elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing power off 180s for my commercial single engine add on. I had just landed 2 times before this and my landings were great. My last landing for the day was a short approach for the power off 180. When I touched down I don't really remember but I think I may have let the nose touch the ground too quick which started a porpoise effect. It started off moderate then got really bad. I have never been told what to do in this situation so I just tried controlling the aircraft the best I could. I started to veer off to the left and ended up being in the grass for little bit then veered back onto the runway. During the proposing I pushed in full power and that helped the plane get under control. I thought about just doing full power and going around; but at this point I didn't feel comfortable doing that because I was at the last third of the runway and my airspeed was too low. When I went in the grass I took out one or maybe two lights. When I got back to the ramp I got out and walked around the plane with a maintenance person. There was no tail or prop strike; just a small dent on the flap where the light had hit. What caused this incident was not holding off the nose wheel long enough. Since there is no spring in the nose gear if you hit it too hard on touch down it can start to go into a porpoise. If this ever happens again I know exactly what to do. As soon as I start to feel that porpoise just do full power and a go around. If I would have known more about this type of problem and what to do in this situation this would have never happened.




Synopsis: While practicing landings in a Cirrus SR20 in preparation for a Single Engine rating; this 300 hour Multi-Engine and Instrument rated pilot lost control of the aircraft during touchdown; exited the runway; and made contact with at least one runway light; causing a small dent in a wing flap.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: DG (Dangerous Goods) Acceptance sheet and DGD (Dangerous Goods Declaration) is incorrect and does not match the 20 goods in the shipment. 5 goods left in ZZZ as they arrive next day from ORD. These goods is set on hold in ZZZ due to incorrect information in DGD and DG acceptance sheet. [Shipper] contacted [airline] cargo; and it is decided to forward 5 goods to an external company for repacking and filling of a new DGD. [The external company] has now informed that the content of the 5 goods does not comply with the content of the original DGD. Shipper is contacted to provide [the external company] with correct Safety Data Sheets.




Synopsis: Ramp personnel reported Dangerous Goods Declaration did not match actual cargo shipment received.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared by Ground Controller to reposition aircraft from tie down to maintenance via taxiways Alpha and Bravo; night conditions. My aircraft is equipped with HID wingtips; HID Taxi Lamps; plus LED Nav Lamps which were all in use at the time of the incident. Strobe lights and HID Landing lights while available were turned off for ground operations. While en route on Bravo; an unlit Piper Cherokee cut in front of my aircraft with a hard left turn from the Bravo-3 Intersection. I saw the Piper just as he appeared at the end of the Golf Taxiway/Bravo-3 Intersection; applied hard brakes; and stopped my aircraft while the Piper proceeded ahead. Estimated miss distance was 40 FT; maybe a bit less. The Piper was traveling at 'a good clip' during the turn from Golf to Bravo and I believe he had to skip the inside wheel in the turn due to the speed he was carrying. His lack of taxi or position lights was a factor in not seeing him earlier. Because of the high visibility profile of my aircraft when illuminated as described; I have to believe the Piper operator to have not been actively searching for conflicting taxi traffic. His ground operation at night without the benefit of navigation or taxi lights rendered him almost invisible until late. The relatively high speed he was carrying made our closure rates faster than would normally be expected. I do believe the Piper did have a proper clearance to taxi on the route. Immediately after coming to a stop to avoid the Piper; I keyed the mic on Ground Control to say that the Piper had just cut in front. The Controller replied that it was his (the Controller's) mistake. Even so; despite a clearance; it's every pilot's duty to ensure to the best of their ability that he/she is not creating a conflict with other traffic; to illuminate their aircraft when operating during dark hours; and to control their taxi speed so as to allow room and opportunity for all parties to avoid an accident should an unintentional conflict be created through a taxi clearance error. This event seems to prove the adage that the flight isn't over until the airplane is in the chocks.




Synopsis: C182 pilot experiences a near ground collision with a PA28 entering the taxiway from the left during darkness. The PA28 was unlighted but apparently operating in accordance with Ground Control instructions.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP; Tower CWA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZAU uses ERAM automated adaptation to turn on and off preferential routes to KORD on the ERNNY and MADII STARs. However; when the STAR is turned off; ZAU does not issue a NOTAM to the NAS telling the users that the procedure is not valid. When you turn off a STAR in ERAM; it no longer exists in space. Then; when the users (Airlines/GA/Military) file the flight plan they get it rejected. This causes confusion because NADIN [National Airspace Data Interchange Network] is rejecting a valid flight plan with and no NOTAMs have been issued alerting the users that the procedure(ERNNY STAR) does not exist currently; even though it is nationally charted.I was training a D Side trainee when CWA Tower called for clearance on Aircraft X. We did not have a flight plan; but the Aircraft X flight said company filed one for them. We continued to research; but did not find anything. Finally 22 minutes later; we got the flight plan straightened out and Aircraft X departed. After some initial research; we found out that the Aircraft X Dispatch filed ...GRB.ERNNY2.KORD and later received a reject which contributed to the confusion and flight delay. We also had issues with Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z today. This is the same issue that was a contributor to the Aircraft A pilot deviation which is in the report database. We also had similar problems on a later date when I was working with three other company aircraft; and a couple of flights of which I do not remember the numbers. This issue is creating unnecessary additional workload for CWA Tower; SAW Tower; and ZMP controllers as well as causing flight delays and confusion for the airline dispatchers.If ZAU is going to turn off a published and charted route in the NAS; then they should be issuing a NOTAM so the users know and are not confused when they receive a reject on filed flight plans.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller describes various situations where flight plans are not correct due to ERAM configurations being turned off by ZAU. This in turn causes route changes and or routes/clearances not being sent out by the clearance computer; which then delays flights on the ground or in the air.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I did not have the correct traffic in sight. ATC told us to look for traffic and we spotted the wrong traffic because we were 3rd in the sequence. We turned base and the other aircraft popped out in front of us on final about 100 ft. lower than us and about 300-500 ft. in front of us. We then made a 360 to the right to give them spacing and landed safely. The problem was we spotted the wrong traffic because ATC only told the direction they said 11 to 12 o'clock which there was an aircraft on short final and that's who we thought we were following originally.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid a collision with another aircraft.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: A319
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Ten minutes after departure while climbing through FL190 (IMC weather conditions) [and] circumnavigating around a line of thunderstorm situated north- northeast [of the] airport. These conditions were producing continuous turbulence; at time moderate. Aircraft started experiencing engine 1 moderate to severe vibrations. A short time thereafter and in short order; autopilot and autothrust disconnected (lost of automation). We also had Eng 1 EPR Mode Fault; Eng 1 EGT and N2 over the limits followed by engine 1 stall and engine 1 bona fide fire. The cockpit/cabin filled with smoke; fumes and burning odor together with Avionic; Lavatories and Cargo compartments smoke on ECAM. The aircraft entered Alternate Law- there were many other flight control warnings such as RUD TRIM; RUD TRAVEL LIM1 faults etc. We declared an emergency and requested a return to [departure airport]; but first we needed to clear the weather.


Second narrative: The ECAM began switching which message had higher priority and was flipping the two messages up and down so quickly I was unable to effectively complete actions for either of them. Our tasks were complicated by increasing airframe vibration; much worse than anything I'd encountered in training.The Captain and I were also asked repeatedly to continue flying - in fact; to take the passengers on a replacement aircraft to [destination] in just a couple hours. We received some significant pressure to do it even after we told them we were unfit.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported multiple problems shortly after takeoff; including excessive engine vibration; smoke; fire; and electrical issues. They declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Being vectored for visual approach to runway 24R LAX. Approximately 8 miles east of the airport on a right downwind at 3;000 feet; experienced a green laser event. The origin of the laser was from my 2 o'clock position. I recognized and looked away ASAP. Only my right eye was subject to the laser as the pillar between the forward and side window blocked the beam from my left eye. Reported to ATC. Experienced some minor blind spot and halo effect in right eye. Rest of flight uneventful. Reported to Dispatch and Tracon after gate arrival.


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


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported they were targeted by a laser on approach to LAX; resulting in 'blind spot and halo effect' in the First Officers (FO)s right eye.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We picked up an IFR clearance for a Part 91 flight from KSJC to ZZZ. We were issued a clearance to ZZZ; the clearance was read back to SJC clearance; 'Aircraft X cleared to ZZZ via the LOUPE4 departure except right turn direct BMRNG....' We departed Runway 30L flew heading 306 to the 1.8 DME fix; as we were in a right turn and climbing to 5000 feet when departure told us to turn right to heading of 120. Departure then queried us about the departure programmed in our FMS. Then they gave us another heading change to 140 and cleared us to 11;000 feet; then we were cleared direct to SJC VOR. The rest of the flight was uneventful. In reviewing the event with the other pilot it appeared to us that this is common occurrence on this SID; and departure would like documentation on this SID procedure either to change it or doing away with this SID.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported ATC questioned the crew on the clearance during climb on the SJC LOUPE4 departure.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for a visual approach to 34L RNO at night in VFR. When I turned to a base leg PNF informed me that we were high. Informed tower we were turning a downwind leg to lose altitude. They said roger. We maintained 8;300 feet. Then they responded that they were getting a low altitude alert on us. We had GPWS on and neither one of us were indicating terrain issues. We had the field in sight the entire time and said so to ATC. We turned a left base leg then final and did a small S turn to continue to lose altitude. At 1;000 feet we were on PAPI but above glideslope fully configured and stable. Considered a go-around however did have one red on PAPI.I broke my protocol. I accepted a night VFR approach into a [high terrain] city. Should have stayed with ATC and received radar vectors and altitudes from ATC. It was my FO's first time into RNO.


Second narrative: I believe we should have stayed with [ATC] guidance and vectors due to the terrain and nighttime conditions and not have accepted a visual.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported they got a low altitude alert from ATC on a night visual approach into RNO.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20-C1 Eclipse
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Frequency change from Approach Control to Tower occurred 5 miles from [the airport]. ATIS (information Alpha) reported winds 120 at 15 knots gusting 18 knots; contacted Tower and requested touch and go. Tower cleared me for the option Runway 22; provided wind update of 160 at 15 knots gusting 20; advised of wake turbulence from a jet aircraft taking off ahead of me. Approach was conducted visually and straight in for 22 for a touch and go.Landing was normal; I moved flaps to takeoff position and applied power for takeoff. When power was applied the speed of the aircraft suddenly increased and it pointed to the left in an extreme manner. I made the decision to abort the takeoff; moved power to idle and applied full right rudder. The aircraft rolled to the right despite full left aileron which was set for cross wind correction. I avoided the runway lights and departed the runway into the grass area adjacent. I used light braking to bring the aircraft to a stop in the grass and contacted the Tower.The Tower instructed me to hold my position which I did and was met by a flight operations employee. I secured the engine and got out of the aircraft to inspect with the flight operations employee. We also inspected the runway for damage; no damage was found on the runway or aircraft. An FBO helped to move the aircraft to their ramp where it was subsequently sent to [maintenance] for inspection.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Diamond DV20 reported that while attempting to takeoff the aircraft suddenly sped up; the pilot lost control of the aircraft and it departed the runway.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were being vectored for an approach into Newark. Approach had us on a heading and informed us that on that heading; we had VFR traffic at our 12 o'clock and 500 FT below us. We were looking for the light twin and were unable to pick him out. We had the aircraft on the TCAS; but not a visual. I was pilot not flying and was looking for the aircraft as well as monitoring the TCAS. We were at 6;000 FT and the VFR traffic climbed to within 400 FT of us giving us an RA. At that time I alerted ATC stating that we received an RA and were commencing a climb. At 6;700 FT we were clear of conflict and started back down to 6;000. The Controller stated that he was VFR and that he never got to within less than 500 FT of us. He then went on to say that he didn't see why we had to climb all the way to 7;000 FT when we only climbed to 6;700 FT. He then said that with us climbing it put us in conflict with other traffic around us but I guess you got to do what you have to do he said. I informed him that if I don't have the traffic insight and I receive an RA; I will do what the aircraft instructs me to do. After we descended back to our altitude; we continued the flight with no other problems.


Second narrative: Issue traffic alert to aircraft in close proximity before RA is issued by the aircraft.


Synopsis: Air carrier under N90 control experienced a TCAS RA with reported VFR traffic 500 FT below. The Controller indicated the TCAS RA response cause another conflict.