elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After a few Touch and Go's in the pattern on Runway 19; we requested a full stop landing. Upon landing on Runway 19; Tower asked us where we were parking. The applicant replied twice that he was going to the 'Echo' ramp. Tower then asked us to taxi to the 'Main'; right turn at 'Bravo'; 'Alpha' to the ramp. Meanwhile; our airplane was still rolling down the runway decelerating; coming up on the intersection of Runway 14-32. Applicant thought he was not going to make it and was approaching 'Alpha' Taxiway on Runway 19 when Tower or Ground gave a Cessna; looked like a C172; permission to cross 19 just less than 200-300 feet in front of us. I was afraid we would collide with the C172. Focusing on the current situation; before I could take over; the applicant pushed in the power and made a 90-100 degree turn to the right to exit the runway as instructed. By that time I told the applicant 'What are you doing?' and told him 'My controls'. I exited the runway as quickly as possible so as to avoid any other problems. The aircraft that was behind us landing was instructed to go-around. I saw that aircraft as I exited the runway. He was on a 1/2 mile final. We never turn 180 degrees in the opposite direction of traffic. Why did tower or ground instruct the C172 that was southeast bound on 'Alpha' to cross Runway 19 while we were still on the runway decelerating? Why couldn't Tower tell him to wait? The Tower; in communicating the instructions to the pilot were vague! When we landed he said that traffic will cross downfield. What traffic? The C172 was holding short of Runway 19 on 'Alpha' and then he raced across Runway 19 as we were still on the runway only 200-300 feet from him. The Tower trains controllers all year round with heavy flight school activity and massive corporate traffic. Just recently I have been giving flight tests out of FRG airport and find it very difficult to administer check rides in such a hectic environment. Most of their instructions are very vague. Also any pilot who does not understand the instructions should ask Tower to read back or ask for a 'Progressive'.




Synopsis: C152 Instructor questioned several ATC procedures at FRG airport.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
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: On climb passing 17;000 FT max airspeed tape dropped from 360 KTS to 285 KTS; also got overspeed warnings.  This event happened 9+ times; max time length was 15 seconds.  In cruise when this happened the throttles started retarding; crew intervention was required.  I decided to select airspeed 280 KTS this way speed tape would not be an issue.  Ran Airspeed Erratic checklist.  We made a SATCOM with SME; Maintenance and Flight Control.  After discussion we felt the best course of action was return to base.  We also declared an emergency. At lower altitudes we turned the AFS override to off and flew manual throttles back to [departure airport].  No other airspeed issues on final.  Weather was clear and we were not in turbulence.  This was a repeat write up!  Did extensive debrief with tech support team.  Maintenance found PSEU and autothrottle issues.


Second narrative: At approximately FL320 the throttles started to retard while still climbing; I immediately pushed them up almost through the over boost bar because the aircraft kept slowing. [I] disconnected the autopilot [and] then leveled off at FL325.  When the aircraft was stabilized; Captain called Maintenance and Operations on the Satcom phone. They tried to troubleshoot the problem. It was determined that there may be some sort of problem with the pitot static system or the FMS; however they thought that the standby airspeed was giving correct information.  The solution was then to disconnect the autothrottle (AFS) and autopilot and fly the aircraft.


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported anomaly that caused multiple false overspeed warnings. They chose to declare an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were going direct SERFR on the SERFR 3 Arrival to SFO then were given direct to NRRLI. I selected what I thought was NRRLI; which was actually NARWL a fix later on in the same arrival. I verified what was selected with the Pilot Monitoring and brought it to page one on FMC; verified again; and hit the Execute button. A few minutes later; Oakland Center asked where we were going and Pilot Monitoring stated direct to NRRLI; but was actually NARWL. ATC gave us a left of ten degrees and we doubled checked what we had selected and then realized our mistake. We reprogrammed direct NRRLI and continued in the rest of the flight to SFO with no further incidents.


Second narrative: OAK Center cleared us to NRRLI on the SERFR 3 Arrival to SFO. Pilot Flying selected NARWL. When verifying point; I verified and did not catch the waypoint input error due to the similarity between the point letters. I essentially saw what I expected to see. EXEC was selected and we were LNAV to the wrong point. Center [pinged] us to catch the error.


Synopsis: Boeing 737 flight crew reported a heading deviation due to entry of the wrong waypoint into the Flight Management Computer
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We took off from ZZZZ; and I was flying as I was doing IOE. The takeoff was normal and non-eventful; and we had good weather. After takeoff; when [Captain] was bringing up the flaps; we got an LE FLAPS ASYM message; and [Captain] elected to take over flying. I ran the QRH procedure. We leveled off to flight level 180 to stay below the 20;000 foot flap restriction Boeing has. We also kept speed below 250 to avoid over speeding the flaps. While flying; we discussed the possibility of going to ZZZZ1; but decided to land at ZZZZ again as we thought it was the safest and most prudent decision due to the longer runway; and closer proximity and not needing to fly away from a perfectly good long runway. We also knew that we would have a very high Vref speed as the QRH instructed us to use Vref30+30 for landing. We had also noted our fuel burn at that level was most likely far too high to reach ZZZ; and that it wouldn't be smart or safe to fly an airplane with a flight control malfunction all the way to ZZZ even if fuel wouldn't have been a factor. We informed ATC of our desire to return to ZZZZ and landed safely in a fast but uneventful landing. I commend the Captain for getting us on the ground safely; and being able to make the landing well within the runway distance available. I also believe that as a crew we made the safest decision possible with the information we had.




Synopsis: B767 pilot reported experiencing a leading edge flap asymmetry during flap retraction after takeoff; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR; Person Ground Personnel
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During push back the clearance to start the number 2 engine was given by ground personnel. Upon attempting to start the engine no EICAS indications were present that the engine was starting. Shortly after the engine start was attempted the ground personnel alerted us to fire in the number 2 engine. We had no indication of a fire from any instrument in the cockpit and relied on ground crew for confirmation.  The memory items were performed and the [checklist] was used. After the memory items were performed the ground crew confirmed that the fire had been extinguished. That aircraft was towed about 15 feet back to the gate. Stairs were brought up to the plane and the passengers were deplaned. After the event the Captain coordinated with the company for a safe outcome.The aircraft was in a completely normal state with all cockpit indications normal during pushback and throughout the engine abnormality.  The ground crew alerted us to a fire in the number 2 engine and the captain (Pilot Flying) and the first officer (PM) followed procedures. The only undesired aircraft state and threat that occurred was the fire in the number 2 engine. After the fire was confirmed extinguished we towed 15 feet back to the gate for a safe passenger deplaning. Mechanical failures are minimized as much as possible in aviation but are still a threat to the safety of flight.  I don't believe anything could have been done within reason to avoid this. The crew handled the issue appropriately and safely and used the good training provided by the company for a safe outcome for everyone involved.




Synopsis: A regional jet pilot reported an engine fire while starting the number 2 engine. The fire was successfully extinguished and the aircraft was safely towed back to the gate.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MGGT.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Cloudy
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower MGGT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other on landing
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We flew the RNAV Y Runway 20 to Guatemala City. The weather was right above minimums. We briefed the approach thoroughly; including possible go around; diversion; and landing analysis (both wet and dry). We also noted the company notes regarding the use of visual references when descending below mins. Upon check in with the Tower; they reported that there was a light rain falling; so we switched to MAX braking. We broke out at about 100 ft. above minimums; and saw the approach lights and the runway environment. The approach lighting was turned up to high and was somewhat disorienting. I noticed the PAPI were all red. I alerted the Captain to this by saying 'You're low'. The Captain later mentioned that the bright lights made it so he couldn't see the HUD very well. I also glanced at his PFD and he was right on the RNAV glide path. As we came over the approach end and the lights disappeared; the darkness of the runway was again disorienting (there are no centerline or touchdown lights in the runway. The only lighting is the runway edge lights); which made it hard to judge the height above the ground. We touched down very firm and both felt startled because I don't think either of us saw the firm landing coming. Weather at mins; low visibility; approach lights on high; glare on the HUD; lack of runway lighting and a down-sloping runway with a cliff at the end all contributed to the firm landing. Check the intensity of the approach lighting system with Tower; turn the HUD brightness up higher; and perhaps anticipated the down-sloping runway better.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported firm landing.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X landed and checked into my frequency for Gate X. I looked at that gate (not fully visible from the tower) and didn't see a tail sticking above the terminal; so I told him to taxi via A. I returned to other tasks. About 5 minutes later I looked again at that alley (there was no other traffic in that area) and saw Aircraft X stopped in the middle of the alley. I questioned him about whether he was waiting for a ground crew. It took him a moment to respond; during which time I observed him beginning a 180-degree turn in the alley. He replied that there was another aircraft in gate X. Tug 40 called for push. This delayed my cautionary advisory to Aircraft Y that there were bag carts behind his right engine and to use minimum power leaving the alley. We have been instructed that aircraft cannot push and start in this alley (they must tow all the way out to Twy A before starting) and I do not know what the wingtip clearances are in there.The pilot should have advised me before turning in to the alley that the gate was occupied. This will continue to be a problem in the new tower; since Gates X and Y are directly below the tower and not visible. We should install a downward-pointing CCTV to allow us to see whether those gates are in use.




Synopsis: A Ground Controller issued taxi instructions for an arriving aircraft to proceed down an alley to gate. Unknown to the Controller; that gate was already occupied by an aircraft not visible from the newly constructed Control Tower.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from the south making left traffic to Runway 31. The aircraft first made a report on frequency about passing a drone; with few details and no call sign. Subsequent back and forth established that Aircraft X passed a drone around the Stanford University at approximately one thousand one hundred feet. They reported to pass about one hundred to two hundred feet from the drone and that they had to descend to avoid hitting it. It was reported to be a black and white quad copter estimated to weigh between ten and fifteen pounds. I immediately made sure the CIC (Controller-in-Charge) heard the report and tried to facilitate information requests the CIC and the pilot.The main CIC computer has been replaced recently and no longer has the quick link for UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System) activity authorizations in the vicinity. So I can't speak to whether or not the UAS was authorized or not. But; at that location (which was around the edge of the PAO class D) and altitude regularly has air traffic and UAS activity should be required to call Palo Alto Tower.The link for checking UAS authorizations needs to be added back to the CIC computer.




Synopsis: PAO Tower Controller reported an airborne conflict between an aircraft under their control and a drone.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MUGM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airport; Staffing
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After a somewhat challenging approach; hazy visibility; and uneventful landing on Runway 10 at MUGM; we exited at the runway end. Taxi instructions were to join Taxiway Alpha; to enter the ramp at Taxiway Charlie. This was verified during taxi. Approaching taxiway Charlie; we were told to look for the follow-me truck. Two truck vehicles were driving on the ramp; but it was not clear which was the follow-me truck. We started to turn on Charlie as the vehicle stopped at our 11 o'clock position. As it pulled forward and we followed; we could then see it was indeed the follow-me. I did not realize our right gear had taxied off the taxiway. I believe we were both distracted looking for the follow-me truck at an unfamiliar airport. This led to what obviously was a turn that put the right gear off the taxiway pavement. Suggest better attention by the crew along the entire taxi route; and better backup. Also the follow-me truck being on the center taxi line directly ahead of the aircraft.


Second narrative: The inbound flight struck some taxiway lights at MUGM. The flight crew called the Duty Officer directly. The Duty Officer advised them not to depart until he could consult with flight management. They departed without authorization from flight management. Operations Control was not notified of the incident or instructed to hold the flight until after the flight departed MUGM. Operations Control should have been included in the notification to the Duty Officer and the decision to hold the flight while gathering additional information. Include Operations Control in all communications regarding operation of the flight.


Synopsis: After landing at Leeward Point Field at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay; flight crew reported they taxied off the taxiway with the right main landing gear and struck taxiway lights while attempting to discern which of the two airport vehicles at the scene was the Follow-Me truck. Dispatchers reported that the crew then took off on the next flight without contacting the Duty Officer.