elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Ultralight
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 103
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was flying my ultralight aircraft in moderate mid-day conditions and light winds. After approximately 30 minutes of uneventful flying I set up to land at my home field. Normal approach and set for landing on Runway 13. Everything was normal until the last 10-20 FT AGL when a strong thermal or bit of turbulence that picked up one wing so hard and so fast that I was unable to correct. The ultralight rolled over and landed on its side with me still in the aircraft.Local pilots arrived immediately and assisted in securing the aircraft. I did not immediately file a NASA report since; as best I can tell; I did not deviate from any regulations or rules. When I spoke briefly with the local FAA a week ago they indicated that I might not even need to report this further. Just to clarify; this was a Part 103 flight with a fully compliant ultralight. I was flying solo and for personal reasons. I have since been in contact with the FAA and they have asked to come inspect the ultralight to ensure Part 103 compliance.




Synopsis: An ultralight aircraft was upset by a wind gust during approach at about 10 -20 FT and landed on its side with pilot apparently uninjured; still in it.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
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 Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had a] normal pre-flight; engine start; push-back; taxi out; takeoff; and departure. The problem first came apparent climbing above 10;000 FT using a climb power of around 95% torque. We all noticed that the #1 Engine was surging and was further confirmed by the #1 Torque Gauge also rising and falling erratically. The #1 Torque Gauge was fluctuating between 95% and 105% with a noticeable surge on the number one engine. I reduced the power on the number one side so that we did not exceed the engine limitations. All three of us monitored the gauges to see if it was a transient problem. The fluctuations continued with a lowered power setting of around 85%.Reaching 12;000 FT we configured the engine in the cruise configuration; props 900 and a setting of around 92%. The torque and engine surge on the #1 Engine continued to fluctuate to a greater degree causing the aircraft to yaw. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance. Maintenance had us check various settings including switching off the prop sync. The engine surging problem persisted; while the remainder of the engine gauges remained constant. A decision was made to return to [departure airport]. ATC was notified and they assisted with vectors and no emergency was declared. The emergency vehicles were provided as a precaution but were not needed.




Synopsis: DHC-8-200 Captain reported that the #1 Engine was surging in climb above 10;000 FT. Flight returned to departure airport.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After applying takeoff power we received a triple chime warning message with a PAX DOOR RED message. I called abort and immediately pulled thrust to idle. We taxied clear of the runway and returned to the gate per Maintenance Control's request. I believe that all of the checklists were complete and the rejected takeoff was appropriate. I believe that all crew members performed their duties correctly however this report is in the event that the crew did something amiss.


Second narrative: We then held on the taxiway pulled up the doors page on EICAS and saw the main PAX door turn from red to green. The Captain contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and then we taxied back to the gate.Passenger door sensed that it was open during the takeoff. As far as we know we properly followed all checklists and procedures leading up to the event. Neither one of us saw any messages before the takeoff but both our memories didn't capture every detail.


Synopsis: A CRJ-700 EICAS alerted PAX DOOR during the takeoff roll; so the Captain rejected the takeoff and returned to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While flying the FMS BRIDGE VISUAL 28R Approach into SFO; the tower controller asked us to slow to the final approach speed to accommodate a 777 departure. I configured and slowed the airplane to our target speed of 150 KIAS about 4NM from touchdown. It seemed like the 777 took forever to line up and takeoff; but it was airborne by the time we were over the approach lights. The wind was 350/07 and I purposely did not want to land long to avoid the wake turbulence. I knew we were going to encounter some jet wash; but never expected to be that strong from 200 feet AGL to touchdown. We still felt safe and landed smoothly.I contacted the SFO tower supervisor afterwards; and supervisor informed me that they were only required to provide 6000 ft of lateral separation within the two airplanes. I expressed my concern about the intensity of the jet wash; but she did not seem to care. I will probably not land that close from a departing heavy again.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported encountering jet wash on short final at SFO shortly after a B777 departure.
Date: 201811
Location: CZQX.ARTCC, NF
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A CZQX
ATC / advisory: Center CZQX
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After taking the first rest period; I relieved the Captain who was the pilot flying. The FO (First Officer) informed me that we had received a clearance to climb at the next fix and showed me the printout of the clearance. It read 'FM ELSIR/1136 MNTN FL350'. We talked about this and determined that it was a CPDLC (Controller Pilot Datalink Communications) clearance to climb to depart ELSIR at FL350 and .84 mach. We commenced a climb roughly two minutes prior to ELSIR to depart that fix at FL350 and .84. A few minutes after completing the climb; Gander called us and said that what we received was not a clearance to climb. The controller said; 'just so you know for next time; you need to call me before climbing.' He added; 'I know that clearance we sent you was poorly worded'. After copious apologies from us; he again stated that there was no problem or conflict; just wanted to make sure we knew.Lesson learned that we get used to climbing after getting messages; so it didn't feel strange to be doing so. This was certainly a mistake on my part; but as we move into this era of more CPDLC messaging I can see this problem recurring in the future with other crews. We were lucky there was no conflict in this incident. Maybe this is an issue that we could discuss in recurrent?


Second narrative: We received oceanic clearance from Gander via CPDLC (Controller Pilot Datalink Communications). Our clearance included routing and instructions to climb from FL330 to FL350 at 1136Z prior to the coast-out point ELSIR. We commenced climb from FL330 to FL350. Gander Domestic queried our climb and apologized for the 'poorly written' altitude clearance; but advised that we should have requested the climb via VHF voice prior to commencing. We acknowledged and continued our climb to FL350 with no traffic conflict.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported climbing from the assigned altitude after receiving an clearance via CPDLC; then being advised of a misunderstanding of the clearance.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately one mile outside the marker for Runway 10 in ORD we received a TCAS traffic alert. The aircraft appeared to be 700 FT below. We started looking for traffic and at no point did ORD Tower say anything to us about traffic. The target began to get closer and closer to us and when we did spot the aircraft it was at our same altitude in a right hand bank directly towards us. It was close enough we could see in the windscreen of this C172 or C152 aircraft; and we did receive a RA and reacted accordingly. Advised Tower; after the RA was over we continued and landed without further incident.




Synopsis: ERJ-170 First Officer reported RA-level airborne conflict on ORD arrival with no traffic call from Tower.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Flow Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll aborted at 90 KTS due to lack of fuel flow on left engine. Right 12.3 left 2.3; no yaw. [We] followed QRH; brake cooling. [We] called Dispatch; Maintenance Control; and Duty Manager. After inspection aircraft signed off and flight departed.


Second narrative: [We were] cleared for takeoff. Once power was applied; and stable; we noticed an erratic fuel flow gauge. We aborted the takeoff below 85 KTS. We then followed all pertinent SOPs in the flight manual. After appropriate maintenance and paperwork delay; we departed. The remaining portion of flight was uneventful.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports erratic fuel flow indication on the left engine and rejects the takeoff below 90 KTS.
Date: 201303
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC's frequent modification of the GIBBZ ONE RNAV ARRIVAL; HVQ transition is flawed. When using the HVQ transition there is a crossing restriction at PHOOW of FL270 then; just 5.7 NM later there is an at or above constraint at HESEE of FL240 or above. The problem is that controllers are issuing HESEE as a hard crossing altitude of FL240. There is NO WAY [to descend three thousand feet in less than six miles; especially at 280 KTS]. Either someone needs to talk to ZDC and inform them or the altitude at PHOOW needs to be lower. Throughout the approach ATC was issuing us altitudes then clearing us to descend via the arrival and not a single altitude was attainable with speed brakes fully extended.




Synopsis: A B747 Captain complained that ZDC is frequently modifying the constraints of the GIBBZ RNAV STAR in ways that make it impossible to comply; specifically changing the 'At or above FL240' at HESEE to a hard crossing just 5.7 NM beyond a previous hard crossing of FL270 at PHOOW.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower RNO
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared for the RNAV Y [Runway] 16R. The approach was normal. Tower reported a surface wind that resulted in more than 10 kts. tailwind so we elected to go around and shoot the ILS [Runway] 34L. While on final for [Runway] 34L; we were encountering a 25 to 30 [kt.] tailwind while tracking the localizer and glide slope. Around 1500 ft. AGL; we received a Terrain Warning. Despite being on the localizer and glide slope; we followed Company procedure and executed the terrain avoidance maneuver. Tower was perplexed by our go-around and handed us off to NorCal. NorCal was also confused about the reason for the go-around. We were vectored back around for another ILS to [Runway] 34L. Our fuel on board at the time was just over 5;000 pounds. We discussed the possible need to divert to SMF in the event of another missed approach. The Captain decided to configure early and slow early in case the Terrain Warning derived from our high ground speed (with the 30 knot tailwind) and our descent rate. At 1500 ft. AGL; with the localizer and glide slope tracking dead on; we received three or four terrain cautions. We could visually see the terrain off the left side of the aircraft. The Captain; after conferring with me; decided to continue; exercising his emergency authority. I wholeheartedly agreed with his decision and his reasoning. It was readily apparent that the caution was erroneous. We were in constant communication with Tower during our entire approach and there was no concern on their part.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported erroneous terrain warnings while established on an instrument approach.
Date: 201602
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Portable
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: This aircraft; has a heavy duty seal on the Essex Portable Breathing Equipment (PBE) above the #2 jump seat. The seal is the same as the ones used in the lavatory. This is a safety issue because this type of seal will have to be CUT OFF in order to use the emergency equipment. The time it takes to do that could result in loss of lives in a fire. These seals should be the break-away kind that all flight attendants may access without too much difficulty in an emergency.I have brought this issue to managements' attention in the past. The seals were corrected of the specific aircraft at the time. However; I continue to find these maintenance seals on the Essex PBE's. I am hesitant to call Maintenance and cause delays; although I believe they are warranted. So I've decided to write them up whenever I find them.I believe that maintenance is using these heavy duty seals on the Essex PBE's to prevent moisture from getting to the units. However; they are also preventing US from getting to the units.I recommend that the heavy duty seals be removed from all emergency equipment. They need to be accessible.




Synopsis: Flight Attendants are finding heavy duty seals on the Portable Breathing Equipment (PBE) that has to be cut off in order to use the equipment.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 7G8.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7G8
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: late afternoon I was preparing for a flight. I was monitoring CTAF. There is no parallel taxiway; I have to almost back taxi the whole distance. I told my passengers that I had not heard anybody on CTAF (radio). I made a call on the radio that I was back taxiing. '... traffic [Aircraft X] back taxi Runway 29.' I still did not hear anybody on the radio. As I was taxing about halfway down the runway I saw a glider on final. I immediately pushed the throttle in to do a high speed taxi to the end of the runway. I also moved over to the right edge of the runway. Just as I got to the end of the runway the glider went over top of me and landed. There was not one radio call from the glider. The County Airport Authority requires that they use radios when operating at the airport. The gentleman that was operating the tow plane heard me throttle up and was wondering why I had done that. He [then] realized that there was a glider on short final. I had to shut down because there is not enough room to turn the aircraft around. I had to get out and push the plane into position. The tow pilot was as shocked as I was about the glider and that the glider did not use the radio. He also said he was going to find out why they did not use the radio. This airport needs a parallel taxiway badly.




Synopsis: A pilot reported that while back taxiing on the runway at 7G8 non-towered airport; a glider flew over the aircraft and landed without any prior radio communication.