elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Piper Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While evaluating a landing site for tundra tire equipped airplanes; the aircraft was sucked into 12-16 inches of soft powder snow after breaking through a 2.5 inch thick layer of compact snow/ice.It is common practice to evaluate landing sites by 'dragging' the tires through the upper surface; performing a go-around; and then inspecting the tire tracks to evaluate the safety of the landing site. After doing an initial pass along side of fresh snowmobile tracks; it was determined to be safe for an initial drag of the main tires through the snow. This pass consisted of 2 touchdowns. The first touchdown was normal but the second one resulted in the aircraft breaking through the upper snow/ice crust. Full aft stick and engine power were applied; but the aircraft continued to get sucked down and began to tip forward. Power was then reduced to idle in the hopes of preventing a torque roll as the propeller hit the ground. The aircraft tipped up on its nose and came to rest at approximately 120 degrees [nose down] from the horizontal attitude. There was damage to the propeller; engine and cowling in addition to the right wing strut. No one was injured and the aircraft has been determined to be easily repairable with an engine teardown/rebuild; propeller replacement; cowling work and right strut replacement.




Synopsis: The pilot of a PA-12 Supercruiser equipped with tundra tires attempted to test the suitability of the surface of a snow covered landing site by 'dragging' the tires through the snow on a low pass during which the tires broke through the icy surface and were sucked down into deep snow below. The subsequent damage was restricted to the propeller; the engine; the engine cowling and the right wing strut and described as easily repairable by the reporter.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Tower was very busy with a single Controller working Ground and Tower. On initial climbout we wanted to confirm our initial altitude but had a difficult time getting in contact with ATC. While this was occurring; I missed PIC call for autothrottles; and he did not recognize that I had failed to engage them. We momentarily exceeded 250 knots below 1;000 feet; accelerating to ~290 knots. After clarifying with ATC we both noticed the speed; PIC noticed speed and made adjustments to pitch and power and then I engaged autotrottles. Flight continued normally.Recency of experience due to COVID-19; early morning fatigue may have played a role.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported a speed deviation during climbout. Captain referenced distraction while trying to communicate with a busy ATC and lack of flying contributed to the event.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were approaching VNY VFR on a repositioning flight and decided we would test our EGPWS systems pop-up display. Originally we were going to go east over San Gabriel Mountains but because of lower visibility decided not a good idea and thus went VFR and requested an extended downwind leg to activate EGPWS in good visibility. We were approved extended downwind leg by VNY Tower. Maintained 2;300 FT MSL; 160 KTS and were all set. VNY Tower then came back at us with; 'turn 15 degrees right' in a right downwind leg; knowing that this would turn us toward final approach. Had a difficult time verifying with them that it was not 15 left. Clarified we turned the 15 right. Then he came back and told us to turn base but we had been cleared extended downwind for the test; and did not intend to land until test was complete. We attempted again clarification when we got a TA/RA from TCAS. As we were starting to turn base; and immediately complied with the RA; it cleared conflict pretty quick. It was an aircraft that he was trying to sequence behind our downwind on a base entry. Another Controller came on frequency and told us to resume downwind which now had us more toward the left downwind. It did give us a couple of chances to try our EGPWS in visual conditions but we had to climb higher and maneuver unexpectedly. Corrective actions: though efficient; don't try seeing if a system will test or activate while in Class D Airspace; exit Class D first. Good solid communication with ATC would better clarify the whole picture.




Synopsis: A BD-700 took evasive action to a TCAS RA while on a VFR approach to VNY as the pilots attempted to delay the approach in order to activate the EGPWS for a VMC test.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HOM.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E HOM
ATC / advisory: UNICOM HOM
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; 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: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y was in left traffic for landing runway 22.  Aircraft X reported 'Homer traffic...on final 22.'Aircraft X was near midfield and landing long when he spotted Aircraft Y landing on runway 22.  Aircraft X then turned right to enter a midfield right downwind to provide spacing.  Aircraft X contacted Aircraft Y and stated 'We almost had a midair.'My role was only monitoring in nature. Aircraft X pilot never contacted me and the first traffic call I heard from him was 'final 22.'  Had he contacted me 'Homer Radio'; I would have given him a traffic advisory and ensured he had monitored the Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS).I filled out the Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) paperwork and was unable to enter the information into Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting (CEDAR) because my shift had ended and I was scheduled to work [a few] hours later.  I faxed the MOR papers to my parent facility and asked them if they would enter it into CEDAR due to my circumstances. They said they would.I have now learned that my manager believes that I did not properly follow procedure and should have entered the data into CEDAR myself.If the Aircraft X pilot would have contacted Homer Radio at 3 or more miles out; he would have been informed via airport advisory service of the pattern traffic.  The Aircraft Y had landing priority because he was in a closed traffic pattern while the Aircraft X entered straight in from the northeast for 22 and only reported final for 22.




Synopsis: A HOM FSS Controller reports of hearing a pilot report to another pilot that they had a NMAC.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When loading speed info into the climb page; we received a 'standby one' message in the FMC scratch pad that would not clear for several minutes. During that time the route disappeared from the map and the route and legs pages were empty of all but origination; destination and flight number. Any attempt to load a route caused the 'standby one' message to reappear. We were unable to locate guidance in the QRH or Flight Manual that addressed other than a temporary 'standby one.' Attempts to communicate with Dispatch and Maintenance Control through ARINC via SELCAL took approximately 25 minutes to complete. In the meantime; we started troubleshooting on our own by first pressing the First Officer's FMC switch to alternate. This caused the message to go away; but it returned as soon as we tried inputting route info. We returned the First Officer's switch to normal then attempted same procedure with Captain's switch and getting the same result. Once we eventually established communication with Dispatch and Maintenance they had us repeat that same process with the Captain's side. This time the procedure seemed to work; however; it was very; very slow; taking several minutes before it would accept more than one waypoint and displays the route in map mode. Then it took several more minutes before we were able to load the climb; cruise or descent pages. When one page was able to load; it would take several minutes before we could load the next. I am concerned about the amount of time it took to get the communication established with Dispatch and Maintenance. Aren't we supposed to be able to quickly communicate with the company at all times during flight? Additionally; more info should be available in the Flight Manual regarding this FMC issue.




Synopsis: When the FMC CDUs stopped functioning and the route pages and map display disappeared a B757-200 flight crew attempted to contact Dispatch and Maintenance Control for assistance. This attempt met with significant delay and the crew attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the problem without maintenance guidance. When; after 25 minutes; communication was established functional but very slow use of the FMS was restored.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Talon (T38)
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a Functional Check Flight (FCF) the aircraft experienced a single engine failure. Pilot asked for a descent but was instructed to maintain assigned altitude of FL450. The pilot was unable due the performance limitations of the aircraft while single engine. The pilot asked for a descent to an altitude where the aircraft could maintain level flight; but was denied due to traffic. Next he tried asked for a vector to enable an immediate descent; but was denied again. Pilot then [advised ATC] in order to descend. ATC notified pilot that he was still required to maintain FL410 to which the pilot responded that he was unable. During the descent the pilot noticed traffic on TCAS and tried to avoid. Once at lower altitude the engine was able to be restarted and the flight terminated back to [base] uneventfully. It was heard that the aircraft's flight path caused a RA with an airliner.A recommendation that will be passed back is for other aircrew in the organization to coordinate earlier and more deliberately with ATC when experiencing a situation that would prevent the aircraft from maintaining altitude.




Synopsis: T-38 pilot reported he was unable to maintain altitude after one engine failed and was forced to descend through conflicting traffic.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing into gate at approximately 2-3 KTS; both my First Officer and I picked up our initial lead in marshaled. The taxiway was clear with an EMB-190 to our left that was parked in front of a maintenance hangar. While following this Marshaller's lead he directed me to pick up the Marshaller on the lead in line near the jetway. I made visual contact with this Marshaller and began following his guidance. The initial Marshaller then moved up and now became our left wing walker. I now had a total of three marshallers; lead in; left Wing Walker; and right Wing Walker. I was following the lead in Marshaller who was lining me up on the lead in line; and my left Wing Walker was giving me an all clear. We then felt a thud and both of us realized that our left wingtip fence had made contact with the tail cone of the EMB-190. I brought the aircraft to a complete stop; shut down the left engine and requested a tug to tow us to the gate. There were no injuries to either crew or customers.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported their wingtip fence made contact with a parked aircraft during gate arrival.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower RKSI
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed RKSI weighing about 618;000 pounds on the EGOBA 1L departure. The departure controller instructed us to fly the SID as published with restrictions; which was going to make crossing SI742 at FL170 difficult. Therefore I left the slats extended trying to climb to altitude; and also to out climb the 747 that took off before us as we hit his wake. In the end; we still had to advise the controller; we are unable SI742 at FL170. About 14;000 the IRO asked if I was aware that the slats were still extended; to which I replied; yes.     Crossing about FL160; I called for slats retracted; thinking that I had enough speed protection (high and low) but I was very wrong as we got the stick shaker when retracting the slats. The stick shaker went on and off; I think 3 different times as I lowered the nose to gain airspeed. We only lost about 100-200 feet in the recovery. We continued with no further issues.     We debriefed this as a crew and we all remembered doing this scenario a number of years ago in the simulator. I thought wrong thinking that it was affected at a higher altitude of around 23;000. Also; the IRO said in the debrief; 'that is why I asked if you were aware the slats were still extended.' If that was truly why he asked; I feel that he should have been more assertive and stated it much differently; though I was pilot flying and take full responsibility. I can assure you that I will not make this mistake again as I have been humbled and embarrassed but have learned from my mistake! Also; knowing that we were heavy; we needed to advise ATC that we will be unable to make the FL170 earlier and probably should have advised PDC controller.


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


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported receiving a stick shaker when the Captain retracted the slats on departure from RKSI.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departure was the RITAA One RNAV Departure off of Runway 15L at IAH. The PDC read- Climb via the RNAV with top altitude of 4;000 FT. We briefed that we would level off at 4;000 FT until cleared higher. The First Officer did the takeoff while I worked the radio. On initial contact with Departure Control I reported leaving 2;700 FT to maintain 4;000 FT on the RITAA One RNAV. Approaching leveling off at 4;000 FT we thought the Controller said; climb and maintain 16;000 FT; but later he informed us the clearance was; climb via the RITAA One maintain 16;000 FT. There is a 'at or below' crossing restriction of 4;000 FT on the SID at TTAPS intersection. Because of misunderstanding the clearance; we crossed the TTAPS fix above the 4;000 FT restriction. We did not conflict with any traffic. I should have listened more carefully and been better aware of the potential conflict because of the 'at or below' crossing on the RNAV SID.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports misunderstanding an ATC clearance to climb via as a clearance to climb to 16;000 FT and exceeds the 'at or below' restriction at TTAPS on the RITAA 1 RNAV from IAH.
Date: 201308
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This jetway has an extension attached to it for use with RJ's.  As a result when the jetway is used with mainline aircraft there is a large (1.5x3 ft) area to the left of the cabin door that a child could fall thru to the ground. Two months ago I expressed concern to a gate agent who replied; Parents hold their childrens hands.  I then went to the chief pilot who said it would be addressed.  To date it has not.  There are slots in the floor of the jetway for the express purpose of holding a protective gate.  Something should be done before we kill or injure a child.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reports that some jetways at his base have been modified to mate with regional jets and the result does not mate well with mainline jets; leaving an opening to the left of the cabin door that a child could fall through.