elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On short final; at about 400 feet after turning final from the Expressway Visual to Runway 31; we were told to go around by LGA Tower due to a departing aircraft that was not yet airborne. We executed the go-around; advised the passengers and flight attendants; and returned for a normal landing with no further incident.




Synopsis: An ERJ-170 was directed to go around at LGA due to a departing aircraft that had failed to lift off in a timely fashion.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were just finishing our pushback and the brakes were set. The tug was still connected to the aircraft via towbar. We were pushed basically straight back. At this time; a CRJ-700 being taxied by maintenance crews cut in front of us to park at the gate we just pushed back from. The aircraft came in unmarshalled and the area was so tight he actually came into the gate line half way up. When he turned to line up with the line his engines were running pointed directly at the pushback crew. I estimate his tail about 20 ft from the pushback crew with his engines running. This put the ramp personnel directly in their jet blast creating an extremely unsafe condition. The ramp personnel were having difficulty standing up. They were eventually able to disconnect and then marshal the offending aircraft the last 5 ft into the gate. I do not know if any ramp personnel were injured. I contacted operations and told them about the incident.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a CRJ being taxied by maintenance personnel entered the ramp area and jet blasted the pushback crew.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp LAS
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During Pushback in LAS the Ramp controller gave Aircraft Y clearance to enter the ramp area on the green line; taxi around the Aircraft pushing off (us) on the yellow line; and then to resume the green line to their gate. I advised our ground crew to watch out for Aircraft Y taxiing inbound based upon prior experience and the confusion in read back by the Aircraft Y crew. As I did so; over my left shoulder I noticed Aircraft Y taxiing at a high rate of speed; not appearing to slow or change to the yellow line to avoid a collision with our aircraft. I advised the ground crew to stop pushback of our aircraft as quickly as possible. I keyed the mic on ramp frequency stating that 'We are stopping the push as it appears Aircraft Y was not going to give way.' The ramp controller stated that Aircraft Y needed to stop at their current position. Aircraft Y failed to follow her additional instructions to enter the hold pad. We completed our push; started our engines and were cleared to taxi to spot around Aircraft Y. It is my opinion that if I had not acted by stopping our push; and keyed the mic and broadcast that we were stopping our push; Aircraft Y would have taxied into our aircraft at speed causing major damage to both aircraft. Aircraft Y's speed took them to within 80-100 feet of our aircraft during their rapid stop. The pushback crew needs to be commended for a job well done; as they were already acting to stop the aircraft as I stated to stop the pushback. The ramp area is a congested area of the airport and when dealing with international carriers; complicated taxi procedures on the ramp may need to be avoided to keep down any confusion by international carrier crews.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a potential collision during pushback with traffic that failed to give way.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LIT.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LIT
ATC / advisory: Tower LIT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending on a LP GPS Approach; pilot not flying advised descent to 720 MSL to cross fix RUZAL. From the approach brief; this didn't sound correct. I asked the co-pilot to verify twice; and he responded '720 is correct'. At 900 MSL; Tower advised below glide path. We continued approach and landed uneventfully. The correct altitude at RUZAL is 1040 MSL.


Second narrative: When pilot flying asked for minimums pilot not flying responded with feet above ground rather than altimeter reading; causing pilot to descend to below minimum altitude. Mistake not noticed until tower called low altitude alert. At time ATIS reporting 1500 over visibility 7 miles.


Synopsis: BE200 flight crew describes the cause of a descent below minimums during a LP GPS approach. A low altitude alert is issued by the Tower.
Date: 201908
Location: CYVR.Airport, BC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CYVR
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYVR
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had been cleared for the visual to Runway 26R. We continued to follow the RNAV 26R inbound course and altitudes.  Approximately 1 NM prior to XOVGO I visually picked up a white quad copter drone approximately 2 ft in diameter hovering slightly left of centerline and approximately 200 feet below our altitude. I immediately notified ATC. No evasive action was necessary. ATC relayed the information to aircraft that were following us on approach.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported an NMAC with a UAV on approach to CYVR.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the PRM-O position. From earlier in the evening; the winds had turned from the SW to W at altitude; and when I plugged in for this session; I noticed the winds at the surface were out of the NW at 9 knots (30009kt). ATL was on an East operation. The bases appeared to be ragged as the ceiling came up at one point to about BKN020; but the low 400 feet layer was still there. Transfer of control point was 1 mile; and turnoffs were not visible from the Tower. In layman's terms; it was a crappy; dreary; rainy night. The PRM-V Controller called the Supervisor over and pointed out the winds. He said there simply wasn't a 'good time' to hold arrivals and turn the airport around. As the wind increased and turned to more of a complete tailwind; I announced it in hopes the TMC or Supervisor would finally turn the operation around. When the wind was 290 degrees at 13; the Supervisor came up to me on PRM-O and said; 'Stop it.' I replied this operation was unsafe.   I followed the Supervisor's instructions. I don't have a whole lot to add except to express my commentary. A few pilots questioned the wind. A few volunteered that there was a tailwind 'all the way down' the final. One pilot said; 'I can't do it'; and came off the final and held. One pilot complained it was hard to flare the aircraft and get it to settle on the wet runway. Many pilots were rolling to the end of the runway. At 300 at 9 knots; landing with a tailwind on a wet runway in the rain isn't safe. At 290 at 13; I couldn't believe pilots were even considering it. At what point does safety trump delay? No less than 5 managers standing around watching this operation. I can't believe not a single one of them said 'enough is enough.' As of the writing of this report; no one had slid off the runway. The operation tonight was nothing except dangerous. Recommendation; conduct a review of the ATL operation and discuss with ATL; A80; and ZTL if the operation was safe.




Synopsis: A80 Controller described an unsafe condition while providing PRM services to ATL; noting the tailwind factor was of concern but no one was willing to initiate a runway change to align with the existing wind conditions.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rudder Ratio annunciator light and EICAS message displayed during cruise flight. Advised Dispatch and ATC of our malfunction. Landed at [nearest suitable airport].




Synopsis: A B767-300 Captain reported a 'Rudder Ratio' EICAS message prompted a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Other Agricultural
Operating under: Part 137
Flight plan: None
Mission: Agriculture
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Other Agricultural
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a morning flight I experienced an off field landing due to fuel exhaustion. The Fuel On Board (FOB) required a large hopper load and half tank of fuel. Ground Personnel began loading the aircraft and I took a brief break for lunch. I received a letter which expressed actions which may affect me negatively during the break. I returned to the aircraft and found Ground Personnel had completed operations. I reset the fuel totalizer and went to work on a field 3 miles east of a nearby airport. The engine quit in a turn during the application about 45 minutes after departure. The fuel gages are a single sending unit type and are erratic with fuel sloshing in the application phase of flight with steep banking turns. The aircraft is equipped with a low fuel warning light. The light placement and intensity make it very difficult to determine if it is illuminated in bright daylight conditions. I placed too much confidence in the ground personnel and was distracted by other concerns not related to the flight ultimately making complacency and fatigue the determining factors.To prevent the recurrence the pilot should monitor the loading procedures to verify expected actions have been properly performed. As additional safety measures we are discussing some changes to the aircraft. The addition of a master caution light more in the pilots line of vision with adequate intensity to alert the pilot to any warning light illuminating. Also installation of a refueling system which will allow the pilot to select a partial fuel setting and will automatically stop fuel flow at that quantity to aid in identifying adequate fuel has been loaded




Synopsis: An AT502B landed off airport because the fuel quantity and fuel low lights are unreliable during maneuvering flight and on these flights fuel was limited because of large hopper loads. Complacency and Fatigue were factors.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During descent from cruise altitude of FL260; weather was picked up and the Captain heard the altimeter setting of 30.61. Once passing FL180 Captain set altimeter to 30.61 and commented to the copilot about the very high pressure setting. Co-pilot acknowledged the same and the descent continued. ATC never gave a local altimeter during the descent; and never mentioned discrepancy until we leveled at 10;000; then told us to maintain 10;000; while once again not stating the altimeter setting. We acknowledged with level at 10;000 again no mention of an altimeter setting. The co-pilot then got the field in sight and we were cleared for the visual; the co-pilot switched to CTAF; and I queried ATC if my altitude was showing what it should? About then I noticed the co-pilot's altimeter was 1;000 FT below mine set at 29.61. ATC said that we had been up to 600 FT off at the last 3 level offs. Everything turned out normal but there was definitely a break down between the 2 pilots and ATC in that the obvious was never stated; and the altimeter be given and or cross checked between pilots there was a verbal cross check but obviously not a visual cross check.




Synopsis: BE200 Captain reports incorrectly hearing and setting his altimeter during descent; although the Copilot's altimeter was set correctly. This was not detected by ATC or either pilot through three level offs. After being cleared for a visual approach the discrepancy was detected.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Newly installed non-pressure compensating fuel pumps. Not used to leaning or enriching in-flight. On descent; [I] had some engine roughness. Leaning the mixture helped. Despite checklist usage; left the mixtures lean for landing. Upon turning off the runway onto a taxiway; the right engine quit. I stopped and tried to restart as a hot start from memory. With the fuel pump on; mixture rich; and starter turning; the right engine caught fire. Several people on the ground; and the test engineer in the right seat saw it and notified me. Again; by memory and not in-line with normal POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) procedure I put the mixture at idle cutoff without continuing to crank the engine with the starter. I also did not first move the fuel selector to OFF. The fire went out almost immediately after pulling the mixture to idle cutoff and we exited the airplane without further incident.Lessons learned...practice memory items. I did not act in accordance with the POH for the condition and we were lucky the fire went out and didn't cause any damage. Think about the procedure before you do it. Leaning the mixture on descent hadn't been needed previously in this aircraft; but with the new pumps; it was. It was something that I did not remedy with the landing checklist since the previous fuel pumps did not need leaning or enriching below 8;000 FT. So when the checklist called for 'Mixtures - Rich' I just by rote; completed that item without checking. That probably caused the engine to quit on the taxi roll.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot reported that after landing an engine shutdown; and while attempting to restart; the engine caught fire.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower PSP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My aircraft was operating from PSP on a passenger flight under FAR Part 91 [section] 147. A commercial multi engine certificate holder with a current class 2 medical was at the controls. At the beginning of the takeoff roll a gust of wind (strong) hit the aircraft from the right side and caused the left wingtip to hit the Runway (31R) at PSP. The ground loop damaged the left wing tip and aileron (lower wing). Winds were variable about 10 knots from the North West to North with gust higher. There were no injuries to occupants of the aircraft; there is no wind sock at the arrival end of Runway 31R which is located at Taxiway Bravo; thus as one begins the takeoff roll there is no immediate source of wind information visible to the pilot. Such a source of wind information would be helpful because at PSP the winds can vary considerable depending on one's location on the airport.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reports a ground loop during an attempted takeoff; causing damage to the wing tip and aileron. Gusty crosswinds and no available wind sock were cited as contributing factors.