elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ1.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 a loss of control event occurred during landing. No problems were noted during flight. During landing on Runway XX experienced loss of control that ended in the aircraft in a ditch and prop strike that stopped the engine. I set up to land for a wheel landing. It felt like I might have come in a little fast but not abnormally. The Loss of Control started with a swerve to the left; then back to the right; slightly back to the left and a hard right that causes the plane to end in a ditch to the right of the runway. Because of the shape of the ditch the prop was brought to a stop from soft dirt. The crew was unharmed and after an inspection of the plane saw no damage evident. At the advice of an A&P [the aircraft] was pulled out of the ditch and was started to taxi to the ramp. I have about 10-15 landings in it and the winds were a slight left crosswind but at about 6 kts. It felt like the brakes were some what active during landing as some squealing was noticed during touch down but stopped after a moment.




Synopsis: Tailwheel Pilot reported a loss of directional control on landing resulting in a runway excursion and a ground strike. Reporter stated brake system was squealing on touchdown.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 0L7.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
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 have flown from the 0L7 [for several years]. 0L7 is located about 12 miles northeast of the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant. My flying is conducted between March and October of each year during VMC conditions. My flight experience covers the time period prior to; during the construction of; and subsequent to the operational start of the power plant. Since the start of the power plant; my flight paths have been directly and obliquely toward; directly over; and around the power plant location at altitudes varying from initial launch (2;882 FT MSL; 0 FT AGL at Jean) to about 12;000 FT MSL. The glare from one of the power plant towers is visible from ground at the Jean airport. As the aircraft's altitude is increased; the glare from the other two towers as well as the surrounding mirror fields becomes visible. The intensity of the glare from the towers appears to be fairly constant once line-of-sight is obtained whereas the glare from the mirror fields varies depending on altitude; the aircraft's direction relative to the power plant; and sun angle. At worst; the glare is annoying and a distraction. To date; I have not experienced anything remotely close to flash blindness or cockpit illumination.




Synopsis: A sail plane pilot flying regularly from 0L7 comments on the Solar Plant glare and notes the tower glare is fairly constant whereas the mirror array glare varies with altitude; flight direction and sun angle. He has experienced no adverse effects from the array light.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: The MSA (Minimum Safe Altitude) for HOU ILS or LOC Runway 4 is based on the MHF VOR. The coverage area distance is 29 NM from MHF. HOU is 29 NM west of MHF. Therefore; the entirety of the approach does not have a valid MSA. I see this as a potential safety problem.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a safety problem relating to the Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA) for the HOU ILS or LOC Runway 4.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff behind a MD80. The Tower cleared us before the MD80 lifted off. As we were airborne we were in the wake of the MD80. [We] turned left about 10 degrees to get out of his wake [and] told ATC about what we were doing. Before he changed us over to Departure he asked if we were off the RNAV departure course. We were back on it as the course turned to the left. The Tower in ATL has been doing this a lot; clearing other aircraft for takeoff before the one in front even raised his nose off the ground. Behind a heavy they clear you with only 2 1/2 miles between you. This needs to be addressed [or] there could be a bad problem soon.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reported wake vortex encounter departing ATL in trail of an MD80. Reporter believes ATC procedures contributed to the event.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: JUN.Airport, AK
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower JNU
Second aircraft: J3 Cub
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon leaving ramp for a runway 26 departure we heard a Piper Cub request landing on runway 8. It was a dark night; with layered clouds; and light rain or mist obstructing visibility. We could see the beacon of the cub about 2 miles south of runway 26. Tower controller advised Cub of a delay due to departing 26 traffic unless Cub could accept 26 which pilot declined. We commented on how the new procedures in JNU compromised safety in this instance. The Cub could have landed; parked; and left the airport in the 4 to 5 minutes it took us to taxi and be ready at runway 26. Instead; the Cub held on a dark night in mountainous terrain. We reached the end and we were cleared for takeoff. We could not locate the Cub and requested his position before commencing takeoff roll. The controller could not see the Cub; but was informed the Cub was over the 'Brotherton' bridge and we were told about a mile north of the runway. We departed and started an early turn for the Barlo Departure. Passing about 600 feet the F/O advised that it was a good thing we turned early because the Cub was about 200 feet below us and directly off our right wing. What appears to be a silly procedure from our prospective hindered the controller from using his discretion to land an aircraft during the time we taxied for departure. Instead; the aircraft held and then almost created a conflict with out departure. The next time this situation happens I will not takeoff until we can visually see the other aircraft or tower allows the aircraft to land. This night safety was not increased.[The event was caused by] poor procedures for runway usage. Not allowing ATC to use its judgment and training to separate traffic.




Synopsis: The Captain of a night time commercial departure from JNU reported a conflict with an inbound Piper 'Cub.' A new airport procedure specifying coordination of opposite direction; concurrent arrivals and departures at night was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain [met] our two passengers at the FBO door. A lineman and he unloaded their vehicle onto a dolly and the lineman pushed the cart out to the aircraft where I was waiting to receive the baggage. During the walk out to the aircraft; the Captain noticed that one of the items on the dolly was a locked rifle case. Since we were doing an owner flight in the '135 only' aircraft; this flight would be operated under Part 135 rules; which meant that he needed [prior] approval to carry firearms. The lineman handed the baggage to myself for weighing and loading through the cargo door while he called for approval (granted) from the cockpit.After landing; I exited the aircraft and took my position outside of the cargo door. Once the passengers departed; the Captain went to the back of the cabin and began offloading their items from the cargo area. While unloading a cardboard box; he could see that one of the items was cylindrical with a bright orange cap (the box top flaps were folded over; but not taped shut). I maneuvered the box to get a better look at the item without opening the box and rummaging through the owner's items. It did appear to be a can of bright orange spray paint. The owner was standing a few feet from the cargo door; so the Captain asked him if the item was a can of spray paint. He affirmed that it was. The Captain politely informed him that for future reference; we cannot transport cans of spray paint since they are considered to be a flammable aerosol and HAZMAT. He said he had not been aware but that it made sense and he apologized for the error.We currently provide owners with HAZMAT guidance in the Owner Handbook and to charter clients on the Terms and Conditions. However; without actually opening their baggage and inspecting it prior to loading; we cannot fully prevent them from carrying HAZMAT without our knowledge. Had the cardboard box been taped shut; we would not have detected it in this case.




Synopsis: Fractional operator aircraft First Officer reported passenger neglected to inform flight crew personal baggage contained HAZMAT item.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Rain; Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Dispatch and I had been watching the weather at ZZZ from the beginning of the pairing due to the weather and short runway in ZZZ. The TAF was improving; but was still going to be close if we would make it in. Weight; gusty winds; strong crosswinds; rain; Flaps 40/MAX brakes required; night land at an unfamiliar field; limited fuel due to landing weight at ZZZ and a new (but excellent) First Officer made for a very complicated situation at best. The Dispatcher and I agreed to reevaluate the flight after the ferry flight. When I reconnected with the Dispatcher for the next leg; the forecast again had marginally improved; but was still not great. The only true improvement was we were able to move the alternate back to ZZZ1; which was better for the fuel and the customer. We were now on Release 4. Everyone was briefed (flight attendants and charter coordinator) that ZZZ was legal from a weather and weight perspective; but advised that it could still be a bumpy approach and diverting to ZZZ1 was still a possibility. Due to the short flight; I kept the Flight Attendants up to date on timing and turbulence. We were able to fly above most of the weather and turbulence and had time to thoroughly brief the RNAV GPS Runway XX approach for ZZZ. Flaps 40 and max brakes were the only way to make the landing in ZZZ and we discussed that we would be dealing with a small margin on approach speed due to max flap speed of 162; and a strong cross wind landing. Winds were 15 kts gusting to 35. We also briefed the windshear escape procedures in case. We configured early on the approach and were able to fly a stable approach through 500 feet. As the gusty wind began to pick up; I disengaged the autopilot and autothrottles to better control the aircraft; especially speed. We got the runway in sight; but we could now tell there was precipitation again in the area and moderate turbulence was encountered. We then got strong up/down drafts with 'don't sink' calls. I then immediately called and executed a go-around and knowing our fuel status (and lack of true field conditions) called for a divert to ZZZ1. A normal landing was made in ZZZ1.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported severe weather on approach that resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Pedal
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
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
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the flare with a crosswind; First Officer found the rudder pedals to be jammed. It took an inordinate amount of force to free them. The First Officer landed safely. I taxied to the gate uneventfully. We wrote it up for maintenance in ACARS and followed up with a call to Maintenance.


Second narrative: During the flare with a crosswind I found the rudder pedals to be jammed. An inordinate amount of force was required to free them. Once they were free they operated normally. I landed safely and Captain taxied to the gate uneventfully. I recall during flight whenever I put my weight on the rudder adjustment housing; it seemed to move and make a popping noise. This may be what jammed the pedals temporarily.


Synopsis: An A320 First Officer had to physically override the aircraft rudder pedals which he found jammed during the landing flare. They freed up and operated normally after great deal of force was applied.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series 700
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On Date; Aircraft X; a Hawker 750; callsign 'Name 1'; experienced an inflight engine failure of the left engine while climbing through approximately FL230.  The aircraft had departed ZZZ  with a destination of ZZZ1.The pilots had no warning of the impending engine failure.  At the time of the failure; the flight-crew noted a loud bang followed by a violent left yaw and severe vibrations.  The flight crew [requested priority handling] and performed all applicable checklist items.  The aircraft safely diverted to ZZZ2.  There were no passengers onboard at the time of the incident and no injuries or further damage to the aircraft was incurred.A Post fight inspection revealed no visible damage to the engine cowling; no fluid leakage; and no visible damage to the N1 Fan; however; the crew noted that the N1 Fan could not be manually turned by hand and appeared to be stuck.




Synopsis: Captain reported left engine failure on climb out. Captain diverted to a safe precautionary landing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Arrived in the terminal area at Chicago O'Hare and we were vectored for the ILS Approach 28C.  We intercepted the localizer and glide slope and contacted tower at the marker.  When I called tower I noticed and verbally said we are on the ILS 28R from reading it off the ND.  Immediately the Captain told me to tell tower we were executing the missed approach and shortly after ATC advised 28R was closed.  At that time we realized we were on the wrong approach.  We executed the missed approach and the subsequent approach to ILS 28C was executed to an Autoland due to weather.The main factor for me was fatigue.  I had been awake for 17 hours and was unable to sleep in the crew rest seats.  Without being able to lie flat and the noise of the bathroom toilet flushing I did not get adequate rest.  The approach to 28R was loaded in the box the whole time however we briefed an Autoland to 28C.


Second narrative: During preflight; I programmed 28R in the FMC. Upon arrival at ORD; ATIS calling for ILS 28C. Briefed approach for 28C; but failed to change FMC approach page to 28C. Executed a go around at the outer marker for 28R and received vectors for 28C; followed by an uneventful landing on 28C.


Synopsis: A crew on approach to ORD Runway 28R executed a go-around when they realized at the outer marker that ATIS reported the runway closed. The FMS had been programmed during preflight hours earlier; but the fatigued crew forgot to change the arrival data.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working clearance delivery. Very slow on Thanksgiving. Aircraft X called up for an IFR to SFF (Felts Field; WA). Gave him the IFR clearance with 'fly runway heading; maintain 160.' He read back 'fly runway heading; up to 60.' I totally missed the read back. Tower departed him and changed to Departure. Aircraft X reported on with radar climbing to 60; but radar missed the altitude also....he assumed 160 too. Aircraft x told radar they were 'level at 60' in a 6;500 MVA.  Supervisor told me about it about an hour later after he reviewed the tapes.Talk about expectation bias! I didn't listen completely to his read back. I wasn't preoccupied; and I wasn't busy; just missed the altitude read back. I think the pilots read back of 'fly runway heading; up to 6 thousand' might have sounded a little bit like 'one six thousand' but it's no excuse. I didn't catch the wrong read back and it was a perfect 'Swiss cheese' model we've been talking about for the last 15 or more years!More vigilance!Less distraction!Focus on the pilots' read back and just don't assume it's going to be correct!




Synopsis: BOI Clearance Delivery Controller did not catch an incorrect read back which caused an aircraft to level off in a higher MVA [Minimum Vectoring Altitude]; below the MVA altitude.