elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: REI.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G REI
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Paragliders; I counted 5; descending from the mountains to the north of the airport; landing south of the airport; have recently become more frequent. I observed several paragliders at pattern altitude (2;500 MSL); I maneuvered around them to accommodate their descent. While turning base to final; saw the airplane ahead of me add power and execute a go-around. He too was an instructor with a student pilot. On short final; I saw the reason for his maneuver. A single paraglider about 1/8 mile north of the runway at 300 feet; transitioning from north to south across the runway. Not knowing his speed or intent; I directed the student to continue the approach to landing. There was no incident or damage to either 'craft.' The paraglider continued across the airport and landed. We; at the airport; have reported these paragliders as hazards to the FAA. We have also reported them as hazards to the City of Redlands. We have flown around them with care and precision. While the Class G airspace is uncontrolled; the landing site can be controlled. Part 103 is not clear on regulation for these types of flying craft.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported witnessing a NMAC in the traffic pattern between another small aircraft and a paraglider that was crossing the active runway.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had just come from the hangar after a number 1 engine change. Because of windshear; we'd planned a max takeoff and briefed windshear procedures. Winds were a quartering headwind gusting to 32 knots. The FO was performing the takeoff and pushed up the power; hit TO/GA and asked for takeoff thrust. The thrust levers came up and the number 1 lever lagged slightly with the N1 slightly behind number 2. I began to push number 1 up; noticed it was slightly behind number 2 but still increasing. With the headwind and Max thrust takeoff; I looked down and we were approaching 90 knots. I called that; fully expecting to get full takeoff thrust on number 1. I hit the firewall shortly thereafter. The thrust was approximately 4 percent less than number 2 and I considered rejecting the takeoff. But as we were at approximately 125 to 130 knots; I elected to continue as this was not a reason to reject above 80 knots. The aircraft was accelerating very rapidly; and more harm than good would happen if we rejected at this time. The N1 was normal the rest of the leg. I called Dispatch and Maintenance on the way to XXX; notified them of the problem and wrote the issue up. I could've made the decision to reject sooner; but because of the max takeoff and the 32 knots of wind; the airspeed rose very rapidly. By the time I assessed that the engine would not fully make max takeoff thrust; we were in an airspeed regime where I thought it was safer to continue than reject.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported that after an engine change the engine never fully reached max takeoff thrust.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Cabin Address System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: B737 systems manual clearly say that flight deck PA system overrides other communication in back. That is incorrect. When using the small black hand mike on the center console you do NOT override the flight attendants making a PA announcement. The F/As (Flight Attendants) were making a PA when the F/O (First Officer) announced 'Flight Attendants Be Seated'. Therefore; they did not hear the announcement; and were not ready for takeoff.


Second narrative: While on taxi out on; we were number 1; and did the final items. I used the black hand mic at the aft center console to make my announcement for the flight attendants to be seated. I did my flow and then accomplished the checklist. I heard the flight attendants using the PA to make announcements through the flight deck door. I pushed the PA button on my com console and verified they were still on the PA. I told the Captain; and he acknowledged this; and said he will slow the taxi to give them time to finish. We were shortly given takeoff clearance. I verified the flight attendants were no longer on the PA; which they weren't; and the takeoff was made. Passing through 13000 feet; the lead FA (Flight Attendant) called us and said she never heard the PA announcement to be seated for takeoff. She also stated that that there were FAs not seated for the takeoff since they didn't hear the announcement and that was a FAR violation. Another FA was injured while try to stop a rolling beverage cart with his foot. This injury may not be directly resultant from the PA announcement; but was influenced by it.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported Flight Attendants were not seated for takeoff because the flight deck PA announcement did not override the cabin PA system.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Elevator PCUs (Power Control Units) - I have had two recent maintenance events regarding PCUs in the last 45 days. The first occurred in ZZZ on the Date; Aircraft X. The airplane was coming out of a light C check. Two elevator PCUs had been replaced. During our before taxi check/flight control check I noticed a vibration/bang through out the air-frame when pulling back on the yoke. This noise/vibration was confirmed after shutdown and Maintenance was brought back onto the plane. It was later determined that a bad PCU out of the box had been installed. The second occurred on the leg ZZZ1-ZZZ2. After de-icing I noticed the elevator felt heavy during the flight control check; brief the FO (First Officer); he was the PF (Pilot Flying). I attributed the heaviness to the resent de-icing and application of type 4 fluid. During approach into ZZZ2 the FO commented that the elevator felt even heaver than before leaving ZZZ1. I did another flight control check on the ground and I agreed the elevator did feel heavier. It also would not return to the neutral position on the flight control display. I wrote it up; explained to maintenance the issue. The following morning I inquired about the write-up and was told that they found two B nuts loose on different PCUs. The system (s) had been sucking air and leaking HYD fluid. The elevator was full of HYD fluid. To have two primary flight control PCUs events 45 days apart is alarming. Where is the QC (Quality Control)?




Synopsis: Captain reported the failure of two elevator power control units and expressed concern over the quality of the components being acquired for installation on company aircraft.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAF.Tower, IN
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D LAF
ATC / advisory: Tower LAF
Second aircraft: SR20
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called inbound from the southwest for a full stop landing. After initially telling him to make straight in for RWY 5; I changed his instructions and told the pilot to make right traffic for RWY 10 and to report a 3 mile right base for RWY 10. I noticed the aircraft on the radar display on the edge of the Class Delta flying NW bound through my final for RWY 5. I told the pilot to continue west so he didn't cut any other aircraft off on final for RWY 5. I observed the target moving westbound. I cleared the aircraft to land on RWY 10 and to hold short of RWY 5 for traffic. The pilot asked me to repeat my clearance; so I did; he read it back verbatim. I had Aircraft Y LUAW [Line Up and Wait] on RWY 5; I scanned all finals then cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. I saw Aircraft X rolling out on RWY 28; so I immediately cancelled Aircraft Y takeoff clearance. I asked the aircraft on RWY 28 who he was. The pilot gave me his callsign and stated that I cleared him to land on RWY 10. Both aircraft stopped in time and were about 1;500 feet apart. I told Aircraft X that he landed on RWY 28 and not RWY 10. The pilot seemed confused by this and didn't understand that he actually landed on the wrong RWY. I read the pilot of Aircraft X the Brasher Warning and taxied him off the RWY and to contact Ground Control. Our staffing was very short due to Management allowing the 3rd person that would've been there to change shifts. If that person had stayed on their original assigned shift; we would've had an extra set of eyes in the Tower. Traffic was very busy the entire day due to it being a normal busy day and the pilots couldn't do pattern traffic after XA:30 PM local time because of a TFR that would be effective for a sporting event. The traffic was very busy and complex until the TFR started that evening. All other controllers left; so it was just myself and one other controller in the Tower until closing time. The FLM [manager] was in his office downstairs doing the schedule.Management should not have approved a shift change for the 3rd controller.




Synopsis: LAF Tower Controller reported an aircraft landing on the wrong runway and have a ground conflict with a departure aircraft.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Controller A was arguing with Controller B very aggressively and distracting. Controller B was working the TOGA sector and Controller A was working the Licke sector. Controller A was angered and was using the F word over and over. During this time I turned Aircraft X to a 200 heading and descended the aircraft to 5;700 ft. The arguing continued. Controller C the CIC tried to calm the situation down. Controller A would not listen and continued to use the F word in his anger. I had enough listening to the distraction. I told Controller C I did not want to hear the F word anymore. Controller C told Controller A to stop again. Controller A stated tell Controller D to shut the F up. I stated to Controller C again I do not want to hear the F word any longer. Controller A insisted to tell me to shut the F up.When I turned my attention back to the scope Aircraft X is descending below the MVA; the low altitude alert never sounded. I immediately gave Aircraft X a low altitude alert and climbed Aircraft X above the MVA and turn the aircraft to a lower MVA. Controller A continued to be hostile toward Controller C and Controller B. Controller A continues to blow up in the area and continues to be a distraction. The CIC stated to Controller A to stop and he continued and would not calm down. The distraction lead me to maybe miss a read back but definitely; made me miss the aircraft descending below the MVA. This appears to be a common issues with Controller A losing self control in the area and nothing seems to be done about it and he is a burden on the work force. Recommend that the low altitude alert be adjusted to sound off. Also recommend something to be done about Controller As anger outburst in the Area.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reported another Controller caused distractions which led to an aircraft descending below the MVA.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for visual approach [Runway 4]; started to descend. Realized terrain was between our position and the runway. Climbed to safe altitude. Cleared terrain. Continued to safe landing. Instead of following instrument procedures; even though in VMC; I looked out to the runway and began a visual descent. Terrain was between us and runway. Always use instrument procedures; even under visual conditions; when terrain can be a factor; or when unfamiliar with an airport.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being cleared for a visual approach to Runway 4 at ELP and commencing descent only to discover that terrain was between the aircraft and the runway. The terrain was cleared and the approach was continued.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I set up for the visual to Runway XX backed up with the ILS into ZZZ. The approach met stable approach criteria and landed at approximately 85 knots. Upon landing with all three gear down; the left gear began shaking. I assumed I had a flat tire as we started to drift left slightly. I applied brakes and right rudder; neither of which rectified the situation. The aircraft then continued to roll off to the left of the runway. We hit the grass and the gear caught and we spun around 180 degrees. I notified ATC and shut down the engines. I then called company to inform them that I was off the runway and needed the FBO to bring their passenger van. I asked the passengers if they were okay and explained I thought we had a flat tire. A passenger then informed me my left tire was on the runway about 500 feet further down. I helped the passengers get off the aircraft and told them to stay behind the wing. They all said they were uninjured and were brought to the Gate XX where our agents met them. I stayed with the aircraft and got in contact with Maintenance. When I returned to the terminal I wrote up the aircraft for the tire coming off and the aircraft departing paved surface. I was asked to go back and take more photos of the tire. FBO mechanics came awhile later and were able to get a spare tire on. They said half of the rim was missing so operations and fire went back to the landing spot where they found part of the rim and a handful of pieces of the landing gear all over the runway. The aircraft was towed to the hangar and I left the pieces with the log book with operations in ZZZ.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a runway excursion after the left hand main tire and wheel assembly failed.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EVB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D EVB
ATC / advisory: Tower EVB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While doing a touch and go on RWY 7; ATC started to ask for us to speed up because of traffic. Moments later I heard an aircraft say that he was ready for departure on RWY 11 (the edge of 11 is very close to 7). But again this is RWY 11; and I am landing on 7 so no big deal; and I can actually see the guy. He gets his take off clearance; and I can see him taxi to 11 while I am on final to RWY 7. Again no worries in my mind. I touch very early on 7; and to my right I can see the other plane move. And just before I throttle up I feel the whole impact from his prop. My plane is being pushed to the side; I need to make huge corrections with my rudder and aileron to keep the plane level. I did throttle up since I decided that the best option was to get some speed and better control. I was about 2-3 feet from the grass when I finally had control over the plane. Since it was a touch and go; we kept going.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported momentary loss of control on the landing roll related to prop wash from an aircraft taking off on a nearby intersecting runway.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pax Seat
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While walking through the cabin of Aircraft X I noticed that the overwing exit rows had tray tables installed on the seat backs that would allow the tables to be lowered thus blocking egress to the overwing exits. I made entries in the [logbook]; notified my Manager and the [Manager on Duty]; and told them I felt that this could have an immediate effect on the safety of flight. The next morning I returned to work and found that the items were signed off {closed out} by the Supervisor per the ECO (Engineering Change Order). Apparently the ECO; by design; allows seatback tray tables to be installed that will block egress to the overwing exits when in the lowered position. The ECO needs to be reviewed and corrected.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported seatback tray tables were installed; and approved; in emergency exit rows.