blade.


Second narrative: [No additional information was provided in narrative 2.]


Synopsis: An SF340 developed a number 2 engine vibration after takeoff so the engine was shutdown; an emergency declared; and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Though we had no issues; I wish to report that a staff shortage was causing great delays and potential problems. When we arrived at FRG a single Controller was operating all ATC frequencies: Tower; Ground; and Clearance. The airport was too busy for that and needed another Controller. We got clearance to land from a visual approach very late due to traffic and frequency congestion. While taxiing in; we heard of an airplane blocking another (not sure if that was a bad taxi clearance or pilot error). After unloading and refueling we waited a very long time for our departure clearance. The Controller; though keeping her cool; was obviously overworked still handling all 3 frequencies. When we departed; at a possible shift change; a new person did come on Tower frequency. It was the first time we had heard a different voice. If this was the normal controller schedule for the day; then it was not enough. This is a busy airport with small piston aircraft mixed in with jet aircraft of all sizes; as well as 3 runways. Add communication with New York Approach into the mix; the Tower Controller should not be handling any other frequencies.




Synopsis: A corporate jet pilot reported that all FRG ATC functions were being handled by one person at a very busy time of the day; which caused extensive clearance and departure delays.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On take off I noticed a smell of dirty feet. It went away after a couple minutes. I didn't say anything because I honestly thought someone in the back took their shoes off. It wasn't until we were in the van on the way to the hotel that the Captain asked if we smelled dirty socks on landing. I told him I didn't smell it on landing; but I did smell it on takeoff. He said that he wrote it up; but no one ever said anything or called to ask if we smelled anything.




Synopsis: A320 Flight Attendant reported a fume event during initial departure. 'Dirty socks' odor dissipated shortly thereafter.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We noted the EMZOH3 STAR places the aircraft below the San Francisco Class B airspace. It does not indicate this airspace; and the aircraft's flight management system does not take the associated speed limit into account (the Legs page displays the normal 240 knot speed at MYNEE and later fixes). We programmed the required 200 knot speed; but recommend this should be coded into the arrival. A busy crew could easily miss the specific altitudes of the Class B shelf. On a previous flight; the pilot with whom I was flying said he was slowing to comply with this requirement; and the Captain said '...I've never had a problem with the Class B before;' indicating that he didn't agree with the deceleration; and that the first officer should have maintained 250 knots. I recommend charting improvements to indicate Class B airspace on STAR. This arrival places aircraft below Class B.We could address this via bulletins; but I believe these are not permanent solutions. A note on the station page would be more effective (and currently exists); but publishing (and coding) the relevant speed would be best; in my opinion.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported the EMZOH3 STAR to OAK published speed is above the speed limit for being underneath the SFO Class B airspace.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At gear retraction; the right main gear light showed gear unsafe. We followed the Abnormal check-list 'Gear unsafe light(s) illuminates after gear retraction'. We contacted Maintenance Control. We were directed to return and we landed uneventfully; below maximum landing weight; and returned to the gate. We were assigned a new aircraft. This was a mechanical issue. Maintenance has not informed me why this occurred.




Synopsis: B717 Captain reports receiving a right main gear unsafe indication after gear retraction. Abnormal checklist procedures are complied with and flight returns to departure airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The inside tire on the right main gear left debris on runway during takeoff. Witnesses say that at approximately 4;000 FT down the runway; rubber started separating. An Airbus crew said that it looked like 30-40 pieces of rubber were laying on the runway. We were notified by Center 15 minutes after departure of what happened. We had no idea that this took place. We started the communication and information gathering process; declared an emergency with Center and made an uneventful landing at destination.


Second narrative: During climb; Center told us that Tower wanted to talk to us. Tower advised us that after our take-off there were many pieces of tire left on runway. An Airbus pilot then said he witnessed a bucketful of foot long pieces being picked up. After receiving [this] information; we were approaching cruise alt and decided to continue to destination. Declared an emergency and landed without incident. Later found the tire inflated but most of the rubber missing outside of chord.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew is informed by ATC that one of their tires shed most of its' rubber during takeoff. Flight continues to destination and lands normally after declaring an emergency. The tire was found inflated but missing most of its' tread.