elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F72.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was attempting a short field landing on Runway 27 at Franklin Field. Airspeed and descent rate were normal when I reduced power and was flaring. The aircraft touched down about 10 feet before the intended touchdown point; the main gear came in contact with a small berm at the beginning of the runway asphalt. I checked the landing gear back at our home base FBO and all seemed OK. Later it was discovered that damage was present in the upper part of the landing gear area.A non standard berm at the beginning of the asphalt on Runway 27 may have contributed to more damage (amount yet to be determined) than would be expected. This berm was at the beginning of the asphalt and was 1-1/2 to two inches high at 90 degrees to the runway surface. If the berm had been tapered and/or filled in with dirt or gravel; there would have been no damage to the aircraft. I believe the berm is a safety hazard and will certainly do damage to the next aircraft that lands three inches short of the asphalt as I did. I believe the berm's presence does not meet FAA standards for runways.




Synopsis: While making a practice short field landing at F72 the pilot of a small low wing aircraft landed 'three inches' short of the asphalt runway surface and later determined he had struck a 1.5 to two inch 'berm' of untapered material causing damage to the 'upper part' of the landing gear area.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the run-up we were cleared to take off for traffic pattern. Once we took off and reached 400 feet on the upwind we began to hear stuttering noises then noticed loss of RPM from 2300 to 2100. At this point I took [the] controls from my student; and [advised ATC]. I turned the aircraft to the left and landed on [the intersecting] Runway.The reason for my [precautionary landing] was another CFI had an engine failure in this exact aircraft a few months back. I do not believe it was due to fouled spark plugs. I do not believe this aircraft should be flown before a thorough inspection has been done my maintenance.




Synopsis: C152 instructor pilot reported returning for a precautionary landing when his engine lost power shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After reaching [FL370]; we noticed delamination on the right (Copilot) windshield. We were about to send an email to Dispatch when we suddenly heard a strong pop sound and then we notice our right windshield has shattered.We started our emergency descent; following the 'emergency descent and windshield outer face ply failure' checklist and [notified ATC] in case we had a situation where [parts of the] windshield [could] be ingested by one of our engines. Then we requested nearest suitable airport to land and Center instructed us to continue to [a nearby alternate] on a heading to the airport and descend to 14;000 feet.A few minutes later we requested to descend to 10;000 feet and to proceed direct to [a different] airport (no emergency personnel or services needed); then we got instructed to proceed on a heading for a visual approach.After landing; we continued our taxi to our company hangar where we got received by the maintenance personnel and concluded our final stop and shutdown with no other major issues or failures.




Synopsis: CL600 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate airport after the windshield outer pane shattered at FL370.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the descent phase of a re-positioning flight; we were first cleared down to 15;000 ft. Prior to reaching 15;000 ft; we then got cleared to 12;000 ft and were asked to turn 10 degrees left to accommodate a possible departure from ZZZ. 12;000 ft was set in the pre-select and both pilots agree that the pre-select function was active during the descent. While continuing the descent; both pilot's eyes went outside to verify we had the field in sight. There was some haze in the air which made it hard to identify the airport from more than about 20 miles. When the pilot flying; who was second in command; looked back inside; we discovered the autopilot had failed to capture 12;000 ft and had descended to 10;600 ft. We then called the field in sight and were cleared by the approach controller for the visual approach. The rest of the flight went without a hitch until the tower controller advised us of a possible pilot deviation as we were exiting the runway.The factors that led to this failure to capture an assigned altitude are as follows: The pilot-flying's unfamiliarity with the auto-pilot. Both pilots attention being drawn outside to make sure we had the field in sight. A lapse in situational awareness of where the aircraft was in the descent. Modern avionics mixed with original auto-pilot which have no aural warnings for 1;000 ft to pre-selected altitude. Fatigue may have played a part in the lack of attention due to the trip being a pop-up trip; and the need to get the airplane back for another trip. These circumstances allowed for enough rest time; but made for a very early flight.The lessons I learned from this incident will make me pay a lot more attention while flying. The biggest lesson is to never allow situational awareness to slip away. I learned to trust avionics less and to be more diligent about knowing where I am vertically and horizontally. We learned that we cannot let our guard down; especially with a pilot-flying who has limited experience in the make/model of aircraft being flown.


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


Synopsis: BE20 flight crew reported an altitude deviation while trying to locate the destination airport in haze.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on rest break; the other Relief Pilot and I were called up to the cockpit by the Captain following 'blanking' of the left main fuel tank quantity indicator. After consultation with checklists; Dispatch; Maintenance Control; MEL (for reference only); and applicable landing data; the Captain elected to return to departure airport; declare an in flight emergency and land overweight.


Second narrative: Departed for overseas [on schedule] and approximately one hour into flight; while on my scheduled break; I was notified by a Flight Attendant to return to the cockpit at the Captain's request. The Captain briefed the other Relief Pilot and me that the left main fuel quality indicator quit displaying. He and the First Officer consulted the QRH and found no procedure for this. We also consulted the QRH and concurred with this. The Captain then contacted Dispatch and had a conference call with Maintenance Control. It was decided by all involved that we did not meet the MEL requirements; did not meet the fuel requirements; and could not meet the ETOPS requirements as dispatched for this flight to continue overseas. The decision was made to return. The Captain briefed the flight attendants that they did not have to brief for an emergency landing; and advised the passengers of the situation and our intentions. The Captain discussed with Dispatch the decision to dump fuel or land overweight. As the fuel quantity was unknown; the Captain decided the safest course of action would be to land overweight. There were no other system problems that were affecting the performance of the aircraft. An emergency was declared because of the overweight landing. All performance charts were reviewed; aircraft landed with a minimum rate of descent landing. CFR imaged the brakes for excessive heat; with none noted and then the Captain taxied the aircraft to the gate.


Synopsis: B777 Relief Pilots are informed one hour into flight by the operating crew that they have lost fuel quantity indication in the left main tank and are returning to the departure airport. An uneventful overweight landing ensues.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DTW
ATC / advisory: Tower DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Before descent; I briefed a visual approach to 22L at DTW backed up with the ILS. On initial contact with Approach Control; they told us to expect visual approach to 22R and that the ATIS had changed. The new ATIS reported Runway 22L closed. I asked the FO to change the FMC to the ILS Y 22R and set the new approach frequencies.Approximately 10 miles west of the field; we were cleared the visual to 22R. I maneuvered visually to line up with Runway 22R; but the Localizer indicated full scale deflection to the right. The CDU looked like we were lined up with 22R but at 500 feet the Localizer still indicated full scale deflection to the right. We inquired about the status of Localizer and Tower advised it was operational. There are numerous bright lights just east of Runway 22R which I mistakenly thought was the ramp (I have only been to DTW a few times) plus the Localizer deflection led me to believe that I was lined up with the closed Runway 22L. I opted to go around. We requested vectors to the ILS 22R and when re-briefing the approach; I noticed that it is an offset ILS (very small print on approach plate). We flew the ILS course and landed uneventfully. The 2.5 degree offset doesn't sound like much; but it lines you up significantly right of the extended centerline. The OFFSET 2.5 on the approach chart is very subtle and I completely missed it. I have seen offset LDA approaches before but never an ILS. Lining up visually with 22R the Localizer will show you left of course which is where 22L is. If the approach chart could be altered to highlight the offset ILS or add it to the approach title; it might reduce confusion.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported being confused by the offset ILS (111.75) to Runway 22R at DTW. The offset note was not detected and after being cleared for the visual to Runway 22R; it appeared that the aircraft may be lined up with Runway 22L and a go around was initiated.
Date: 201409
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Current shortage of rubber gloves on every International flight needs company's immediate attention due to health hazard. Not only this flight from; but ALL flights that are longer than 5 hours need more than 10 pieces of rubber gloves inside the Inflight Service Bag. With the outbreak of Ebola and possible spread to the crew members and passengers; the prevention and protection should be the #1 priority right now. However since the change from food handler's film-type gloves to the rubber gloves a few months ago; there hasn't been sufficient quantity for longer flights to pick up garbage after each beverage and meal service. Most of the times; we call for more during the boarding; get a few more; but end up departing without enough for the duration of the flight. 13-hour flight to Asia requires 3 meal service; 2 separate beverage service; hourly routine water service; and lavatory checks which demands approx 40 pieces of rubber gloves (20 pairs) in Economy cabin only. Current # boarded is 10-12 per blue bag far less than the demand. We need to protect ourselves along with the passengers. We cannot wash hands under warm water inside lavatory all the time since the lavatories are always occupied. Please raise the issue and change ASAP to protect the public and the flight attendants from Ebola and other disease.




Synopsis: International Flight Attendant expressed her concern over an insufficient number of rubber gloves available for cabin staff in light of Ebola epidemic.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Pushed A1 at KBOS; cleared 'Spot 7.' At 'Spot 7' (facing south) set brakes to await taxi instructions. After taxi instructions received and route briefed released brake for taxi. Pushed power up on #1 engine (single engine taxi) to make way. Aircraft would not move. Increased power to try and break free. Unable to move. I do not remember exact power setting; but should have been ample to break free. Baffled; verified brake was off; it was... pushed power up again yet could get no forward momentum. Boston called 'Aircraft X; you unable to move?' We responded 'now that you ask; that's affirmative' Boston came back 'divot at spot 7; you're not the first.'  We asked if anyone was behind us and area clear and BOS confirmed clear. We pushed the power up further on #1. Unable to break free. I wasn't comfortable with the situation; so had the FO Start #2. Even with both turning; it took a lot of power to break free. My concern is for others out there that could experience the same in the future; and power settings that could be a safety hazard in such a busy area. Since the flight; I relayed my experience to another pilot who had experienced the same...so I thought it might be a good to forward along.




Synopsis: The aircraft could not taxi from 'Spot 7' at BOS without starting the second engine and applying excessive power (after clearing area behind them). BOS ground informed the crew that there is a 'Divot at spot 7; you're not the first.'
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Balloon
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were advised on the mid-shift that unmanned balloons were being released around the FSD area. Personal research showed these balloons were WiFi equipped balloons above 60;000 FT. However; at some point the balloons were planned to be in controlled descents through our airspace. During the midshift; two of the four balloons launched off FSD descended in our airspace. Since the balloons had no aviation transponders; they were not visible on our RADAR. The only information about their position and altitude was on a company webpage that had been provided (and that wasn't available to controllers in the sector) via some voice telephone mannaer. Apparently the expectation was that controllers provide over flight aircraft traffic advisories for the balloons while they were slowly descending; despite the lack of accurate and timely position reporting for the balloons. If these flights continue to be tested; the balloons should be equipped with Mode C/S aviation transponders so controllers can get accurate position reports and give traffic advisories to aircraft in the area of the balloons when they are transitioning up and down.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described an unsafe situation involving a balloon release up to FL600 with little or no coordination/contacts and no means of identifying the balloons for traffic information.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was flying the landing to 24R; Flaps 40 (in order to avoid published construction areas); approximately 10 miles in trail of Heavy A380 aircraft. Approach was normal and stable with some rolling type turbulence (possibly wake turbulence) below 500 feet. At about 40 feet as I was transitioning to the flare; a large rate of descent became evident. I added some power to arrest the rate of descent and touched down with throttles above idle (I assume); although I attempted to reset them at idle at touchdown. The first touchdown was controlled and well within limits; but then the aircraft bounced and became airborne; the nose pitching up excessively. At this point the power was at idle and my first concern was to hold an attitude to prevent a tailstrike. Setting the normal touchdown attitude resulted in a very hard landing after the bounce. We contact the flight crew to ask about injuries or other issues in the cabin. All stated they were fine with no damage apparent.We also contacted Maintenance via radio to advise of the hard landing and to have them meet the aircraft. The Maintenance Technician (MT) I spoke to said he would take a quick look at the tail before we made any logbook entry; I agreed. He reported no tail contact or other issues. I did not make a logbook entry.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a hard landing resulted when he encountered wake turbulence at low altitude in trail of an A380 on approach to LAX.