elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [After landing] I departed [the] runway on the right side and struck a distance marker. The distance marker and the airplane were damaged. There was about 8 knots of crosswind from the right. The landing was normal until the airplane slowed to the point were the rudder was no longer effective. At that point; the airplane began to weather vane into the wind. I tried to control it with left differential braking; but was unable to. The airplane was not moving very fast at this point. The airplane departed the runway to the right and traveled about 30 feet in the mud. I called the Tower and reported the situation. They sent someone to tow me out of the mud and back to the ramp. I retrieved the airplane and attempted to determine whether there was a mechanical problem. The airplane was amateur-built by me and I have an amateur-built repairman's certificate. When I examined the rudder pedals; I determined that a bracket installed to hold the cable used to control cabin heat could interfere with the left brake pedal when the left rudder is fully deployed. The control cable was bent where it entered the bracket indicating that interference actually happened. The rudder pedals are adjustable per pilot height. I usually adjust the pedals to the maximum or 1 inch shorter. The pedals were set to maximum length for this flight. This interference only occurs when the rudder pedals are adjusted to the maximum length/height and the left rudder is fully deployed. These simultaneous conditions must not have occurred previously. The airplane is still in Phase 1 testing required for an amateur-built airplane. It currently has about 55 hours of flight test time. The bracket should/will be re-positioned to remove the potential interference and I will inspect all controls and control surfaces for interference issues.




Synopsis: Vans RV-8A pilot reported loss of directional control on the landing roll when left rudder travel was impeded by a cabin heat cable bracket.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] departed Runway 24 at TEB on the RUUDY FOUR RNAV departure. Initial climb [was] to cross WENTZ at 1;500 FT. While the aircraft was capturing the altitude; the First Officer reengaged the Flight Level Change button which caused the aircraft to continue to climb. I noticed the altitude did not capture; and disengaged the autopilot to stop the climb. We climbed to 1;800 FT momentarily and quickly returned to 1;500 FT. There were no traffic conflicts or other issues. The First Officer had recently received his type rating on the Gulfstream 550 and this was his second trip. I explained to him that the Flight Level Change button while engaged would capture and level the aircraft at the selected altitude. He understood the mistake which caused us to overshoot our altitude. This has been addressed and I am confident this will not happen again.




Synopsis: A G550 Captain was flying the TEB RUUDY FOUR RNAV and as the aircraft was leveling the First Officer engaged the Flight Level Change button which caused it to overshoot 1;500 FT.
Date: 201511
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying at FL360 we received a traffic warning. It appeared at the same altitude and directly in front of us heading towards us on our MFD's. We received the 'climb climb' alert; and immediately began a hand flown climb. We climbed to FL370; and the traffic disappeared off the MFD.  We never received the 'clear of conflict' annunciation. We had advised ATC of our deviation as we were climbing. We returned to our assigned altitude soon after. ATC reported no known traffic in the area. This appeared to be a false warning. The night was clear; and we saw no traffic anywhere near us.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported receiving a false traffic alert at FL360 with no traffic in the area.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our MQ-9 Predator aircraft was cleared to operate in ATC blocks M1; M2 and M3 from FL200 to FL220. The aircraft was piloted by myself as a pilot under instruction. Training was being conducted by the instructor pilot during the transit east through our assigned airspace. The aircraft continued east from block M3 to M4 and the aircrew discussed that we had not yet asked for this block. Minneapolis Center was immediately contacted to obtain clearance from blocks M1; 2; 3 to blocks M4; 5 and 6. ATC noted that we were in block M4 and verified that our current clearance was for blocks M1-3 and then gave us clearance to operate in blocks M4-6.


Second narrative: While flying eastbound at an altitude of FL210 with an airspace clearance of Mike 1; 2; 3 North; Block Altitude of FL200-FL220; the aircraft penetrated Mike 4 by approximately 6 NM. Leading up to this incident; as the instructor; I was leading a discussion on Aircraft Systems; with all crew members. I had diverted my attention to the technical manual reviewing the discussion. While involved with the discussion; the co-pilot notified me that we had entered Mike 4N. The student pilot immediately began a westbound turn to exit the airspace. I instructed the student to contact ATC and request Mike 4; 5; 6 North; same altitude. Upon ATC's receipt of the request; they notified us that we were already in Mike 4 North. The student responded with; 'Roger; request to add Mike 5; 6 North.' ATC responded with; 'Request approved; please verify previous clearance.' The student then responded with; 'Flight XXX is showing Mike 1-3 North.'


Synopsis: A UAV pilot receiving instruction allowed the aircraft to stray into airspace outside of that for which it had been cleared.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HEF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Snow; 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HEF
ATC / advisory: Tower HEF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On an ILS approach to Runway 16L at HEF; at approximately 300-400 ft AGL; while scanning for approach lights; the crew observed two bright white steady burning lights located to the northwest of the approach lights to Runway 16L creating a momentary impression of REIL lights for Runway 16R.  The lights were shining directly into the approach path.  Crew continued the approach on localizer and glideslope; identified the MALSR for Runway 16L and landed normally.




Synopsis: Captain of a training flight reported lights near HEF Airport caused confusion during an IFR approach.
Date: 201502
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The previous hours report showed rain and snow earlier in the AM hours. It was VFR upon our arrival at the airplane. The FO performed the walk around and returned with the assessment that all moisture visible on the wing surfaces was water and nothing was adhering to the plane.We taxied toward the runway and the aft FA called on the interphone and said a deadheading pilot saw ice on the wings. We altered our taxi course to go through the deicing bays for type 1 fluid application and departed without incident.After takeoff; I discussed with the FO where he viewed the wings from during the walk around and he said from the jetway stairs and in front of the airplane nose.We reviewed the interior aisle overhead markings as the best view of the top of the wings as another resource for this evaluation.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported they departed the gate with undetected ice on the wings that was brought to their attention by a deadheading crew member.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I wrote this up as a safety event even though it should be [considered] a [systemic] safety problem. This is a known problem to all controllers and management. It happens so much that they have taken it for granted that we will just work around it. The problem is bad communications on 127.6 from AUNTI; and BOARD; to APACK and BITTA. We have complained for years and nothing has changed. When a non-RADAR aircraft check into HCF's; they will check in on 127.6 (ZOULU; AUNTI; BOARD). May time; we will hear them initially and then not be able to hear them as they continue inbound. We will not know if they received our clearance and will continue to try to get a good read back. Today; I have specific aircraft that needed me to have them 'IDENT' to confirm they could hear me. This takes my attention away during a busy period to wait to see if they 'IDENT' or I may have to call them several times to see if they actually heard me.  A lot of controllers just assume that they heard the clearance. I had to call several aircraft several times to see if they received my clearance. This wastes a lot of time and attention and is very distracting. Is there anyway they can try to fix the frequency? The controllers have lived with it so long that they don't even bother writing reports.




Synopsis: HCF Controller voiced concern regarding the on-going problems with 127.6 in certain areas; noting the problem has existed for a long period and should be resolved.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the descent on the HYDRR 1 RNAV Arrival to PHX I counted 13 separate airspeed; altitude; and heading clearances off of the published STAR. Some airspeed change clearances seemed poorly planned as we would be told to slow to a speed below the next waypoint published speed; then when switched to the next frequency; given a speed above the next waypoint published speed. When vectored off the arrival; we were given no information as to when to expect to rejoin the arrival. Between the altitude and airspeed changes; attempting to maintain the descent profile was tedious; task-saturating; and put both pilots in the yellow for most of the descent. At some point past HYDRR; we were eventually given a heading to intercept the localizer to 7R; then when switched to the next frequency; and after being established on the 7R localizer we were told to fly the visual to 8. When we queried the controller he reversed his clearance back to 7R. The takeaway here and the purpose of this report is to highlight an ongoing deficiency and a need for corrective action in how ATC handles arrival traffic at many airports. The current climate puts all the risk on pilots in the form of additive conditions that make the workload unmanageable. Often the airspeed changes and expectation to meet future altitude crossing restrictions defy physics as jet aircraft do not descend and slow simultaneously nor instantly. Designing; publishing; updating; issuing clearance; programming; and briefing these arrivals; when some are seldom; if ever flown as published; is a waste of time; money; and effort and compromises the ability to safely remain on or regain the descent profile and achieve a stable arrival; approach; and landing; as is evidenced in countless [ASRS] reports. If air traffic controllers cannot competently incorporate Next Generation airspace and aircraft automation capabilities and limitations into their handling of arrival aircraft; then they should not issue clearances for these STARs and should merely vector traffic to the final approach course.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported high workload resulted when P50 Controller issued multiple clearance changes on approach to PHX.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PAO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A helicopter was in the VFR traffic pattern. A [turboprop] was inbound on the GPS approach and was significantly faster than [the helicopter]. [A Cessna] was in the traffic pattern and taxiing back via on the tower frequency. [The helicopter] was sequenced ahead of a [turboprop] and [the Cessna] was told to hold short of Runway 31 for the arriving helicopter. While the helicopter was short final; the [turboprop] was overtaking the helicopter and it did not appear there would be sufficient runway separation. The local controller then asked [the helicopter] could make an approach to a taxiway; which the helicopter said they could. Local control then instructed [the helicopter] for the option on the taxiway midfield. [The helicopter] read back cleared for the option on the taxiway without saying anything about the midfield restriction. [The turboprop] was informed the helicopter would be for another intersection. [The helicopter] then overflew [the Cessna] who was on the taxiway holding short of the runway with no altitude restriction or other traffic issued. I was in the process of relieving the Controller in Charge (CIC) position while fresh on the Ground Control position and did not hear much of the calls being made at the time the incident occurred. The local control did coordinate for the use of a Taxiway; but I did not realize where the location of [the Cessna] was until [the helicopter] was already over the top of the [Cessna]. [The helicopter] should have been sequenced to follow the [turboprop]. It was unrealistic to expect the slow helicopter to stay ahead of the much faster [turboprop]. Side stepping to the taxiway would have been ok except for an aircraft already on the taxiway and no restrictions were read back by the helicopter. I would think the restriction would have needed to be cross above 500 feet to avoid overflying the [Cessna] with no restrictions.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller in Charge reported a helicopter was instructed to land via a taxiway and did not comply with a restriction and overflew an aircraft awaiting takeoff.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cross-feed operation the crossfeed valve failed to function properly causing left engine to lose power temporarily. While identifying problem I lost approximately 400 FT for approximately 30-40 seconds. Crossfeed problem was resolved; engine regained power. Center was called and advised. Controller said no problem.




Synopsis: C414 pilot deviated from assigned altitude while dealing with a temporary loss of power related to fuel crossfeed valve malfunction.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a helicopter near the south end of the ZZZ Class C airspace. I was flying over the ridgeline at about 1;700 feet when the Tower advised of Aircraft Y east abound approaching my location. At that point Aircraft Y was about 500 feet above us and a mile west of our location. ATC tower also told the other aircraft of our location and he informed the tower that he had visual contact with us. I immediately descended near the ridgeline (to about 1;500 feet MSL) and turned south east away from the approaching aircraft. I saw him pass behind me. As I turned to look for him to my left I did not see him appear. At that moment my right seat observer saw him back on our right side (west) and he was descending and passing below us. At this point I was near a well known landmark (just outside the airport airspace) and was at 500 feet AGL. Aircraft Y passed below me and continued east. Tower did not give Aircraft Y any vectors to avoid conflict even after I turned away from the traffic. To my knowledge; the pilot of Aircraft Y was still in radio contact with the tower. Further; Aircraft Y flew through a TFR area about 45 minutes after this incident.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported a NMAC near a Class C airspace.