elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were climbing through FL210 toward our cruise altitude of FL320. The flight plan planned a 335 kts/.80 Mach climb; to cruise .80M. The Captain was flying with the autopilot engaged; and we were accelerating through 320 kts toward our planned climb speed. The air was smooth. Through FL210; we began to experience a little light chop; so; I selected 300 kts; and dialed it in. The turbulence increased to continuous light chop; then we began to feel a rhythmic; continuous vibration. The vibration was a vertical up and down motion; and was steady. It was something I had never felt before in my years of flying. It definitely was NOT a meteorological condition. It felt like driving a car on a washed out dirt road with washboard potholes. I dialed back the speed toward 275 kts; and as the airplane slowed through 300kts; the vibration ceased. The light turbulence was still apparent; but; the vibration was gone. The aft flight attendants called the cockpit wanting an explanation for the event; and the FO took the call. The forward flight attendant said she didn't feel a thing; but; the aft flight attendants said they had never felt or heard anything like that in 30 years of flying. We continued our climb and accelerated again; very carefully; but the vibration was gone. We sent a message to [maintenance] regarding the event. We attempted to duplicate the issue on descent into ZZZ; but the ride conditions were smooth; and the aircraft responded normally; no vibration was felt.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported an unusual vibration was noted during climb; but it disappeared after speed was reduced.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was the PM. Very light aircraft takeoff weight and fairly quick initial altitude level off - 3;000 feet.   I called out of 2 for 3 thousand.  Climbing through 2;700 feet; I stated 'watch your altitude we are leveling off at 3;000.'  I then called out FMA annunciation of 'Speed - VNAV ALT.'  FO immediately began level off.  Wasn't aggressive enough in level off.  We climbed as high as 3;150 feet and then immediately descended back to 3;000 feet. ATC - ZZZ Departure frequency stated; I show you at 3;200 feet and you have traffic at 4;000.  At that time we were level at 3;000 and I responded we were level at 3;000.


Second narrative: First Officer flying miscalculated level off process.  Aircraft very light and climbing rapidly.  Exceeded altitude by 150 feet.  Adjusted back in timely manner; but ATC called the deviation.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an altitude overshoot due to a light aircraft.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Annual inspection was completed on this aircraft by me on [date] with no defects observed. Logbooks were properly updated and aircraft returned to service. All AD (Airworthiness Directive) inspections were verified with none due at the time of the annual. The aircraft was being operated by the owner and his instructor on [date]. The runway in use had a 10-15 [Knot] crosswind while the owner was practicing landings. The pilot during his second landing bounced the aircraft several times then appeared to lose control of the plane. There were skid marks on the runway indicating the plane slid sideways before hitting the grass. The right gear collapsed upon entering the grassy area. No injuries occurred and I arrived at the location shortly after the incident. From talking with the pilot he was unsure what happened; he may have lost control; stepped on brakes; or too much rudder were his comments. After looking at the gear all attach points were still intact with a bent gear actuator rod indicating a heavy side load was put on the gear. I have no reason to believe this is anything but pilot error; but understanding I maintain this aircraft I felt I should file a report. The aircraft has been flown several times since the last annual; and all paperwork appears to be in order. The instructor he was using was not familiar with this model aircraft which I think contributed to the accident. The Piper PA24 is known to bounce at too high of a landing speed; and difficult maintain other than to just go around and do another landing. The plane is also known to stall and drop the nose down first if not properly handled. The instructor did not know any of these items; which I feel contributed to the loss of control. To prevent this in the future instructors should have some time in type aircraft they are flying.




Synopsis: Aircraft Maintenance Technician reported a PA24 departed the runway with the gear collapsing during landing rollout.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While being vectored to ILS 22L at EWR and descending to 3;000; we first received a TCAS TA quickly followed by an RA to level off. I spotted traffic visually; a single engine high wing aircraft traveling northbound along the final approach course. The FO (First Officer) reacted properly to the RA and soon after we got a clear of conflict. I reported the TCAS RA to ATC. The remainder of the approach and landing proceeded without incident.


Second narrative: On approach to EWR turning onto localizer for 22L and descending over TEB we received a traffic warning quickly followed by an RA to level off. I was flying and immediately disconnected the autopilot and followed the RA instructions. The Captain looked for the aircraft; a small Cessna; and saw it climbing over TEB toward us. I did not see it myself. We were clear of the conflict in a few seconds and continued the approach and landing. We got within approximately 300-400 feet from the other aircraft. The captain reported the RA to ATC and nothing was said back to us from them; we were soon sent to tower frequency.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a TCAS RA with a small aircraft while on approach to EWR.
Date: 201308
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight plan was filed direct TAY J75 CAE J51 FAK ... Our clearance said no revisions but gave us the BAYPO5 departure. When we put the BAYPO5 into the FMC and we had two transition choices; the AMG transition or the DUNKN transition. Since we were filed direct TAY and TAY was not a transition option; we put TAY in after the BAYPO Intersection to couple our route up and get rid of the route discontinuity. After takeoff and after going past BAYPO Intersection; Center asked if we were on an assigned heading. We said no we were on the BAYPO5 SID and now heading to TAY. He said after BAYPO; we were supposed to be going to ECAKE WILON SPRING CAMJO CARRD DUNKN. We pulled up the SID again and verified that there was no TAY transition. We looked at the clearance again and in the remarks section; it said the BAYPO5 departure and after that; it said the DUNKN transition. We missed the DUNKN part. The DUNKN transition totally bypasses TAY which is on our route and therefore this should have qualified for a reroute and yet our clearance said no revised segment. If you are not going to somewhere listed on your flight plan; it's a reroute plain and simple. In summary; we would have caught our mistake if it said revised segment. In the future; dispatch should be filing us to a SID transition if there is a remote chance that we could get a SID. Not to a VOR that is not connected to the SID.


Second narrative: On climbout with a BAYPO5 departure direct TAY filing. ATC queried us as to our heading. We were currently headed direct TAY. They then cleared us direct TAY. Upon questioning ATC as to why; they said there was confusion as to where exactly we were headed. No conflict occurred.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reports receiving a PDC from TPA for the BAYPO5 but does not note the transition. ATC questions the routing.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FNL.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E FNL
ATC / advisory: UNICOM FNL
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was descending into the pattern at FNL from the west. Wind favored Runway 15. I; PIC (Pilot in Command) approached the airport and flew over the numbers 33 at approximately 7000 feet msl. I radioed CTAF that I was approaching Runway 15 from the west and would do a 180 to enter the pattern into the left downwind from the warehouse. Since approaching the airport from approximately 3 miles west I had heard no traffic in the pattern or on CTAF. I verified landing lights on; turned my 180 degrees over the warehouse; carefully scanned the upwind; crosswind and downwind pattern legs for traffic; and seeing and hearing none; entered downwind on a 45 just northwest of the warehouse at 6000 feet msl. I proceeded to fly the downwind slow since I had had the power pulled back from the descent and saw no reason to power up for the downwind. At the turn for left base; I announced my left base turn and rolled into the turn. Just as I rolled out of the turn; a 172; 200 feet at my 10 o'clock and approximately 10 feet higher; was just finishing his base turn- at which time he announced his base turn. That was the first radio call I heard from that aircraft. I widened out my base leg; tried to contact the aircraft on the CTAF but heard no reply. After announcing my intention to reenter the pattern I turned a wide upwind; left traffic; and flew a short pattern to an uneventful landing.I believe radio calls from the other aircraft would have prevented the near miss. I also think that I will fly the pattern at higher speeds so it is unlikely that a similar aircraft will overtake me from the rear; if indeed; that's where the other aircraft was. It may have approached from the east on a base leg and not a downwind.It is somewhat disturbing that I do not know where the other aircraft was throughout my pattern; or that someone was even in the airport vicinity. I therefore; cannot say how the situation would be avoided in the future other than timely radio calls by the other aircraft.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot reported a NMAC with another aircraft on short final to runway.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending on the MIP4 Arrival into LGA. We were cleared to the BILEY intersection at 13;000 feet and were then re-cleared to cross [BEUTY] intersection at 10;000 feet.  On the descent to cross [BEUTY] intersection at 10;000 feet; ATC queried us if we would make the restriction. It was at this point that we realized we'd put [another airport] altimeter setting of 29.52 instead of LGA's setting of 30.52 into our altimeter. We fixed it and made the 10;000 foot restriction. We are unsure if we missed the BILEY at 13;000 foot restriction; but the Captain stated we were cleared to [the] intersection to cross at 10;000 feet BEFORE reaching BILEY at 13;000 feet. Otherwise we missed the BILEY at 13;000 foot restriction; but I'm not sure.We just missed the check in multiple spots.  The Approach Checklist should have caught it but we saw the [old] altimeter setting that happened to be exactly 1;000 foot difference on altimeter.


Second narrative: I usually do a much more thorough review of ATIS information checking the weather sheet against ACARS. Not that it is an excuse but we anticipated an hourly weather report before approach; and I believe I did not do as thorough of a review of the previous weather.


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew reported they had incorrectly set the altimeter by an inch of mercury while on arrival into LGA.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, LA
Weather elements / visibility: VFR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Diamond DA40 will suddenly get into a slip on its own without warning.  The apparent cause is that the nose wheel will suddenly turn left and lock against the stop in full left turn position (as if it were turning left on the ground); and it will put the aircraft into uncoordinated flight; and it is impossible to correct.  The autopilot will suddenly cause the plane to fly with left wing about two feet higher than the right wing; and the ball to move way off center to the right.  According to many posts on the Internet; I have found that many Diamond DA40s have this problem; and it is not correctable.  There is no adjustment on the plane or rudder trim to correct the problem.Flight in IFR or marginal VFR is worrisome when the ball is not centered; and the flight is not coordinated.  Main concern is that in cross checking instruments for reliability in IMC flight; the ball not being centered might lead one to become confused about possibility of instrument failure.  I contacted Diamond Aircraft in London; Ontario; Canada; and spoke to them about it.  They said they are aware of the problem; but management has decided not to address it to develop a solution.  There is no adjustment or rudder trim to correct the problem.  The problem also appears to slow the DA40 down by several knots.  The only known solution is to land the plane; and take off again; with hopes that the problem will not occur again; which is certainly not guaranteed.The problem is intermittent; and occurs without warning.  Our DA40 is a 2010; and it is my understanding from talking to a customer service rep for a Diamond dealer that the 2014 models also have the problem.  This is an unsafe condition for certain types of flight.

Callback: The reporter states that the nose wheel can turn to the left or right at takeoff or in cruise flight but does not always occur. Even when the nose wheel does not become cocked in flight there is a lot of vibration caused by the propeller slipstream impinging on the nose wheel fairing; which causes the wheel bearing retaining screws to loosen over time.



Synopsis: DA40 pilot experiences a yaw to the left in cruise requiring right rudder for coordinated flight. It is learned that this and many other DA40's have their nose wheels pivot to the right or left stop after lift off and cannot be recentered without landing.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While attempting to fly the RNAV RNP to Runway 13C; Approach Control vectored us toward the IAF but never clear us to the IAF. The phraseology used was 'intercept the approach course; maintain 180 KTS'. At this point; we were still restricted to 4;000 and not cleared the approach. Pilot not flying queried ATC asking; 'Are we cleared the RNAV RNP 13C approach?' ATC stated that we were cleared the RNAV RNP 13C approach. ATC should have cleared us initially to the IAF with subsequent clearance for the approach. Instead; we received confusing instructions and a speed restriction which was counter to the speeds directed in the RNP system. We missed the 2;500 altitude restriction because of the confusion of the ATC instruction. Unfortunately; we see Approach Control too often attempt to use the RNP approaches but use improper terminology; add additional non-standard altitude and speed instructions overlapping the directives of the published RNP approaches. These approaches do not work if ATC insists on overriding the details of the approaches.




Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew took exception to the phraseology utilized by Approach Control when clearing their flight to intercept and fly the RNAV (GPS) Z Runway 13C approach to MDW.