elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Tower gave me an automated rolling call on an A319 departing Runway 36C. The Data Tag for the A319 never acquired because the aircraft was squawking the wrong code instead of the assigned squak code. Although Tower can have an aircraft contact Departure prior to the Data Tag acquiring; they must advise the Departure Controller if the tag does not acquire. In this case the Tower never called. Previously; the Tower Controller was responsible to ensure the Data Tag of each departure acquired before switching that aircraft to the Departure Controller. I have no idea why this procedure was changed; but since the change; Tower often fails to call when the Data Tag fails to acquire.




Synopsis: M03 Controller voiced concern regarding the new Tower departure coordination procedure noting the Tower often fails to coordinate when a Data Tag fails to acquire.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Helicopter crossed both runways at the runway intersection at 700 feet while an airplane was taking off from Runway 13. The helicopter did not see the airplane on a convergent route. The airplane did an evasive [maneuver] to the right to avoid the helicopter. Helicopter and airplane were not on the same radio frequency (Tower for the airplane; [seperate] helicopter traffic pattern frequency for the helicopter).The initial clearance to the helicopter was to cross Runway 13 at A5 but because this clearance was not usual and clear enough in the mind of the copter crew; a second request; more precise had been made and immediately approved by Tower. The new clearance was to cross both runways at 700 feet which is common for a crossing at the runways intersection. The Tower did not read it this way and was still thinking that the helicopter would comply with the initial clearance. The helicopter read back and climbed toward the runway intersection. After having a conversation with Tower it appears that miscommunication led to this situation. To avoid this situation again being on the same frequency can improve situational awareness. The frequency could be changed to the traffic pattern frequency while in the pattern. Using more precise vocabulary like runway intersection or remain south until past traffic will reduce the risk of miscommunication.




Synopsis: A helicopter and an aircraft suffered an NMAC as the helo crossed the runway on one of which the airplane was taking off.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Safety Analyst
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The container loader operator checked inside cargo compartment to confirm that the Dangerous Goods (DG) shipment was secure. He found it not properly secured. Notified the cargo dept and they sent someone to secure it.




Synopsis: Air Carrier cargo personnel reported Dangerous Goods shipment not properly secured during loading . DG cargo secured for transport prior to departure.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I requested and was cleared to land on Runway 27. I was instructed to make a short approach. I touched down using the 3 point landing technique to near stop applied brakes and nosed over. No more contact with Tower because immediately turned off Master and exited the plane; all within 10 seconds. I explained to airport officials after the incident I had no contact with the Tower because power and radios were off in seconds after the nose over. [I] cleared the airplane to Taxiway Mike. Winds at the time were 6 KTS from 080.




Synopsis: ATC requested a PA18 pilot to make a short approach and after a three point landing the aircraft nosed over when brakes were applied.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We landed on 8R. We cleared 8R onto L7. Tower told us cleared across 8L and taxi 'straight across' onto K and to the ramp. Never having landed on that runway before and looking at the Jepps taxi chart; it appears in order to stay on L7 we needed to make a slight left turn. Straight ahead was certainly not a choice; and even a slight left was not a choice; so I turned left onto runway 8L. Once I made the turn; I could see the sign for taxiway L6; so I knew that was not right. About that time; Tower came on the radio and said that they saw we were on 8R; and that was fine; just exit at [K6]; which is what we did. Looking at the taxi chart; I turned correctly. But the taxi chart does not agree with reality. I should have actually turned right. Please get Jeppesen to redraw this chart more accurately. As for me; I'm good. I won't make that mistake again. But someone else might.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported not perceiving taxiway L7 beyond Runway 8L and turned further left onto Runway 8L. Airport chart depiction was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After takeoff and on climb from Runway 28R at EE; PF made normal rotation (6.1 pitch) and callouts. After 'Flaps 1' callout and retraction; PM changed from tower to Departure Control frequency; then was told we were on the wrong frequency and were queried as to whether tower had assigned the frequency or we had selected it from the plate. Then GPWS annunciated 'Airspeed Low' as the airspeed had slowed to the top of the amber band and VNAV had apparently disengaged; although it had been selected before takeoff. PF corrected with additional thrust; reselected VNAV; and called for 'Flaps Up' on schedule. Better monitoring of FMA modes [could have prevented this event].




Synopsis: Due to uncertain circumstances the flight crew of a B737 received an airspeed low warning during takeoff and configuration cleanup.  Failure to select and/or remain engaged in VNAV was cited as a possible cause.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Tower, NV
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was told to exit at taxiway as traffic would depart as soon as he cleared. I saw aircraft turn at the taxiway and I cleared Aircraft Y for immediate takeoff. Aircraft X was well clear of the runway on the ASDE-X. Ground advised Aircraft X reported he wasn't clear of the Runway; departure was already airborne. Ground advised Aircraft X to give way to taxiing aircraft left to right. It appeared to me that Aircraft X never stopped forward movement away from the runway. He was moving very slowly away from the runway; but appeared he never stopped. Aircraft Y was told to contact departure. Ground shouldn't impede aircraft exiting the runway.


Second narrative: Aircraft X landed and was told to exit quickly because traffic would depart. Aircraft Y was put into position and hold at an intersection and advised traffic was on a 7 mile final. As Aircraft X was exiting the runway; I scanned the runway and checked the spacing on final with arriving aircraft. The local 2 controller scanned the runway and cleared Aircraft Y for immediate takeoff because traffic was approaching 2 mile final. At that time; ground control advised that Aircraft X said he was not clear of the runway. I looked up to rescan the area and it appeared Aircraft X was moving forward slowly and clear of the runway. The Airport Movement Area Safety System did not alarm and it appeared that Aircraft X was clear of the runway safety area but I could not observe if he was past the hold lines.


Synopsis: Tower Controller advised a landing aircraft to exit the runway 'quickly' so as to expedite departing traffic. The landing aircraft than was switched to Ground Control. Ground Control delayed the arrival's runway exit for their taxiing aircraft. The Airport Movement Area Safety System did not alert. The controllers were not sure if the arriving aircraft was completely clear of the runway prior to the departure taking off.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Design
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; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Taxiing; we were sequenced behind a 737. About halfway to the runway the Captain and I noticed a large plastic bag being blown behind the 737. Evasive maneuvering was not an option as the bag was being blown toward our aircraft possibly due to excessive thrust from the 737 and the bag attached itself to Pitot tube #1 on the Captain's side. The Captain pointed it out to me; and we both realized very quickly that the bag was not going to remove itself. We coordinated with ATC to go to the ramp area to have someone in operations remove the bag. Prior to getting to the [ramp]; the Captain noticed that the bag was emitting a visible residue resembling smoke and we immediately turned off the pitot heat. While monitoring the bag to ensure there was no threat of fire; we coordinated with maintenance; operations; and ramp control to make a gate return. Maintenance was already waiting for us at the gate and fixed the Pitot tube which had melted the bag and further cleared us to depart safely. We re-dispatched and operated the flight without further issue.FOD removal and awareness should be everyone's priority. We consistently report FOD to ground and ramp control who hopefully remove it. Proper recycling/disposal procedures can help save wildlife; and airplanes.




Synopsis: ERJ-145 First Officer reported that a plastic bag became stuck on one of their pitot tubes while taxiing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working a few planes in my sector and had a Cessna transitioning north at 5;500 ft. enroute VFR; which is a pretty normal operation. I released a B739 which was a factor in me analyzing whether or not I would have to expedite [the B739]'s climb to get above the VFR. When [the B739] checked in they were still within the lateral confines of Tower's airspace climbing out of 3;000 ft. approximately which made me judge that they would climb well above the VFR aircraft. With the proximity of the VFR aircraft being just past their projected path I didn't even think it was necessary to issue traffic. I think they may have begun to level off before I exchanged traffic which caused a TCAS RA event having them descend into an area of high terrain. They were really close to entering a 6;000 ft. MVA below the altitude and may have. Before entering the higher terrain I had a plain English conversation with them asking in an urgent tone if they are able to climb via except maintain 14;000 ft. because the traffic was 3 miles behind them. I'm not 100% sure if they entered the MVA below the altitude but I was a little fixated on the fact that I was about a second away from issuing a low altitude alert; followed by advise you climb and maintain 14;000 ft. immediately contrary to them still responding to the RA.In the future I'm simply going to either expedite the climb of these departures off the airport with an instruction to Tower; or more likely just have the 5;500 ft. VFR transitions landing in the next 20-30 miles descend down to 3500 ft. If they are strictly enroute; then I'll vector the 5;500 ft. aircraft south of the departure corridor to give at least two miles of lateral separation at the same altitude.




Synopsis: Approach Controller reported that a traffic conflict and RA caused an aircraft to fly below the MVA.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Inspector
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure; Manuals; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An [Aircraft Status] Turnover from third shift to day shift involved the replacement of a First Officer's windshield replacement where the seal installed was not correct for the Mod status of the aircraft. The seal was installed by third shift and the turnover to day shift started with the windshield being ready for install on the airframe; which is where I; [Mechanic X]; took over. I installed the windshield with no problems and the Operational Leak Checks were good. I am not sure; but I feel that the event occurred prior to myself getting involved. I feel that it is and has always been important to verify that the correct parts are used according to effectivity.


Second narrative: Company EMB-145 aircraft arrived at the hangar for a Windshield Heat Fault. After troubleshooting; [it was] determined bad windshield at First Officer's position. Windshield was removed and the aircraft was prepped for new; by Mechanic Y. I looked at windshield frame for proper prepping; along with sealant in four corners. I looked at the new windshield and provided oversight during the new seal for proper installation and everything looked correct. The shift was ending so a [shift] turnover was generated where the Mechanic signed-up to the specific task and I signed the RII. [There was a] misunderstanding of seal effectivity. For my involvement; make sure to ask the Mechanic about his experience with the task at hand. Verify the 'Effectivity' of the part being installed more closely. Talk to the Lead Mechanic to ensure that at least one of the mechanics performing the work has done the job before. Mechanic; who installed window; caught the error and had called Maintenance Control to have aircraft removed from service.


Synopsis: Four mechanics and one Inspector report about their involvement with a First Officer's Forward Windshield replacement on an EMB-145 aircraft. An incorrect pressure seal had been installed; requiring aircraft be removed from service.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed on top of a mountain peak that was next to [a ski] resort my charts showed it as forest land and I was approached by ski patrol that told me I was on leased land and I should be arrested. I was surprised at their reaction; but was as cooperative as possible I gave him all my pilot info and contact information and even called his boss on my phone to resolve the matter he was angry and threatened me with arrest I told him I did everything safely and was unaware of the land lease we hung up and I flew way.

Callback: The reporter indicated this landing was for sightseeing and was not associated with any mechanical problems.



Synopsis: A helicopter pilot reported that following an off-field landing on a mountain peak for sightseeing purposes; he was advised that the property was private and landing was not allowed.