elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given pushback clearance by ZZZ Tower and told push crew cleared to push. ZZZ is small airport and we were the only aircraft moving on the ground that I heard. Tower controls air; ground and clearance. The English spoken was very good and at no time did I think the communications were not understood by anyone. During pushback the ground crew told us cleared to start both engines. The Captain called for start of both engines 2 then 1. We needed 5 minutes warmup and it was a short taxi to Runway 10 for departure. During second engine start I hear something like 'brakes brakes set parking brake.' I look down and parking brake was not set then outside and I didn't see the aircraft moving. The Captain set the parking brake and asked if everything was ok? We were told it was and that the tow bar was disconnected and bypass pin removed. The Captain again asked if everything was ok. We were told yes. Captain told crew cleared off headset. We received a salute. Second engine was fully started. Everything did not feel ok. Had we missed set parking brake instructions? Had the Captain missed setting the parking brake? I could not recall hearing to set parking brake. Neither can I recall hearing Captain saying parking brake set. The Captain did not recall this either. I was starting the engines but am pretty good at multitasking and I am good at when Captain says parking brake set verifying parking brake red light on and pressure normal. Something was not as normal. It was like the ground crew never told us to set parking brake after pushback completed? Or the Captain never set the parking brake when told to do so? We never saw the aircraft move or felt it move during this undesired moment. No one was hurt. No equipment was damaged. Something somewhere was not right. We just don't know what. We took a quick breather. I never felt rushed. I thought everyone understood all communications spoken. We followed SOP. Still we had a moment that could have been disaster in one or more ways. It left a sour feeling with both of us. Then we snapped out of that feeling and proceeded with the after start checklist and on to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Flight Crew reported communications breakdown during pushback.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D BJC
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [In the] morning; I was taking another certificated pilot for a familiarization ride in Aircraft X. He was a private pilot with a few hours in high performance aircraft and wanted to see how Aircraft X performed on a relatively hot summer day at altitude. After departing Runway 30R I requested closed pattern for touch-and-go landings. Due to the extreme smoke and haze conditions from the many forest fires across Colorado; and the number of aircraft in the traffic pattern at the same time; Tower requested that I fly runway heading until advised to turn crosswind. I was cleared to turn left and enter left downwind for Runway 30L. Being so far west of the airport; the runway was no longer visible from pattern altitude as I turned back towards BJC.As I entered downwind; Tower began calling traffic and I was unable to see many of the other aircraft. Tower advised that; due to poor visibility and heavy traffic; they would call my base. By the time Tower cleared me to turn base; I was well east of the normal 'key' position in the pattern. Tower cleared me for the option on Runway 30L; but as I turned to final; all I could see was Runway 30R. The threshold for Runway 30L is displaced quite a ways west of the threshold for Runway 30R. Runway 30L is also considerably shorter and narrower than Runway 30R; and in the smoke and haze; Runway 30L was not even in my field of view on final approach. I did not even realize that I had landed on the wrong runway until after takeoff when Tower asked me if I remembered being cleared for landing on Runway 30L. Another Tower Controller gave me a phone number to call and I called the Tower immediately after I landed.




Synopsis: Pilot Flying reported smoke obscuring flight whilst in the pattern; leading to a landing on the wrong runway.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During descent; aircraft displayed the following ECAM: DOOR R FWD EMER EXIT. The cabin pressure was normal and the ECAM actions were followed. The condition disappeared prior to landing. The day prior; the door seal of the right forward overwing emergency exit was cleaned by Maintenance after Flight Attendants (FA) reported that the emergency exit was making a loud squealing sound. Upon landing; I made a logbook entry to document the ECAM received during the flight. LAS Maintenance deferred the discrepancy using MEL - ECAM DOOR Page Indications - Over wing Emergency Exits. Upon reviewing the MEL; I noted that this MEL is Repetitive in nature. The FIRST error I observed and had corrected was that Maintenance had placed a yellow deferral sticker on the outside of the logbook vice an orange repetitive deferral sticker as required by MEL. The SECOND error I observed and had corrected was related to the Corrective Action block of the discrepancy in the Logbook. Under the Corrective Action there was no entry documenting that the repetitive Maintenance (Mx) actions of the deferral were complied with. And finally; when I asked Maintenance what the plan was to complete the (M) &(R) items upon landing at my next destination (non-maintenance base); they had not recognized the requirement for a repetitive (Mx) action every leg; and had not devised a plan.It seems; all to often; it is the Captain who is required to catch the errors committed by others. This ASAP report is submitted with the goal to educate Maintenance to always utilize the color X deferral sticker when appropriate.




Synopsis: A319 Captain described oversights by Maintenance after he had made a log entry for an ECAM for DOOR R FWD EMER EXIT.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Took student to practice area. After steep turns we configured for slow flight. Student reported that he couldn't retard power any more for the maneuver. I took command of the airplane and could advance throttle but not pull back to idle at all. It was catching on something. At this point I could force it but what if it broke. I immediately headed towards ZZZ. Along the way I tried to baby it back but nothing. So knew I would have to set up for a power off landing. With ZZZ being 3800 ft runway and now with a REAL world situation I knew it had to be perfect for a zero overrun. With that in mind I decided to [advise] and head to ZZZ1. I called tower and did thus so. Abeam the numbers I cut the mixture and cut mags and did a successful landing.




Synopsis: PA-28 flight instructor reported a throttle malfunction that prevented the power from being reduced.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B STL
ATC / advisory: Tower STL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to intercept the final approach localizer to Runway 30L into STL. We were about 6 miles from the runway set; cleared for the visual; when Tower cancelled our landing clearance; to give way to a formation flight of F-18s. He let them come in first from a right downwind and right base to 30L in front of us. Tower asked if we would instead land on Runway 29. Because it was so late in the approach; we told tower 'Can't comply'. Tower then asked if we would make a 90 degree right turn; to start an S-turn; to give way to the F-18s. We did; then tower asked us to maintain visual with the F-18s; and cleared us to land behind them. We performed the S-turns; while trying to maintain visual separation with the fighters; but in doing so; we got disoriented; and ended up lining ourselves up with Runway 30R instead. In addition; Runway 30R; although it was closed; did not have an 'X' on it; which added to the confusion. Tower saw that we were on short final for Runway 30R and told us to execute a go around; which we did. We then came back around; and had departure vector us to the ILS Runway 30L. I believe that this could've been avoided; if we simply would've just said 'Can't comply' with both of Tower's requests. If this were to happen again; in the future; that would be my solution; in addition to checking our instruments; in order to make sure we're tracking the correct NAVAIDs.




Synopsis: HS-125 Captain reported becoming disoriented and lining up for the wrong runway at STL.
Date: 201307
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATIS reported the wind as 310/9 and when cleared for takeoff Tower reported wind of 310/12. During takeoff roll the Captain applied appropriate control inputs for a left crosswind with mild gusts to include left aileron and rudder necessary to maintain directional control. When 'rotate' call was made; the aircraft was rotated to takeoff pitch attitude; this occurred as the aircraft was rolling over the intersecting runway. As the nose lifted there was an abrupt roll to the left which the Pilot Flying corrected and continued rotation to a normal takeoff attitude. The gear was retracted and the remainder of the takeoff/departure was normal. Passing about 18;000 toward our assigned altitude of FL190; the Flight Attendant in the aft of the aircraft called the cockpit to inform that she heard a loud scraping noise during our takeoff and suspected a tail strike. Pilot Monitoring consulted the QRH procedure which calls for a landing at nearest suitable. Since the tail strike could not be verified and the procedure requires depressurizing the aircraft; it was decided to land ASAP. Captain and Dispatcher agreed that ZZZ was the nearest suitable field. Max landing weight and landing distance was determined from FM charts and all parameters were within the limits. An uneventful approach and landing was made at ZZZ for required maintenance action. There was no indication whatsoever in the cockpit of a tail strike.


Second narrative: On takeoff just as we were lifting off the runway I heard scrapping metal and could feel it underneath my jumpseat at 2L. It was loud enough to concern me and didn't feel right at all. After sterile cockpit was over I immediately called the cockpit and informed them that what I thought might have happened was a tail strike. Captain told me he would call me back in just a few moments. The crew was then informed we were dumping fuel;something about depressurizing; and diverting to ZZZ and just to prepare the cabin for landing. No prep for evacuation was issued. We landed safely. The Captain was very informative.


Synopsis: After takeoff B767-300 flight crew is informed by a Flight Attendant seated in the rear that a tail strike may have occurred during the takeoff. Flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport for maintenance inspection.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying with my instructor in Aircraft X on a night XC (cross country) flight for training. Shortly after reaching ZZZ1 as a check point we made direct to ZZZ2 with active flight following. Cruising westbound at 4;500 ft. we had a near miss with Aircraft Y who was flying at the same altitude eastbound. My ADS-B in kicked in and we offset 20 Degrees to the left to avoid collision. We received a traffic notice from ZZZ Approach as we maneuvered. The aircraft in question was not on freq at the time. The pilot in Aircraft Y showed inept skills in selecting proper altitude and scanning for non-ads-b aircraft.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC with another small aircraft that ATC issued traffic for and was displayed on the reporter's ADS-B.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft touched down on runway during strong crosswinds and pockets of standing water on the runway. Aircraft began to veer to the left after thrust reversers were deployed. Autobrakes were engaged and aircraft seemed to pull harder to the left. Autobrakes were turned off and the Pilot Flying applied manual braking and the anti-skid system engaged while trying to maintain directional control. Aircraft subsequently veered off of left side of the runway 27L with the nose and left main gear in the grass. Aircraft came to a stop; ATC notified; crew passengers were taken off safely.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information.]

Second callback: The reporter stated a detailed analysis of the aircraft system data found that the right brake anti-skid malfunctioned during hydroplaning and prevented brake application while the left brake was functioning correctly. The crosswind; rain and standing water amplified the brake malfunction.

Synopsis: During an ERJ-175 landing roll out in rainy; windy conditions; the right main wheel anti-lock; anti-skid sensor prevented brake application symmetrical with the left brake; and in hydroplaning conditions; the aircraft exited the left runway edge.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Tower, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a calm clear day taking off behind an A319 with winglets we were cleared for takeoff just as they rotated. We were fairly heavy with tanker fuel so we rotated at about the same point down the runway. Between 500-800 ft. AGL we began to quickly bank to the right and ended up at approximately 50 degrees of bank. I immediately unloaded the aircraft with nose down force while continuously increasing left aileron. I pushed the thrust levers into APR thrust and turned on the Continuous Ignition as well during this maneuver. We recovered about 5-8 seconds after initial indication; notified ATC; and continued on without incident. I also checked with our flight attendants to verify that no one was injured and she said that no one seemed to notice. No aircraft damage was found.Calm air; heavy aircraft; and close separation.

Callback: Reporter stated he was surprised at the intensity of the wake since the preceding aircraft was not a heavy.



Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence departing CLT in trail of an A319 that resulted in an uncommanded 50 degree bank.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FRG
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing; the local controller instructed me to turn right from runway 14 to runway 1 and contact ground control. After taxiing off runway 14 and on to runway 1 southbound; I contacted ground control and advised that I was back taxiing on runway 1 as per the instructions of the local controller and requested taxi clearance to [FBO]. The ground controller instructed me to taxi via alpha and bravo. I stated to the ground controller that this made no sense and requested an amended clearance. The controller stated that it made 'perfect sense' and explained to me the original routing. What she failed to understand is that when I received this original clearance; I was already passing taxiway alpha. It is not the first time I've experienced this tower giving clearances that doesn't work; I suspect; and many other pilots also suspect in their own experiences; that these controllers are simply not even looking out the tower cab window. I believe the ground controller erred in this situation. If she looked out the window; she would have known that there was no way I was able to make taxiway alpha without having to make a 180 degree turn back. I was given an amended clearance to taxi off runway 1 via bravo three instead.I requested the controller to save the tapes and that I would call them to discuss. Another controller jumped on the frequency; provided a telephone number so quickly and so angrily and stated that I can have all the discussion I want. I wasn't able to copy down the telephone number because it was given so abruptly and so fast. After returning to the ramp; I decided that it was not worth calling because I know these controllers and the supervisor at this tower will not do anything to make changes. I know this because of many years of past experience with providing feedback and only seeing the same nonsense; unprofessional behaviors; and controllers errors go without recourse or punishment.I'm submitting this report because I find this control tower to be dangerous.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported he felt the controllers at FRG are using unsafe practices.