elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We departed the gate late because of the airplane having a maintenance write up on the compass system. Maintenance did replace a part in the gyro compass system and signed off the logbook. During taxi out; all gyro compass indications looked normal. After take off and climbing through about 16;000 FT the heading annunciator on both FMAs illuminated; the Flight Director failed; and the autopilot tripped off. During this time we went through assigned altitude of 25;000 FT by about 200 FT. We advised ATC that we were returning to the departure airport. At times there was a 40 degree split between the two compass systems. Because of the heading issues; we declared an emergency and landed with out incident. This event was caused due to the gyro compass system failure.




Synopsis: A MD82 crew discovered after the FMA annunciated HEADING that the compass headings were up 40 degrees different; so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport where maintenance on the compass had previously been performed.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the KEPEC 3 into LAS cruising at FL250.  LA Center issued PD descent to FL240 and then issued next frequency.  Next Controller stated; 'After MISEN; cross CLARR at 250 knots and one three thousand feet.'  At no time were we given a crossing clearance for MISEN.  The chart shows to expext MISEN at FL240.  Captain and I discussed the clearance and agreed we could disregard the MISEN expect crossing and I set 13;000 in the alt preselector.  We descended below FL240 prior to MISEN.  ATC asked us what we were doing and told us to maintain FL210.  PM and ATC attempted to clarify issue.  ATC seemed to be under the assumption that we were in violation of the MISEN FL240 crossing.  Proceeded normally from this point on. ATC sould have issued the MISEN crossing.  We should have clarified clearance with ATC.




Synopsis: B737-300 First Officer reports descending below FL240 at MISEN on the KEPEC 3 arrival to LAS due to lack of a specific instruction from ATC to comply with the RNAV procedure. Only the speed and altitude at CLARR is issued.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Observer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was observing an inbound flight (widebody) at Gate XX. This gate is a tow in processed for widebody. While the aircraft was being marshalled in all of a sudden a cargo tractor appeared on the left side driving inside the OSZ [Operational Safety Zone] in a collision course of a number 2 engine. Thank god it never happened and he was able to able to avoid it. Once the plane was parked and secured. I did inquire and talked to wing-walker and the driver of the tractor to what transpired. Both had different stories. Wing-walker mentioned that he might be sleeping and got startled and drove off. Driver of tractor mentioned that wing-walker told him to move forward. Since both stories did not agree; I told them that we are very lucky and no one got hurt. Reminded them to have situational awareness at all times. Later that afternoon someone approach me and mention the near missed at gate. He mentioned that he tapped the rear window of the tractor to remind him that he was parked underneath the pathway of the aircraft wing tips. When all of sudden the tractor drove forward causing a near miss incident. Also; I've spoken to the marshaller if he saw the incursion of the tractor. He replied yes; but it was when the tractor was able to avoid the incident.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported observing a near ground collision between a cargo tractor and an aircraft under tow-in procedure.  Reportedly; communication issues between a wing-walker and the tractor driver contributed to the event.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Mistakenly had 1 kg. of dry ice loaded in the aft cargo bin for our flight. This happened due to the fact that we had a live animal loaded in the front cargo bay. The ramp crew and flight crew knew the procedure to separate live animals and dry ice from each other for the safety of the animal. The flight crew received the dry ice report with the load report at the last minute and failed to realize that dry ice is prohibited in the aft cargo bin as per the aircraft limitations. Our main concern was to protect the live animal from the dry ice.




Synopsis: EMB First Officer reported HAZMAT procedural deviation regarding cargo loading location of dry ice.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Ground 1 & 2; CD/FD; combined for the COVID operations.  There were quite a few aircraft taxiing out with arrivals interspersed.  When I heard Aircraft Y call for pushback; I had three to go behind them; so I spoke to all other aircraft before getting back to them.  When I got back to them; I corrected their climb via SID since they were only filed 11;000; and the LOA is initial 10;000.  I gave them pushback on A west ok K after the last in line; [behind] a second company aircraft.  About this time Aircraft X was rolling out to T on Runway XX Left with Gate XX.  I was planning a left turn on B to D; then A when they called.  A few other calls were done first; then I observed Aircraft X taxiing straight in K to A without having called.  I told them that was a bad plan since I had Aircraft Y with pushback clearance at K and A; and I would have liked to be able to exchange that traffic.  I concluded that Aircraft Y had not even started to push back; and simply gave Aircraft X taxi A for Gate XX.  I received nothing further from Aircraft Y.Do not taxi clear [off] the runway further than is necessary; until instructed to do so.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported a ground communication issue resulting in a taxiway incursion.  Controller was working multiple positions including Ground 1 & 2 along with FD/CD.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Haze / Smoke; Fog; Turbulence; Windshear; 3
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ANC
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While turning to intercept localizer on ILS 7R approach; I encountered wake turbulence. Aircraft rolled to 40 degree right bank; and loss of 300 feet altitude during recovery maneuver. Was in trail of a heavy. No damage or injury occurred.




Synopsis: King Air pilot reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to ANC in trail of a heavy transport.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working an A319 on the KOOLY4 arrival; who was following another Air Carrier aircraft on the KOOLY4 arrival into PHX. The first Air Carrier was direct SQUEZ for sequencing; the A319 was still on the arrival. The first Air Carrier had been issued a speed for sequencing; but the A319 was being stair stepped down for traffic out of TUS and had not yet been issued a descend via clearance. Just north of TUS (restriction if FL260 and 280 KTS); I turned the A319 direct SQUEZ to stay out in front of another aircraft on the ITEMM transition. I noticed an 80 KT overtake with the A319 on company in front; and asked him to verify they were at 280 KTS (per the TUS restriction on the STAR). The pilot replied negative; they hadn't been given the arrival yet (they had filed for it). I told them that the speeds were mandatory unless otherwise issued by ATC; the pilot replied that they hadn't been given descend via.  This seems to be a common misperception among pilots that the speeds are only compulsory when descend via has been issued. We were trained that the speeds are mandatory on an RNAV procedure unless otherwise issued; regardless of the clearance status. We often cannot issue descend via because of turboprop traffic stacked underneath the jet traffic on the arrival; therefore the pilots might believe that they don't ever have to comply with the speeds. I think a fresh set of training needs to be issued; both for pilots and controllers; as to what RNAV procedure rules are. I'm wondering how much the conflict with international rules has lead to confusion; especially on pilots (like this Air Carrier pilot) who fly international. It would probably be best for the RNAV work group to reach a consensus as to where the rule making should go to avoid confusion since these procedures will become more ubiquitous.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller expressed concern regarding the apparent misunderstanding of published speeds on RNAV arrival procedures; suggesting a new round of training for both pilots and controllers might be in order.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Slats failed to extend during approach. QRH procedure initiated; slats remained stuck at 0. Entered holding; completed QRH procedure; declared an Emergency (precautionary) landed on the longest available runway; very flat approach at higher than normal speed. Little to no flare; manual throttle reduction to minimize float; landing distance based on maximum braking and appears very short in comparison to normal landing distances.


Second narrative: We were able to extend the flaps to 40 degrees. It was pretty much a non-event. We had plenty of fuel because we were tankering fuel and weather was clear and calm. It worked just like the simulator.


Synopsis: An A310 crew reported that after the slats failed to extend they declared an emergency; completed the QRH and landed uneventfully with flaps 40; no slats.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During approach into ZZZ we encountered a windshear warning around 100 or 200 feet and executed a go-around. We then proceeded to come back around for another landing attempt. The second approach we did not receive the windshear warning and were stabilized at 500 feet AGL. During the landing flare below 50 feet there was a strong gust of wind that caused the left wing to drop down hard. I attempted to correct with right aileron however the left wing tip made contact with the runway. The rest of the landing roll out was uneventful and a safe landing was otherwise made.The cause of this event was strong crosswinds and low level windshear during the landing. The wind report from tower when we were cleared to land was 250 at 25 gusting 34; which came out to a crosswind of 26 knots. During the landing flare there was a strong gust of wind that cause the left wing to drop and make contact with the runway surface.Suggest requesting a different runway for landing; even if it would cause disruption in the flow of traffic. ZZZ has 2 parallel runways they use and a cross runway that they rarely use. However during these wind conditions it would have been much better to land on the crossing runway with minimal crosswinds that would have prevented this.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported they caught a gust of wind in the landing flare. The left wing dipped and struck the runway.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Christen Eagle II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying the aircraft from the rear-seat (pilot seat; two seats in the aircraft with one is front of the other) performing multiple touch & go's. On the last landing; the plane had bounced which started to cause the CG to shift making the aircraft want to swerve from left to right. In attempt to prevent the aircraft from swerving any further; I attempted to put in the correct rudder inputs while the aircraft began to swerve. The passenger (an experienced pilot) then took controls and also attempted to prevent the swerving. The aircraft resulted in ground looping on the runway which caused damage to the right landing gear.


Second narrative: Riding in front (passenger/copilot) seat while partner performing multiple touch and goes. on the last landing; he bounced and started to lose control; on approximately the third left/right oscillation; I took controls in attempt to regain control but it was too late and the plane ground looped. RH landing gear was damaged.


Synopsis: Two pilots in a Christen Eagle II reported a loss of control and ground looped during landing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft had Pack 2 MELed. After takeoff and climb to our cruise altitude; the flight was going normal until we got to the area along our route. The Captain and I noticed a strong smell of smoke immediately followed by a different strong odor that was more acrid. After smelling the odors; we both put on the O2 mask and advised ATC. We initially thought about turning back; but decided it was better to just continue to ZZZ because of our location. ATC cleared us direct to ZZZ and the Captain and I ran the cabin smoke QRH procedures. We were then cleared direct for the ILS X and landed without further incident. Fire/Rescue followed us to the gate and we did get checked out by EMS. It was hard to communicate between the Captain and I with the O2 mask on. Just simply hard to understand each other. The fumes themselves were the only other threat impacting the remainder of the flight. The best thing I now know is the level of difficulty there is when communicating with the O2 mask on with both ATC and the rest of the crew. As there was a malfunction; I don't believe there is much else that anyone could've done. After initially smelling the fumes; I felt dizzy and light-headed and that slowly went away as time went on. Weakness/fatigue [was] also felt until O2 mask was donned.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a strong acrid odor detected in the cockpit accompanied by lightheaded and fatigue feelings. Flight crew landed and Fire/Rescue followed aircraft to gate.
Date: 201910
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Fellow mechanic was performing an ETOPS check on gate and he found the #9 tire at 20 psi. which required a tire change of #10 as well. I was asked by my lead to go assist in the tire change. I went to the tire rack and grabbed two 777 tires. I thought both were high gross weight tires. We changed the tires before the airplane was sent to the hanger because of a missing jack pad cover.




Synopsis: Technician reported installing an incorrect tire and wheel assembly on an in service aircraft.