elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying in the glider; I was too far from the airport and did not have enough altitude to make it back safely. I identified a large field nearby I could safely land in; did a short pattern; and landed in a field. Other than location; this was a normal landing; there were no injuries or damage to the glider. There was a small amount of crops damaged by the landing; and more crops damaged in moving the gilder from the center of the field to the trailer.The decisions made once the land out was decided were good; and the execution of the off field landing went about as well as it could. The main cause was a poor decision to attempt to get to another thermal without sufficient altitude to make it back to the airport if the thermal did not develop. This type of decision will not be repeated. Flights will stay in the airport vicinity unless sufficient altitude; plus a large safety factor; is available to return in any similar event.




Synopsis: Glider pilot reported landing in a field after he realized he did not have sufficient altitude to make it back to the airport.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other Skydive/Parachute Operations
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Skydiver
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At 1;500 feet; all skydivers took off their seat belts. Immediately afterwards; the plane rolled over nearly if not 90 degrees and then went into a dive. It fired 3 skydivers reserve parachutes inside the plane. We landed and exited without further incident. They [skydiving company] had a dismissive attitude about the event; but I believe it needs [to be] addressed. If they had hit another plane; there would have been deaths and had the door been open; which many times it is; we would've all been sucked out in a tangled pile. I hope that this is the correct way of reporting the incident as I couldn't find another source. Thank you for your time.




Synopsis: A skydiver reported that the jump aircraft may have experienced an inflight upset.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; 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: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right main gear collapse on take off. Upon applying full power the aircraft started to roll. Everything checked out normal. Airspeed came alive and around 45 knots the right main collapsed. Pilot lost control of aircraft and the aircraft slid off the right side of runway. The right prop struck pavement and was bent. Before the incident the pilot did a thorough preflight of the plane. All landing gear seemed to be operating properly. All three landing gear had the tension springs in place. During the before take off run-up all three lights were green and the gear handle switch was in the down and locked position. At this time the pilot cannot speculate as to why the gear collapsed.




Synopsis: PA27 pilot experiences a right main gear collapse during takeoff resulting in aircraft damage.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: On ILS to XXR we were instructed to maintain visual separation with the aircraft in front of us on ILS to XXL. He blew through his localizer and ours. We slowed to avoid. He reported responding to an RA. He corrected back to the south and went into a cloud deck. We reported loss of visual with him and were told to go around by ATC.


Second narrative: Approaching ZZZ on the ZZZZZ [arrival]; cleared for ILS XXL approach. A 737 was on a long final visual approach to XXR. I do not know how a visual is assigned when visibility and ceiling are low. Our intercept angle was published at about 45 degrees; and with a tail wind; on autopilot; our aircraft overshot the LOC a bit. The most that we saw was one dot deflection. Just then we got an RA; so I turned off autopilot; descended as instructed and flew the command bars to stay on the LOC. The aircraft on XXR did a go around.


Synopsis: Two B737 flight crews reported that a localizer overshoot and cloudy conditions resulted in the inability to maintain visual separation.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: Tower ONT
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Lighter-Than-Air
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the time of the incident I was working ground and Controller in Charge (CIC) combined and [name removed] was working Local control. Runway 26R was closed so we're were operating with a single runway; runway 26L. Local had Citation rolling out 26L and [a] Cherokee cleared for the option 26L. The Citation slowed down to exit taxiway Q but instead Local instructed the Citation to turn left at taxiway P. At this time the Cherokee was already within a half mile of the threshold but Local never scanned to locate both aircraft. When Local told the Cherokee to turn at P; I immediately informed him of both aircraft positions and he ignored me. The Citation was taxiing slowly down the runway and was still on the runway when the Cherokee crossed the threshold and an altitude unknown. However before the incursion happened I instructed Local to send the Cherokee around twice and he disregarded my instructions. The second time I told him to send the aircraft around he replied that the Citation was past the white line. Local never got up from his chair to locate either aircraft or his chair sits low and has limited fields of view. Also by choosing this sequence of traffic Local delayed two air carriers waiting at the runway.I would recommend that Local be counseled to insure a proper scan and that he stands to see the aircraft when they are this close. In addition we all know that regardless of how one may feel about what a CIC/Sup is telling you to do; you should comply.




Synopsis: Ontario Ground Controller also working as Controller In Charge reported a loss of separation due to the local Controller not identifying an aircraft on final while previous arrival was still on the runway.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Door
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was sent out to a B777-200 aircraft to assist another Mechanic who was answering a call from the [flight] crew regarding a hole in the nose gear door. He couldn't see the hole standing on the tow bar looking up. Supervisor X was standing alongside him claiming it was a paint chip. I put a stand underneath the nose and determined the hole was a burn mark from a lightning strike. Supervisor X kept insisting it was a paint chip. He broadcasted on the radio his disagreement with me and ordered a Lead Mechanic out to the airplane. He then added he wanted another Mechanic sent out because he was removing me from the aircraft. I walked away to look for other signs of lightning strikes. Supervisor X began screaming at me; repeatedly saying 'the damage is over here not over there.' Every Mechanic and Lead Mechanic sent out concurred with my findings. The burn mark on the periphery of the paint is obvious. Supervisor X refused to acknowledge the brown marks as burns. Instead; he was trying to rationalize that there were brown marks all over the nose gear door and they weren't burn marks. Those spots were bug spatters and immaterial to the burn mark; but Supervisor X kept citing it. Supervisor X later told three Union Officers that Management was the final authority. The Union countered that the person signing the logbook was the final authority. Supervisor X doesn't understand the FARs and how it applies to the line operation. Management is generally driven by a performance culture rather than safety. These incidents are all too common. Management fails to acknowledge the independence of mechanics to troubleshoot and ascertain conclusions. The performance culture is too ingrain in Management. At this point; only an overhaul of Management will reverse the toxic environment.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports about the disagreement he had with a Maintenenance Supervisor involving a lightning strike burn mark on the external skin of a B777-200 Nose Landing Gear (NLG) door. Mechanic also raises his concerns about a performance driven management culture versus aircraft safety.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on the TYSSN3 arrival into LAS; ATC kept giving us directs; taking us off the arrival. They asked if we had the field in sight and we confirmed that we did have it in sight and they cleared us direct SHAND and the visual 25L. The First Officer asked for 5;000 FT; the published altitude for SHAND. He continued his gradual descent to 5;000 FT and maintained 250 KTS; intending to slow down at 5;000 FT to help expedite our late arrival into LAS. It was a clear night with a half moon; I believe. At no point did I consider terrain separation an issue. However; on our dog leg to final; I noticed after we landed that on the [Commercial chart] page it does show a rising terrain with a top elevation of 3;738 FT just south of LARRE. I believe this is what we flew over and my guess is that the rapidly rising terrain is what caused the EGPWS to activate the 'Too Low; Terrain' call. He disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles and climbed to approximately 5;600 FT; again with everything in sight (airport; city lights; terrain). I do believe the long day we had; being 2 hours late and it being after XA00am also played a factor.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported receiving a EGPWS Terrain alert on night visual approach into LAS while being vectored off arrival routing. Fatigue was mentioned as a factor.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying; Captain was Pilot Monitoring; and First Officer was resting. Notable weather was intermittent light turbulence; and undercast. Near [coordinates] on NAT F; we were being passed by [another air carrier]; 1000 FT below. We were on a 2M SLOP and they appeared to be on a 1M SLOP. After a few TAs; with them in sight; we received an RA; essentially telling us to stay level. We observed them by visual reference and TCAS to be turning left (away; towards the track) and descending. Contact with [other air carrier] on [frequency] confirmed that they would stay on track while passing us. We communicated the incident with ATC via HF; and confirmed our position; route; SLOP; and altitude. A notable factor was some irregularities we observed with the L Altimeter; namely that it was more erratic than normal / the R Altimeter; meaning that it deviated more (about our cruise altitude) in anything but smooth air (+/- 40' in light; and +/- 80' in moderate). Additionally; the two altimeters were near the 200 FT RVSM limit (180-200 FT). In fact; we did later get an ALT DISAGREE EICAS message. For that; we completed the QRH; consulted the Flight Operations Manual; and made a logbook entry.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a RA in RVSM airspace.  The pilot stated the aircraft's altimeters were off by 180 feet.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Aircraft component: Squat Switch
Component problem: Design
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: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My landing (CA) in ORD in gusty conditions on [Runway] 27L. Wind was 300/17G25 or thereabouts. Visual approach but followed ILS. Touched down normally; not a greased landing but not a hard landing. Thrust levers were closed upon touchdown and as I reached for reverse thrust levers the thrust levers advanced uncommanded. The speed brakes had deployed; but as the thrust levers advanced; the speed brakes stowed. The aircraft then became airborne again. At this time; the First Officer noticed the speed brakes had stowed and reached around the throttle quadrant and pulled speed brake lever. At the same time; I pulled the thrust levers back to idle; held them there with my forearm and deployed the thrust reversers. Second landing was still smooth as we were not airborne for more than a second or two. After thrust levers deployed; I initiated manual braking and exited the runway at a normal taxiway. There was no indication of a tail strike. Once at the gate; I inspected the aircraft and saw no evidence of a tail strike or aircraft damage.This is a known problem as I have experienced it when I was a First Officer. I am normally ALWAYS aware of the potential for the thrust levers to advance uncommanded after touchdown. Today I was not as vigilant as normal and today was the day the uncommanded thrust lever advancement occurred.I have spoke with numerous Check Airman about this issue and we still do not have a solution. At the very least; we need to be training for this eventuality and have a procedure in place to ensure it doesn't cause a more serious incident.In addition; I should have initiated a go-around due to the bounced landing. However; it all happened so fast and the First officer had already deployed the speed brakes after they stowed after the first deployment. To continue the landing appeared to be the best option in the limited amount of time we had.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported the aircraft became airborne after landing when the autothrottles advanced uncommanded upon touchdown.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
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: Cruise
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: At cruise; the right engine vibration was at 4.0 and in the amber caution range. The Captain handed controls over to me and went through the QRH procedure for high engine vibration. When reducing power 2 percent the vibration went down to acceptable levels. The Captain tried contacting Dispatch to see if a return to ZZZ was the best course of action; the Dispatcher replied follow the QRH and gave no other guidance. At this point we were past the 1/2 mark and continued to ZZZZ. Upon Landing it was noticed that the same engine vibration has been written up in the logbook 10 previous times in the last two weeks. In addition it was discovered on the last maintenance write up for the engine vibration; a high powered engine run was required but only an engine run to 45% N1 was completed and the maintenance write up was signed off as good. When calling maintenance in ZZZZ; the Maintenance Personnel advised the Captain against writing the engine up again; as it was contract maintenance in ZZZZ and not much they could do. This posed a huge safety risk to the passengers and crew of future flights.




Synopsis: E175 First Officer reported pressure from maintenance to not write up an engine problem.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi out to [runway]; Tower reported engine fire and sparks coming out of left engine as we crossed off duty runway. Got the aircraft across the runway and stopped in the hold area while we shut down the left engine; pulled the left Fire Handle; and had no secondary indications in the cockpit. Requested ARFF inspection and ARFF rolled out for us. Checked fire warnings for valid tests: all systems tested normal. Advised flight attendant's of situation and made a PA to our passengers that the Airfield Safety Team was going to come out and look at our aircraft and that there was no cause for alarm. Also; that we shut down both engines for their safe investigation of our aircraft. Received all clear; no hot spots on our aircraft from the Fire Marshal. Advised Operations that we were returning to the gate and that the aircraft would be down for maintenance. Advised the crew and passengers that we were returning to the gate. Started the right engine and taxied single engine to the open gate. Completed the write-up in the logbook and briefed Maintenance. Fire Captain debriefed me on his all clear findings and follow me back to the gate in a post incident face to face de-brief. Called Dispatch and debriefed him on what had happened. Called [company Chief Pilot] and debriefed him on the event; and advised him that the cockpit crew was essentially done; one emergency a day; he concurred. Completed post incident debrief with First Officer in Operations. Maintenance advised me of their tailpipe fire inspection and of the 737's possible torching of leaked oil in the tailpipe section for future awareness. The follow up with Maintenance made me aware that this type of tale pipe fire or torching is in the maintenance manuals; for future reference; but engine fires must be respected when aircrew are advised from sources outside their aircraft; and quick and decisive action to secure those fires must still always be accomplished by cockpit aircrew. Additionally; Captain's decision to end the cockpit crew day following this uneventful ground emergency was good in my reflection; in that it was an early morning sign-in for a long day's flight work load.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported ATC advised left engine fire and sparks on taxi out. Flight crew shut down the engine and had ARFF check for hot spots before returning to gate.