elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: At FNL airport; an uncontrolled airport; we have a designated Diverse Vectoring Area (DVA) from 350-180 degrees. The main runways at that airport are 15/33. Our SOP states that Runway 33 departures must be issued a right turn and we must hear it read back. As a workforce we have inquired to management an explanation on why the DVA only begins at 350 degrees and what the pilot's requirements are with the traffic pattern to get them there. We have had several situations where pilots take left turns to comply with the traffic pattern. We need to get clarification on our requirements and theirs.I had an IFR aircraft doing a practice ILS 33 at FNL; I issued his missed approach instructions a right turn heading 120 and he read it back. Upon his missed approach I observed him make a left turn and he checked on with me on a 190 heading; below the 7;000 Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) and entering the 8;000 MVA. When I inquired about his original clearance he told me he had to comply with the pattern and was now turning left to the original 120 heading which pointed him back towards a busy traffic pattern. Had he made the right turn to 120 as originally instructed; he would've gone even deeper into a higher MVA; posing a substantial safety risk.Further discussion and investigation on the Runway 33 departure requirements. Explanation on the DVA and the fact that it starts at 350; and yet we own to the surface at FNL. What our and the pilot's requirements are to comply with safety requirements on releases and issued headings.




Synopsis: D01 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft was issued and acknowledged an instruction for a right turn missed approach. The aircraft made a left turn on their missed approach.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pushback midmorning local; Ground personnel notified us that hand signals required. Clearance to push back obtained from Ramp Control; referencing an aircraft behind us when clear. Pushed part way back; waiting for the aircraft to taxi [when] Ground personnel indicated APU fire with hand signals; pointing to the tail. Captain completed Emergency Checklist items for APU fire. I read and verified the checklist was completed. I called Ground to report APU fire indications; requesting assistance. No cockpit indications noted of an APU fire; other than ground crew reports. No fire warning; smoke or fumes; no indications from the cabin crew. Ground crew then reported no further indications of fire after shutdown of the APU. Captain elected to have the aircraft towed back to the gate for deplaning; since no further reports of fire were noted. I called Operations; asking them to notify Company and Maintenance. Passengers deplaned in an orderly manner. Fire Department trucks had no indications of fire. Maintenance checked the aircraft and allowed passengers to re-board to claim their personal belongings and luggage which was still on the aircraft. Flight was canceled and passengers accommodated. Ground crew reported (after the event) that the fire was noticed near the trim tab on the left horizontal stabilizer; without any indications at the APU exhaust port on the tail. Maintenance assumed control of the aircraft for investigation.


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


Synopsis: A ground crew pushing a B737-700 from the gate reported an APU fire; so the QRH was completed; an emergency declared and the aircraft towed back to the gate where no evidence of a fire was found. No fire warning sounded.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Instructor
Anomaly: 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was established in pattern; turning from base to final for a normal flaps 15 touch and go. I turned final; was approximately 5 knots below Vtarget when on short final just before initiating the landing flare; the stall warning came on; so I pushed down the nose a bit and after the stall warning died out; continued my round out. Suddenly the plane became very sloppy; the stall warning came on and as my instructor called go around. I put in the throttle. When applying the power; the plane swerved sharply to the left without climbing; we hit the runway; and continued to the left of the runway into the desert.My check pilot took over control; he managed after another impact of the left main wheel; to get the aircraft under control and to pull it slowly into a climb. When we were back on the downwind leg; my teammate who was sitting in the rear seat; told us that the left aileron had ground contact with the ground; the wing tip dents and the left aileron had dents. After a low approach and verification that the gear was down; my check pilot landed the plane safely.


Second narrative: During a private pilot check ride; the student pilot initiated a slightly high flare and the stall warning was activated. The examiner commanded a go around which was executed immediately. Unfortunately; the student pilot applied insufficient rudder input and as a result the aircraft rolled and yawed to the left. The examiner took control of the aircraft to prevent the aircraft from rolling further to the left. Unfortunately; the aircraft was in such a low energy state that a touchdown of the left main gear and subsequently the left wingtip was unavoidable. The examiner then continued the pattern to a full stop landing.


Synopsis: During a PPL check ride; the student flared high and approached a stall. The examiner commanded a go-around but the student lost control resulting in left wing contact with the ground. The examiner took control of the aircraft and executed a go-around and subsequent landing.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MYF.Tower, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MYR
ATC / advisory: Tower MYR
Second aircraft: Super King Air 200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was doing touch and goes on runway 28R. Aircraft X Mode C was inoperative and I advised the pilot numerous times that his Mode C was inoperative. During the final approach for Aircraft X; Aircraft Y called for IFR release. I received IFR release for Aircraft Y. Aircraft X was over the displaced threshold and I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. As Aircraft Y was taking runway 28R for departure he asked if he was still clear for takeoff; because an aircraft landed in front of him down the runway. I cancelled Aircraft Y takeoff clearance and issued LUAW (Line Up and Wait) instructions for Aircraft Y. Aircraft X did not report/say anything; taxied to parking. I then cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. I believe Aircraft X was obscured from my scan by a post in the Tower cab window when the event occurred.I believe that a lack of traffic lead to complacency. I think that being more vigilant and cautious in my scan could have prevented this; especially when an aircraft was having problems with the Mode C; and radar was inaccurate.




Synopsis: Montgomery Tower Controller reported a runway conflict after clearing an aircraft for takeoff while another aircraft was on short final.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight was delayed about 5 hours due to poor weather at ZZZ. When we arrived the weather had mostly cleared. We were the last airplane to conduct the LOC XY. Airplanes after us were being held to start doing the Visual. While on a right base; we picked up the airport about 15 miles out and were cleared for the visual. Although cleared for the visual; it was my intent to follow the guidance for the LOC to ensure a stabilized approach. As I crossed ZZZZZ Intersection; glare from the sun made my PFD and MFD almost impossible to see. I could only see the 1700 feet display on my MFD; and assumed this was ZZZZZ1 Intersection; the FAF. I started a Constant Angle Non Precision Approach (CANPA) descent in accordance with our procedures. I could not yet see the PAPI; but I could see runway XY and something did not seem right. We seemed low; so I shallowed my descent to about 200 feet/minute; then leveled the airplane. I could see we were clear of obstacles; but we seemed low. Finally; as we passed ZZZZZ1 Intersection I looked at the FMS and saw the distance- 5 miles from the runway. We should have been at about 1500 feet but we were at 1000 feet. I pointed out to the First Officer (FO) what had happened and told her I would initiate a slight climb. In hindsight I probably should have climbed up to the assigned altitude or executed a missed; but we were VMC so I justified it to myself that we were clear of obstacles. About this time ATC gave us a low altitude alert. About this time I started to pick up the 3 degree approach angle and continued the approach to a landing.1. When something did not look right; I did not vocalize it. The FO may have caught the error if I had done so. 2. When I could not see the PFD/MFD; I should have cross referenced the FMS and/or transferred Pilot Flying duties to the FO. 3. When the altitude error was noticed I should have initiated a more aggressive climb. While we did not get a GPWS and were above obstacles; it sets a bad habit. 4. FO and I had flown together several times and I think we trusted each other a little too much. This should have been an easy visual approach; but I think the 'easiness' of this approach made us a little complacent.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported the sun reflection obscured the Primary Flight Display and the Multi-function Display resulting in a low altitude condition on final approach.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [After] boarding the passengers; we started our taxi. As we were cleared for takeoff on the rolling out; the airspeed was alive reaching 80 knots. V1 and VR all the instruments were working perfect. Leaving the ground and climbing at 400 feet; yaw damper was unable to engage. The ZZZ Tower transferred us to departure frequency by reaching 1;500 feet. At 1;500 feet.; the auto-pilot was unable to engage and received instruction from ATC to turn heading 210 degrees and climb to 6;000 feet. At that moment; the airspeed indicator on the Captain side was gone and since the copilot side was showing the airspeed indication; the controls [were] transferred. As we reached 6;000 ft. and leveled; ATC called us asking if we were climbing and we responded negative we are level off at 6000 ft. ATC said negative you are at 2;500 feet. We noticed that the R/H side altimeter and Standby Altimeter were showing an altitude that we were not at. We request to return to ZZZ due to instrument failure; by then; ATC recleared us to descend to 4;000 feet. and heading 270; with the RH ADI showing a pitch of 15 nose down and climbing; so flight controls was transfer again to Captain. The altimeter at the Captain side was showing the more[or] less [than] the altitude from ATC. They gave us radar vectors for the ILS RWY XX and ZZZ circle to land to RWY XY. We told the ATC to give us vector to final Runway XX and that we were to land in that runway; due since we couldn't rely on the instruments; neither the ILS. When we landed there were fire-rescue trucks and an ambulance. ATC asked us if we needed any assistance and we said no; so we taxi.




Synopsis: HS125 Captain reported erroneous airspeed and altitude indications led to a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I'm still unsure if this was a green on green situation. It didn't really cross my mind at all until after the days flights when I thought about it further. Reporting just in case. It wasn't at the forefront of my mind. I was focused on operating the days flights safely. More company oversight of green crew members.




Synopsis: An ERJ-175 First Officer was concerned after the fact that he and Captain; both as low time pilots; had been paired together.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were doing a ferry flight. We pushed back and performed normal checklists under normal operations. We were given a line up and wait clearance on the runway. We had a TO (Takeoff) Config OK advisory message at this time. Tower instructed us 'Cleared for takeoff.' It was a windy day and the winds were coming from the right. We performed a normal thrust departure with Cont Ignition ON for takeoff. LLWS Advisories were in effect. I added right crosswind correction and set the thrust. When we accelerated to 100 KTS; Triple Chime Master Warning message appeared with Aural sound. Master warning message was TAKEOFF CONFIG with Aural sound 'Trim.' I performed the Rejected Takeoff because I briefed that in my takeoff briefing if we received any Red Master warnings prior to V1 which was 105 KTS for this flight.After discussing with the other pilot; we think the trim rolled back on its own and wasn't manually done after it was set. It could also have been a pilots thumb on the stab trim switch but no stab trim clacker sounded during any part of the taxi or takeoff roll.The only thing I could suggest is make sure to keep scanning the EICAS screens to be sure all instruments are reading correctly. This is difficult with it being in a high workload and the Pilot Flying focusing on the runway for takeoff. I would suggest it needs to be briefed that the Pilot Monitoring needs to scan this throughout the takeoff phase. Also; would be a good practice to make sure a pilots thumb isn't on the stab trim switch during takeoff roll.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff when they received a 'Takeoff Config' alert message at 100 KTS for trim.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Handed off to Departure Control. Departure cleared us to 10;000 feet and 'ON COURSE TO CTF.' The [previous 060] heading had taken us east of the 'on course' line from ZZZ to CTF so the First Officer and I agreed that ON COURSE; is not direct and we needed to come left a few degrees to intercept the on course route. We both agreed that on course and not direct was the clearance. After a minute or so the Departure Controller asked if we were direct CTF. I stated no we were joining the on course route. He turned us to 90 degrees for a minute and then cleared us 'ON COURSE DIRECT TO CTF.' He asked if we misunderstood his previous clearance and when I tried to explain the difference between ON COURSE; and DIRECT he did not agree and did not seem to understand that there is a difference. I do not know of any changes to those clearances and would certainly like to know if they have changed.




Synopsis: CRJ200 flight crew track deviation due to interpreting 'on course' to a VOR differently than Controller who believed it to mean the same thing as 'direct' to the VOR.