elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C TUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON TUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were on about a three mile final. The wind aloft was about 10 knots on our tail. As we passed the ridge the speed dropped off and we got a [stick] shaker. The speed returned as quickly as it bled off. The First Officer advanced power and we accelerated passed our bugged speed. We continued the landing without any more deviations.We were at our final approach speed. The wind was not very strong but it was strong enough in this case to have the speed bleed off and cause a shaker as we crossed a ridge. We could have carried more speed. However the wind at the time did not seem to be fast enough to cause such a threat.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a stick shaker on a three mile final to TUS after crossing a ridge. The flying First Officer quickly returned the aircraft to approach speed with increased thrust.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was instructing in owner's aircraft. He wanted to practice takeoff and landings in the pattern at ZZZ. We did three three pointers. They were acceptable. Not greasers but nothing fundamentally wrong. We then did two wheel landings. Again; acceptable but not greasers but no warning flags. It was getting hot and thermal activity was affecting the landings so we decided to do one more and then call it quits. He did an acceptable wheel landing and at first everything was OK. Straight on the runway and wheels down. He then put the tail down - prematurely in my judgement as we still had a lot of speed (not excessive). The plane immediately yawed to the right. I intervened and applied full opposite rudder (I think he did as well) but it did not stop the yaw. This aircraft has no brakes on the instructor side so unable to apply brakes. The pilot did not use brakes to control the yaw. We ended up in the grass next to the runway. The pilot was pretty shaken up so I taxied back onto the runway and to the tie down. We determined there was no damage to the aircraft. I recommended to the pilot to have the tail wheel inspected in case there was some issue with it.I was surprised that we had the yaw to the right after what appeared to be an acceptable wheel landing. There were no wind gusts or other factors that I was aware of. It was either a result of lowering the tail too quickly (gyroscopic precession) or there is an issue with the tail wheel mechanism.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported student having control difficulties during landing resulted in a runway excursion with no damage or injuries.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In early January; I was planning a sightseeing flight in my helicopter to the East Basin area. Before takeoff I checked with FSS for any NOTAMS or TFR's in the area; to find out there were none. I took off mid afternoon and departed to the east. After approximately 45 minutes of flying the area I returned for landing at my departure airport. At this point a Homeland Security helicopter landed behind me and the Officers reported to me that they observed me penetrating the 3-mile TFR over a football game. When I told them that FSS did not mention any TFR's in the area and they refused to believe it. We called FSS via my cell phone in their presence and the Briefer again confirmed that there were no TFR's in the system for this area. The HSS Officer was surprised and asked the FSS Briefer for his ID Number. As a veteran helicopter pilot flying the area for many years; I am aware of the fact that sport event TFR's are not published by FSS. If the FAA cannot inform pilots of an existing TFR how does the FAA expect us to avoid one?




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot was notified by a Homeland Security Officer after landing that he had violated a ZLA TFR but after discussing the issue with FSS it was confirmed that the TFR was not broadcast to pilots via preflight briefings or NOTAMS.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Pilot Flying. From line up and wait on Runway 20L at SNA; we were cleared for takeoff. I raised the throttles to 40% to stabilize the engines and we heard a call over the Tower frequency that said; 'Aircraft X hit the brakes;' so I did even though I knew it wasn't the Tower Controller and we hadn't yet started rolling. Then the voice said; 'tell Aircraft X that they have a 2 ft. flame coming out of the back of their Number 1 engine.' So; I set the parking brake; shut down the Number 1 engine & remained on the runway. I called for the tailpipe fire QRC and we then ran both the QRC & QRH checklists. Then we asked the aircraft who had reported the fire if it looked like it was out. They said that the flame had gone out as soon as we brought the power back & were no other fire or smoke indications that they could see. At this point; we both felt comfortable to exit the runway and join up with the fire crews who had amassed on the adjacent taxiway. So; we exited the runway; set the brake and coordinated with the Fire Chief to examine the engine. We got the green light from the fire chief and they escorted us back to the gate uneventfully. Passenger deplaning was normal. No passenger ever even rang the flight attendant call button. The FO (First Officer) did a stellar job at helping to manage the situation and kept his composure while running the checklists. His approach and attitude during the entire event was exemplary; productive and helpful.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an engine malfunction during power up for takeoff.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When taxing out we were told B R to XR. I joined B via A then AX or AY and not via G like I think they wanted me to. They asked us to side step over to B when we were on A.This was my first day back after about a month and half off. Join taxiways using the most direct means or request clarification when unsure.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a taxiway incursion and cited being off for a month and a half as a contributing factor.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While working Ground Control 1/ Ground Control 2; I was handed three departure strips with similar call signs; all three aircraft the same type and with the same SID. I immediately recognized how similar the call signs were and the high likelihood of a hear back/read back error; since the three aircraft would be flying similar routes. Air Carrier XXXX was the first to call for taxi; but transposed his call sign as 'Air Carrier XXYX;' and I clarified his call sign and asked him to confirm his destination before picking up the correct strip. There were no other issues that I'm aware of with these flights. I've previously written about Air Carrier's similar call signs and the fact that the digits 3; 4; 5 and 6 are the most commonly used. Air Carrier needs to be pushed aggressively to make real changes to their call sign patterns. This was a quiet Ground Control session with only about 10 proposed departure strips. During busy departure pushes; it is not uncommon to have 20 proposed strips just for Air Carrier flights; and I could easily see a situation where myself or another Ground Control doesn't catch similar call signs with a transposed read back; handing the wrong strip to Local Control and setting up a loss of separation (left turn at 1R or right turn at 1L; for example); not to mention incorrect coordination with NCT; since the wrong strip would have been scanned off prior to departure.




Synopsis: SFO Controller described an unsafe condition citing the continued use of similar sounding four digit company call signs during the same time frame with identical routings.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Stratolifter (C-135 / 717)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C421 was approaching towards TOP from the southwest for a visual approach to Runway 36 at TOP; and a KC135 was approaching FOE from the northwest for a GPS13 approach into FOE. I descended the KC135 to get him down below the C421 and get him into FOE so that the C421 could overfly the KC135 and approach TOP for a visual approach to Runway 36 at TOP. I cleared the KC135 to maintain 3;600 until established on the GPS and cleared him for approach at FOE. The C421 would fly over the KC135 at 5;000. Because I saw KC135 leave 4;000; I thought I could then descend the C421 to 4;000 for his visual approach into TOP. The C421 and the KC135 were already diverging at this point; but I forgot that KC135 was going to stop at 3;600 until established and then continue descent. The KC135 still had about a mile or so to go before commencing the approach and heading down. It wasn't until the conflict alert went off that I realized that the KC135 was going to stop at 3;600 for a short time and therefore I should have waited to give the C421 4;000 for his approach into TOP. Anyone watching this event up front probably wouldn't have realized that a technical separation error had occurred because had they been alerted to it and looked they would've seen the KC135 leaving 4;000; thinking then that I could descend the C421 down to 4;000; out of 5;000. It was a mistake on my part not remembering that the KC135 wasn't going to continue descending right away. I guess the only thing I recommend would be a reminder to controllers that just because we issue a minimum descent altitude for an IFR approach does not mean that; that aircraft is going to continue descending until on the approach itself. Like I said; I thought I was totally following the rules at the time and did not realize I had made an error in judgment until several flashes of the conflict alert and thought about it for a bit.




Synopsis: ZKC Controller working approach for FOE and TOP reports a loss of separation between a KC135 and a C421 on a visual to Runway 36 at TOP. The KC135 was cleared to 3;600 until established on the GPS 13 at FOE and the C421 was cleared to 4;000; forgetting that the KC135 would stop at 3;600 FT.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending on the Bluzz2 arrival; we were assigned Runway 36R. Runway 36L had been loaded into the FMS; so as PF (Pilot Flying) I reloaded the approach and landing speeds. After hitting 'execute'; the aircraft initiated a 180 degree turn because while loading the approach; we passed the LTOWN fix. I selected heading on the FCP; selected DAPLE on the FMS; and executed that. I don't know if I selected NAV mode or not; but I suspect I didn't. The aircraft flew on course until CLARK; at which time it continued on a heading. I noticed we were off course; disengaged the autopilot and turned back to the course. A couple of seconds after that; MEM Approach gave us a heading of 160; which appeared to be a heading to get us back on course; and 4000 ft. A few seconds after that; the heading was changed to 170. We were vectored the rest of the way to the airport. As PF; I don't think I articulated the FMA calls appropriately; so the pilot monitoring wasn't sure what was happening and so he wasn't able to properly monitor the aircraft course. If I had been more inclusive; this event probably wouldn't have happened. Always call out FCP mode changes and always verify them on the FMA.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported mismanagement of FMS and CRM resulted in being off course.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During preflight in ZZZ; found oil dripping from right engine. Ran engine at the gate and Maintenance checked for leaks. During walk around in ZZZ1; right engine was again dripping oil. Ran the engine at the gate and Maintenance found oil dripping from a drain. At the gate in ZZZ; a protective cage was placed around the front of the engine while the engine was running. There was not a cage placed around the front of the engine in ZZZ1 while the engine was running at the gate. The Mechanic said they did not have one.  January 2006; at ZZZ2; a Mechanic was killed during an engine run; checking for oil leaks on a B737 engine; when he was ingested into the engine. A protective cage around the front of the engine might prevent another fatality. [Recommend] requiring a safety cage to be placed in front of any B737 engine while it is running at the gate.




Synopsis: A B737-800 pilot noticed that on two separate engine runs at two different Maintenance stations; only one of the stations used a protective cage around the inlet of their CFM-56 engine. Mechanics were trouble shooting a recurring oil leak.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sport 19
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Temperature was 85F; wind from north at 5 knots on Runway 36; which is asphalt in poor condition.  Take off was initiated after completing checklist and run up.  Normal back pressure was applied to the yoke at 65 mph indicated air speed.  The aircraft did not lift off normally.  After traveling about 2;000 feet down the runway; the aircraft lifted off sluggishly and the right wing dropped.  Controls were ineffective and power was cut to abort the take off with about 1;500 feet of runway remaining.  The aircraft drifted or bounced right coming to rest upright with nose down about 100 feet east of the north south runway in high grass and deep mud.  Grass along the sides of the runway was 4 feet high where the aircraft departed the runway.  There were deep ruts and puddles both sides of the runway.The nose wheel collapsed in the mud.  Prop and engine mount were bent. There were no injuries to the pilot or passenger and both walked away.There was no other property damage and the aircraft was retrieved from the mud by tow truck.Possible contributors are poor runway condition with high grass and no shoulder; heavy aircraft and high temperature.  The aircraft was close to gross weight but had flown in the same configuration numerous times.  Fuel was 20 gallons per tank and capacity is 59 total gallons. High grass next to the narrow runway may have caught the right wing and caused the right turn which was not commanded. In addition; on previous takeoffs the mixture was leaned for takeoff.  On this takeoff mixture was set full rich.




Synopsis: Beechcraft BE-19 pilot reported executing a rejected takeoff due to aircraft's sluggish performance at rotation.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E FLL
ATC / advisory: TRACON FLL
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Standard Instrument Departure assigned (FLL6.THNDR) with Radar vectors assumed. GNS-430W (Garmin panel mounted; IFR certified GPS unit) normally has all departure procedures and even though the database is up to date; there were no departure procedures available to select for FXE. Therefore the procedure had to be hand coded into the unit. During this hand coding; the THNDR intersection was accidentally coded as THUND.During initial climb out and 180 degree turn; despite checking and setting the directional gyro on takeoff; the gyro precessed by 25 degrees. This was caught by controllers who were verifying the heading and asking for adjustments. Upon request to join the THNDR transition; instead intercepted route to THUND which was 6 miles east of course causing additional calls from controllers to check course. Since this was during the climb phase; while sorting out the navigational coding issue; pilot overshot assigned altitude by 400 feet before noticing the overshoot and correcting altitude; navigation and heading. There were no issues with other traffic.Any change in normal operating procedures; especially when hand coding detailed routing information at a critical initial phase of flight should be double checked for accuracy prior to departure. Having utilized the VOR radial and iPad as a cross check for the GPS would have been another method to have caught the error before the controllers.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a deviation on the FLL 6 departure due to a gyro precession and incorrectly coded intersection.