elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Decent into Denver we were on the BOSSS arrival; however DEN was landing south. We anticipated that we would be given a different arrival. DEN Center informed us of a change to the ZPLYN arrival. We briefed the ZPLYN arrival and the ILS to 17R.  [The Captain] put the new arrival and approach into the FMC. We verified it. There were reports of moderate precipitation and icing on the arrival; but we didn't experience any deviations or icing. Upon contacting approach; they informed us we were to expect the RNP Z to 17R. We had mentioned it being a possibility since it linked up to the arrival.  [The Captain] put into the FMC; and I verified the approach. However; I failed to realize (and didn't fully verify) that part of the ILS was still in the box creating a discontinuity.  [The Captain] briefed the RNP; and we set up for RNP Z; and were cleared for the approach. At QWIKE; the airplane didn't initiate the approach. At STAAM when the aircraft didn't initiate the turn and we were not in a descent; [the Captain] started to initiate the turn and descent. At that time; ATC queried us if we were going to make the altitude. We informed ATC that we were not. ATC gave us a vector to the north and a subsequent visual approach to 16L. We briefed the approach for 16L and landed without further incident.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported track and altitude deviations occurred on arrival into DEN when the FMC was mis-programmed following a late clearance change.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After extending the landing gear on final approach we got an EICAS message for low quantity in the left hydraulic system. When we selected the status page to view the quantity we saw almost nothing remaining. Additional EICAS messages appeared for low pressure in the left system. We accomplished a go around and discussed our options. I worked with the QRH and ATC while the Captain flew the airplane and talked to the flight attendants and passengers. The gear and the flaps stayed at 25 the entire time. I declared an emergency and told ATC that we would like to divert to another airport. I also told our Dispatcher about our situation. After completing the QRH we set up for a visual to the runway. The approach and landing were normal. The Captain was barely able to turn off the runway and we stopped and shutdown the engines just clear. Emergency equipment was standing. They told us that fluid was leaking from the nose wheel area. Operations sent out a mechanic and a tug. The aircraft gear was pinned and we were towed to the gate.




Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew declared an emergency and diverted to an airport with a longer runway after the left hydraulic system failed when the landing gear was extended.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Blade
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was sitting front seat; doing my tail wheel training in the Citabria practicing touch and goes. I was practicing my second ever short field landing in this aircraft and as I was applying breaking to the aircraft I heard my instructor telling me to press harder on the brakes; as we were nearing the end of the landing. I then applied brakes to the point of the tail wheel rising up and then the propeller struck the runway.


Second narrative: We were practicing short field landings for training. After landing the student started applying brakes very lightly. I prompted the student to increase braking action and the student suddenly applied aggressive braking action. The tail began to rise and I applied full aft elevator to help slow the rise but was unable to prevent the prop from striking the runway. From the time aggressive brakes were applied until the prop struck the ground was less than .5 seconds. I had previously briefed with the student what the appropriate short field landing and braking action should look like on the ground and in flight just before the demonstration. I then demonstrated how the maneuver was to be performed before allowing the student to execute the maneuver. Total distance covered from the time the prop impacted the runway was only approximately 5 feet. After the aircraft came to a stop I shut everything down besides the radio; made a radio call to traffic in the area to temporarily close the runway and then had the student monitor the radios while I contacted airport management to notam the runway closed and get assistance with the aircraft. A preliminary inspection revealed damage to the prop; spinner; and lower cowling. No injuries were incurred and not further damage is known at this time.


Synopsis: Flight instructor and student reported that during landing practice in a Citabria tailwheel aircraft; the student applied aggressive braking which caused the tail to rise resulting in a propeller strike.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a visual approach to IAD Runway 19L we encountered wake turbulence about 100 FT AGL. This wake turbulence caused an uncommanded 25 degree left bank. We immediately executed a go-around and made our return via Approach vectors to conduct a visual approach to 19L. We landed and returned to the gate without further incident. Potomac Approach had vectored us to follow a B777 at 5 miles in trail. We were given a speed restriction of 210 KTS while the B777 was given a speed restriction of 180 KTS. Noticing we were overtaking the B777 I asked the First Officer to inquire about a speed reduction for us. Before he could ask ATC for the reduction we were cleared for the visual approach. I immediately configured the aircraft for final approach speed. This did not provide enough separation to avoid the wake turbulence.




Synopsis: An SF340B Captain reported encountering wake vortex from a preceding B777 on approach to IAD that resulted in an uncommanded 25 degree left bank. A go-around was executed.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cowling
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the preflight exterior inspection damage to the number 2 engine cowling was discovered/failure of the material used to construct the inside of the cowling near the tips of the fan blades/a hole developed. The damaged engine cowling was placed on deferral using a Tear Down Inspection ('TDI') as there isn't a CDL that applies. Aircraft was returned to service with the hole still in the cowling; no repair attempts were made before flights with revenue passengers on board. Subsequent flight crews operating aircraft may easily miss the damage to the number 2 cowling if the fan blades were parked in a manner that covered the hole. TDIs are not listed on dispatch release and there are no placards anywhere on the aircraft identifying the damage to alert the next crew. Please review and respond...was this the correct way to 'fix' this particular mechanical discrepancy? At the very least; please list all TDIs on the dispatch release and highlight them on the cover of the aircraft logbook so that each crew is fully aware of the current condition of their aircraft. Furthermore; in hindsight I have concerns regarding the safe operation of company aircraft that are dispatched for revenue flights with holes developing in the engine cowling; cowling material eroding away without predictability - just millimeters away from spinning fan blades inside the engine cowling.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a hole was discovered on the inside cowling of the Number 2 engine during the exterior inspection. Aircraft placed on a work order and returned to service with hole still in cowling. Captain is concerned about this procedure.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON MSP
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff; leveled off at 5;000 feet per ATC instructions while inside Class B airspace. Got an RA descend; single engine aircraft came within 400 feet of aircraft. Reported RA to ATC. They did not seem concerned.Cause - ATC vectored us within 500 feet of a small airplane.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an NMAC event after ATC assigned a level off during initial climb after takeoff from MSP.  The flight crew complied with the TCAS RA and notified ATC.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the pilot not flying; and we were assigned the RUUDY4 Departure off of Runway 24 at TEB. 1;500 FT was selected in the ASEL for the initial altitude to cross WENTZ at 1;500 FT prior to departure. The pilot flying departed Runway 24 with a rate of climb that prevented the aircraft from leveling off at 1;500 FT causing a 200 FT deviation. The altitude deviation was quickly corrected back to 1;500 FT.This was the pilot flying's first time departing TEB using the RUUDY4 departure. As the senior pilot I will be sure to demonstrate the next RUUDY4 departure explaining suggested throttle/pitch settings to accommodate the departure.


Second narrative: During the takeoff while executing the RUDDY 4 departure from Runway 24 at TEB; I failed to aggressively reduce the pitch angle in order to comply with crossing WENTZ at 1;500 FT. An excursion of approximately 200 FT occurred and I immediately returned to assigned altitude.This being my first RUDDY 4 Departure; perhaps letting the other pilot perform the takeoff and demonstrate techniques used to level the aircraft at the appropriate altitude would have helped avoid the excursion. In the future better coordination of thrust reduction and reduction of pitch angle will help deter another event like this from happening again.


Synopsis: A G200 First Officer flying his first TEB RUUDY 4 Departure overshot the WENTZ Intersection 1;500 FT altitude by 200 FT because he had no experience with the power verses pitch requirement during the high pitch angle climb.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Air Carrier X checked in on frequency; asking for deviations and direct TADPO (the crossing fix into Cuban airspace). I told him unable direct TADPO but to deviate right then direct MTH when able; I was giving the aircraft MTH because of the Special Interest Flight requirements to return them to their route as soon as possible. Air Carrier X told me that he had weather and needed TADPO; I then told him to deviate right for the weather and go to MTH and that there was no known precipitation south of MTH. The pilot rogered that clearance. Air Carrier X continued to fly and not deviate and flew directly through the weather that he had been cleared to deviate around. The flight then reported a loss of 500 FT and 'Heavy' turbulence. We then asked if it was Moderate; Severe; or Extreme. The pilot responded with Extreme. Pilot was asked if there was any damage to the airplane or injury to passengers. Pilot replied with a negative. I am not 100% certain if I called the weather to the pilot; but assumed that since he was saying he needed to deviate that he was going around it. The plane encountered the weather just as I was being removed from the sector to allow for training of another Controller. I think the briefing was a distraction. I think there may have been some communication/language issues with the Air Carrier X pilot and may have not understood I was giving him deviations and just needed him to return to course sooner than he requested. I also think I could have done a better job calling the weather to the pilot especially when I didn't see the turn. I also will make sure that all things are taken care of prior to giving a position relief briefing.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller described an 'Extreme' turbulence encounter experienced by a foreign air carrier after being authorized to deviate; the Controller listing language barriers and lack of weather information as contributory.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Logbook Entry
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our originating flight was delayed over four hours out of ZZZ. Company Maintenance was working the problem of a fuel leak on the Number 2 (Right) Engine. Company Maintenance signed-off the leak as 'within limits' on the [Log] page prior to the Contract Maintenance write-up stating that the leak was out of limits. We questioned the Mechanic about the seemingly backwards write-up; and were told that it was satisfactory. Upon arriving at ZZZ1; the engine was still leaking and Maintenance informed us that the write-up was not satisfactory and the aircraft was taken out of service. [Recommend to] double check with Maintenance Control if you have questions. Improper Mechanic Logbook sign-off.


Second narrative: Arrived at gate in ZZZ and found aircraft undergoing maintenance by two Company Maintenance persons. The aircraft had a fuel leak. Four plus hours later; Company Maintenance signed-off the aircraft: the fuel leak was within limits and aircraft returned to service. Aircraft Logbook was filled out and flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 boarded. Upon inspection of Aircraft Logbook; Company Maintenance [had] returned the aircraft to service with a 'within limits' fuel leak on the previous page that had the original write-up. The original write-up of the fuel leak (with Contract Maintenance in ZZZ) stated that the fuel leak was 'not within limits'.Spoke with our Company Maintenance persons in ZZZ about the Logbook clearing on the page before the original Logbook entry. They said their Corrective Action 'clearing entry' overrides the other and that we were good to go. Flew the aircraft to ZZZ1; which is a Maintenance Base for Company. Had Maintenance inspect for any additional fuel leaks and asked them to review the Logbook entries. ZZZ1 Maintenance said the Logbook entries were incorrect and grounded the aircraft. [Recommend] smarter online Maintenance Personnel. Incorrect Maintenance sign-off. Airworthiness [issue].


Synopsis: After arrival; a Captain and First Officer were informed by Company Base Maintenance personnel that Logbook Corrective Action entries at their previous departing station for Number 2 (Right) Engine fuel leaking were incorrect and the B737-300 aircraft had to be grounded.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a training flight with a student who was preparing for solo operations; the student made his second approach to the runway in calm conditions. During the flare; the aircraft yawed to the left and he attempted to correct it using right rudder. Shortly thereafter the aircraft touched down; at which time it immediately exited the runway to the right. The aircraft crossed a grassy area; then an adjacent taxiway and another grassy area; before coming to rest. As the Instructor; I had taken control once it began exiting the runway. Once the aircraft had stopped; we exited the grassy area back to the taxiway and held short of the runway. I exited the aircraft and took a visual review of the aircraft for damage. Having seen none I asked the student if he would like to continue and while he said he was shaken; he was OK with continuing. I then took control of the aircraft and proceeded to demonstrate an approach and landing. Upon finishing the lesson and reviewing the aircraft; I noticed a slight nick in the prop. In hindsight; I should have shut the aircraft down and suspended operations immediately; to do a more thorough review of the aircraft as well as allow my student to gather his thoughts and focus.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported his trainee lost directional control on landing roll; resulting in a runway excursion and a nicked prop.