elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As we were taxiing west on Runway 27; we could see a radar return of a strong storm which was depicted red on our screen. The storm was directly west of the Memphis airport and appeared to be moving east toward us. As we turned south on Taxiway N; we could only see part of the storm to our right on the radar display. When we switched frequencies to Tower; we heard that there was windshear on a two mile final for our runway. As we approached the runway; we advised Tower that we would not takeoff. Tower reminded us that the windshear was two miles in the opposite direction from where we would be heading. It seemed like the cell was directly over the field at that time possibly centered a little north. I considered the fact that the FOM guides us not to get within 5 miles of a cell below FL200. Tower instructed us to taxi out of the way so that several other aircraft could takeoff while we waited a few minutes for the storm to pass.I feel that Tower was more concerned about getting airplanes on their way than wait a few minutes until it was safe. I also think [there is an] air carrier culture pressure to get the job done even if there is an increased risk. When one aircraft decides it is not safe to takeoff; perhaps Tower should inform the following aircraft that might not have been on frequency to get the same information. Although several aircraft took off away from the storm; they faced the possibility of getting a decreasing performance windshear on takeoff. I would also suggest more fatigue prevention measures since crews may have felt in a hurry to get to the next hotel room.




Synopsis: With weather depicted near MEM and a windshear alert issued; a flight crew declined takeoff clearance but felt pressure from ATC and the air carrier to not delay flight operations even with the increased risk.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System - Regulator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We] lost all hydraulic fluid on the #2 side during descent. Ran appropriate checklists for low hydraulic quantity and associated master cautions including an alternate gear extension. On landing; we had no nose wheel steering as the checklist specified and thus we attempted to use differential braking and power to turn aircraft off of runway. It was quickly obvious that this was not a safe course of action and [we] stopped short of clearing runway. A tug met the plane and we were tugged to the gate.




Synopsis: Q400 First Officer reported loss of #2 hydraulic system on descent. After running appropriate procedures a normal landing was made and the aircraft was towed to the gate.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While working Local Control 1; a C-152 requested a full stop landing while downwind north in right traffic for Runway 29R after completing numerous pattern operations with an instructor and student on board. After touchdown; the right main landing gear and its assembly separated from the aircraft's right strut rolling in the grass area south of Runway 29R slightly west of Taxiway H. The aircraft slid down the runway veering toward the north side of the runway coming to stop with what appeared to be the nose gear and left main gear remaining on the runway pavement but the right strut in the grass. The pilot(s) immediately re-established communications and advised of the situation requesting assistance from airport operations but declining other emergency services. With the help of a tow bar and airport operations' pick-up truck; the aircraft was towed off the runway.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described the loss of a landing gear on an inbound Cessna.
Date: 201708
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Other Load Planner
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After the flight was final a new flight plan and fuel increase of 5200 LBS was put in by dispatch. This put this flight overweight and illegal according to the smart load screen Zero-Fuel Weight (ZFW) and the weight manifest. Because this overweight condition happened after the weights were sent to the crew there was no Automatic notification of the illegal condition. As the load planner I received no notice of the Overweight condition and the color logic in smart load did not change from green to red. The Smart load color was all green with only the plus 1.75 ZFW indicating an overweight condition. The dispatch ran another flight plan that lowered the fuel to make the flight legal. This lower fuel was only noticed by the load planner by the ion fuel message. The fact that a flight could go overweight without any notification to the load planner causes confusion and is not safe. Some kind of automatic notification should be applied when the Flight is overweight after weights have been sent to the crew.




Synopsis: An air carrier Load Planner reported that there was no automatic notification of an illegal overweight condition prior to flight.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arrival into IAH was changed from LINKK to NNCEE. We were told to expect Runway 8R; but it would be decided by next controller. We left Runway 9 in the box with appropriate transition. Approaching KONZZ at 12;000 ft.; we were given 8R. We both discussed quickly putting in the Runway 8R with the assumption that we would go north to GOVVV after PRAYY. Flight director went to LVL CHG with the confusion and briefly we descended below 10;000 slightly above 250 kts. At PRAYY; within seconds of beginning a turn for GOVVV; the controller corrected us and vectored us for the south downwind.




Synopsis: Captain reported flying over 250 knots while descending below 10;000 feet due to confusion around a runway clearance change.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received 1 piece of mail for [flight to] ZZZZ that was stopped at acceptance from the P.O. clearly marked as Lithium Battery just below the DNR tag. Mail was rejected back to the P.O.




Synopsis: Cargo agent reported rejecting USPS mail containing Hazmat not approved for shipment.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other Downwind
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: Tower DAB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was being flown in an extended upwind as advised by tower; once crosswind and downwind had commenced an aircraft that took off after us had begun an uninstructed crosswind turn resulting in us having to take evasive action to avoid them.




Synopsis: A C-172 pilot on downwind had to take evasive action after an aircraft that had taken off after them began to turn crosswind in front of them.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were conducting a training flight. After landing and decelerating below approximately 20 knots; the tail wheel tire blew out; causing a swerve to the left and subsequent departure from the runway; with a ground loop. There was no damage to the aircraft or other property. The Tower said nothing; and we taxied back on the runway and to the hangar.




Synopsis: Great Lakes instructor pilot reported the tail wheel tire blew out which caused a runway departure and ground loop. No damage.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
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; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: On arrival into EWR one frequency was running what is usually 3 or 4. 128.55 was running all arrivals for all sectors and the departures from EWR. Frequency congestion was high and many aircraft were missing calls. We were at 8000 ft. on the PHILBO THREE having just passed DYLIN. Given instructions to descend to 4000ft. Pilot Monitoring read it back as 4000ft; I set it and verified altitude selected and started a decent. I happened to glance at the TCAS and the line of aircraft compared to my altitude were all leveled at 5000 ft. I stopped descent at 5000 and when able to get a word in queried to confirm 5000 for us. He responded yes; thank you. The rest of the arrival had additional issues including a late intercept to final and being left at 4000. Having other traffic not complying with instructions of ATC and being told to maintain 4000 after starting a decent after being told cleared the approach. We were able to stop at 3700. We were out of position for an ILS but I said I could accept a visual if we got it immediately and I could descend to keep clear of clouds. We were cleared the visual. After landing; I asked for feedback to be relayed from Ground to Approach and was given a number to call to relay my concerns TRACON supervisor answered the phone. I believe that due to frequency congestion we were either given a wrong altitude or read back the incorrect number. As both the Pilot Monitoring and I heard the same number; read it back and were not corrected; I think it was the former. I really feel the overall threats were driven by the lack of multiple controllers. The controller was overloaded.




Synopsis: Captain reported receiving the wrong altitude for a descent clearance during vectors for the approach into EWR.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Other unknown
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Ground Control; Flight Data; Clearance Delivery. I had Aircraft X taxi from the east to west ramp via Bravo and hold short of Runway XXL approach end. I coordinated crossing with local via TVS [Tower Voice Switch]. I crossed Aircraft X and gave hold instruction of Runway XXR at Victor. Local had a helicopter high on final. Local coordinated crossing observed and gave a crossing on Runway XXR/V; I just responded roger. I crossed Aircraft X; still on a taxi speed. Local did point out the helicopter high on final and had his memory aid for crossing. I noticed that the helicopter was still on short final. I advised local that Aircraft X is crossing. We should always use proper coordination; read back and be specific and don't assume.


Second narrative: I was working Local Control and CIC alongside a coworker who was working Ground Control. Aircraft Y in the right closed traffic pattern was given an option clearance for Runway XXR. Aircraft X was with Ground Control holding short of the approach end of Runway XXR. Local Control pointed out and informed Ground Control of the helicopter traffic on a high short final and then proceeded to approve Ground Control to cross Runway XXR on the recorded line. Local Control and Ground Control had a misunderstanding on the runway crossing and as the helicopter was crossing the runway threshold on a high approach (approximately 200-300 ft. AGL); Aircraft X had started to cross Runway XXR. Aircraft Y questioned the operation. Although Ground Control acknowledged the helicopter traffic; Local Control did not anticipate Ground control to cross Aircraft X when they did. Recommend to give runway crossings only after runway threshold has been crossed.


Synopsis: ATC Controllers and small aircraft pilot reported a miscommunication between Local and Ground Control that resulted in a critical ground conflict.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Violation of FAR 91.314 CFR 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for; and is the final authority as to; the operation of that aircraft.During the preflight I saw on the Weather Channel app that there was 100% chance of thunderstorm; so I requested additional fuel for added safety; but the Dispatcher denied. I told him I reviewed the weather and I wanted more fuel as the PIC decision but he still refused when we could have taken the requested fuel within the limitation of the aircraft and without violating the FAR and still be able to use the Flex takeoff. He gave us only 700 lbs of extra fuel for a 3 hr 15 min planned flight into IMC and potential TS situation. This is not even enough to execute a single go-around in an E175. We landed at 4850 lbs of fuel even after a significant short cut; and that was only 351 lbs more than the minimum diversion fuel.The dispatcher should know who the PIC is in the operation of the flight. It is not him; but the captain of the aircraft. If the captain request something for the interest of the safety of the flight that he is conducting; the dispatcher should cooperate with the captain as long as the request is within the limitation of the aircraft and within the boundaries of the law. This dispatcher was making the PIC decision and expected the captain to follow.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported his Dispatcher refused his request for additional fuel in violation of FAR 91.3. The Captain requested additional fuel because he believed weather at his destination airport would be worse than forecasted.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E AUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON AUS
Second aircraft: Bonanza 36
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training on Radar east; GRK Approach handed off Aircraft Y southbound at 12;000 feet whose path coincided with the descend via STAR. ZHU handed off Aircraft X descending via the arrival at 14000. Aircraft X descended in front of Aircraft Y with 500 feet and 1.8 miles I believe. The Collision Alert never went off and I didn't notice it until two days later when it was received by TARP [Traffic Analysis and Review Program].Do not let GRK approach send overflights through the arrival drop box that coincides with the STAR.




Synopsis: AUS Approach Controller reported an airborne conflict due to a VFR aircraft in the path of an IFR arrival on a descend via clearance.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Precautionary Left Engine Shutdown in flight due to Left Pylon Bleed Leak. Flight was a maintenance flight with a Maintenance Technician on board. Notified ATC; [requested priority handling]; landed uneventfully at ZZZ.


Second narrative: Precautionary Left Engine Shutdown due to LEFT PYLON BLEED LEAK CAS. Maintenance flight with Maintenance Technician on board. Landed uneventfully at ZZZ.


Synopsis: Challenger 300 flight crew reported an in flight shut down of the left engine caused by a bleed air leak. The flight crew continued to landing at destination airport.