elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
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: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other pushback
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During initial taxi out and under the direction of the marshaller our right main landing gear departed the paved surface and became stuck in the grass. The airport diagram does not accurately depict the taxiway layout and I did not realize how close the landing gear was to the edge of the pavement after push back. It was very dark and perhaps the marshaller could not see that either. I followed marshaling signals up until the event took place.


Second narrative: During initial taxi after push back; we were being directed by marshaller and our right main departed the paved surface and was stuck in the grass. I believe the cause of the event was being pushed back to close to the edge of the taxiway; very dark ramp and the airport diagram doesn't accurately depict layout. I could not see how close to the edge of the taxiway we were and possibly the ground crew either. In the future; I will be more vigilant to dark areas and better lighting on the ramp will assist.


Synopsis: Pilots reported during push-back from the gate the aircraft left the pavement.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final coming into [Runway] XXL I began my touch down and made contact with the runway; a moment after; a gust of cross wind picked the aircraft up forcing me to bear left and causing me to veer off the side of the runway. Throughout; I maintained back pressure and ensured the wings would remain level and once I had the aircraft under control I taxied back to the runway while staying in communication with Tower; ATC gave me a phone number to call when I reached the ramp; they checked to ensure my safety as well as the condition of the aircraft. Once stopped; I did a post flight inspection and determined there was no damage to the aircraft or airport signage. Called the owner of the aircraft and his Mechanic will take a look at it in the morning.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported a runway excursion during landing.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a flight in a single-engine piston airplane with one passenger; I [advised ATC ]due to flight into IMC. I was flying between 500 ft. AGL and 1;000 ft. AGL along the northern edge of a line of low weather; attempting to find a good passage more or less along my planned route. Visibility to my right was at least 10 miles with ceilings rising and the cloud cover breaking up. Visibility to my left was 2 miles or less with ceilings descending to ground fog. I turned to a route I thought would work along a valley; and what began as rain and mist turned quickly into cloud. I was caught in IMC between the fog on my left and the better weather on my right; but the terrain was near and rising. As I turned to escape the cloud; I found myself in disorienting IMC with terrain ahead and I decided that the best action would be to use my CFIT training and get out of there. I climbed in IMC; stabilized the airplane on a course back to [departure airport]; and contacted Center to obtain an IFR clearance. I [requested priority handling] since I had a passenger and I was flying IFR in a single-engine piston airplane. The flight back to [departure airport] was uneventful; and I broke out of the clouds at 3;000 ft. on the 20R ILS.The decision to turn around should have come earlier. After the flight; as I reviewed the situation and the weather data for the day; I concluded that I probably should not have accepted the flight at all. I flew one flight earlier in the day; and found the weather similar and variable enough to navigate between scattered or broken layers and around clouds and fog in Class G airspace but with plenty of options. A more careful review of the weather data at the time of this flight; especially in light of the conditions I found; teaches me that the odds were not in my favor and the decision not to fly was the best. Looking back on the overall weather picture; I should have consulted with some more wise and experienced pilots for their reading of the scenario. I let my desire to complete the mission lead my reading of the weather prognosis.




Synopsis: BE-36 pilot reported turning back to departure airport after encountering fog and low ceilings on a VFR flight.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Me and my student were doing ground reference maneuvers near the town of Name and a rotorcraft was inbound for ZZZ. We made several calls about where we were in relation to the airport and even other aircraft could here us making the calls. The helicopter cut through our approach path and I took the controls from my student and made an abrupt decision to introduce power and climb away from the maneuver because he was descending into us. The rotorcraft then went and cut someone off on final for Runway X at ZZZ. What I feel can be done about this is the pilot needs to be talked too about visual scanning if he would've been scanning for traffic while flying and listening to radio calls this report wouldn't be typed to begin with.




Synopsis: DA-40 Flight Instructor reported NMAC with helicopter descending in conflict resulted in taking evasive action.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was listening to radar north from the Local control position due to weather surrounding the airport and seeing a medevac holding. There were 2 medevacs at the same time one with a heart transplant patient on-board (Aircraft X) and the other with the heart transplant team (Aircraft Y). Restricted Areas were hot Surface to 20;000 feet and the only clear air weather  was in the Restricted Areas. I heard the Radar Controller coordinating with Center repeatedly about getting a hold of range control to try to get Aircraft Y through so they didn't have to divert because the ambulance was already waiting at ZZZ. Center stated good luck coordinating with range control because they had been trying and range control was refusing to allow the Medevac through. Aircraft X was trapped north of the line of weather and unable to get to ZZZ in a timely manner. The unwillingness of range control to stop ground training to allow the Medevacs through during 2 life critical flights caused unnecessary delay to the heart transplant patient and transplant team.Procedures should be put in place for coordination to recall the airspace due to weather; emergencies; or operational need. I've been numerous other locations where the above conditions warranted recall of Special Use Airspace for safety of flight however here there is extreme disparity between the Army's use of the Restricted Airspace and the FAA's need/ability to recall said airspace.




Synopsis: A Tower Local Controller who was monitoring the Radar Controller reported the Radar Controller could not get approval from Special Use Airspace range controllers for a medevac flight to fly through their airspace to avoid weather causing a delay for the time critical medevac aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Bulkhead
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our preflight inspection; a thin; vertical crack was discovered in the left main wheel well forward bulkhead. Maintenance was notified. They noted that the crack was about 10 inches long and was difficult to see; due to fluids and dirt; as well as hydraulic and electrical fixtures in the area. My First Officer; who discovered the crack; stated that he has seen [multiple] such occurrences previously; all of which had required repairs prior to operating the aircraft. I had personally never heard of a problem in this area. Maintenance subsequently decided to take the aircraft out of service for repairs. My concern is that looking for cracks in this area in not highlighted as part of our normal walk around. If they are important enough to warrant immediate repair; looking for them should be emphasized to the Aircrews by verbiage in the AOM or Safety Alert.


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


Synopsis: The flight crew of a Boeing 737 reported that they found a crack in the MLG wheel well bulkhead.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: A380
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Due to lack of clear separation standards regarding the A380; and wake remnants; I was not thinking I needed more than 5-6 miles behind the super. Lack of training on and complete inability to track a 'wake remnant'; I was unable to determine when it was safe to climb a B737 after passing the A380. Often on WOOLY; we work climbing opposite direction traffic through holes in the weather. This was the case during this event. My facility also failed to distribute a new memo from the FAA which contained new and important separation standards for the A380. In my opinion; had I been given this information in the weeks prior to this event; I would have been thinking about needing 7 miles for wake behind the A380. PCT office staff consistently drop the ball on disseminating information to controllers. One would think at the rate things are over looked or not disseminated; that we live and work in the middle of Montana; not in the nations' capital; in the 3rd busiest facility in the country. It is routine that a pilot will ask for a transition to an RNAV Approach that we didn't know had changed or a pilot asking us why we are using the 'old SKILS1 arrival when the SKILS2 went in affect today'. Secondly; not having equipment to actually track or show wake turbulence is a huge handicap. Working numerous aircraft and keeping track of where an airplane had been is impossible and asking us to do so is just ridiculous. Give us the tools to do the safest work.




Synopsis: PCT Controller experienced a 'wake remnant' loss of separation event when passing behind an A380 vectoring departures through weather; the reporter noting the facilities dissemination of needed information is very poor.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR approach to ORD runway 27R. Initiated landing check with Flaps 20 and gear down well prior to FAF. Somewhere between approximately 1;300 feet and 800 feet AGL; the preceding aircraft on rollout reported a coyote along the left edge of the runway near the departure end taxiway C1. We were distracted by the coyote and the cautions issued by tower. We completed the 100 foot callouts normally; but failed to configure the flaps to 30 until we received the 'Too Low Flaps' GPWS callout. We reacted immediately by lowering flaps to 30 and landed uneventfully. We realized immediately after lowering the flaps that we should have executed a go-around/missed approach instead per SOP. The coyote had exited the runway/taxiway area and was in the grass area moving away from runway 27R and not a factor.




Synopsis: A B757 flight crew; distracted by a report of a coyote on the runway; failed to set flaps to 30 until receiving a 'Too Low Flaps' warning. The crew set flaps to 30 and proceeded with an uneventful landing.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FNLU.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower FNLU
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Night time takeoff Runway 23. Captain with FO on first flying leg of IOE and two relief Pilots for the flight. We were cleared onto the Runway 23 after a landing 737. FO taxied onto the runway for takeoff. Once aligned for takeoff I took control of the throttles. At this point I thought we were cleared for takeoff but apparently wasn't and advanced the power to 70% and pressed TOGA. At about that same time a relief pilot alerted the flying Pilots that the other plane that had just landed was cleared to back track to E on Runway 23; as well as the Tower alerting us to hold position. I disconnected the autothrottles and immediately brought them to idle. We were approximately 30 knots and had used up approximately 200 to 400 feet of Runway. The back tracking 737 entered the Runway and exited at E. Because we had started the takeoff roll and used up some of the usable Runway it was decided to taxi down RWY 23 to E and come back around to line up on RWY 23 full length. Fuel was not an issue.Looking back; somehow the clearance to Takeoff or the non-clearance was lost in the translation. The controllers in FNLU most often use non-standard phraseology; with an accent not easily understood. Coupled with higher than normal workloads due to a new hire first leg. The flight was late and had been delayed from the previous day. Assumed situational awareness with the airport and runway environment. Generally in past practice; FNLU hold the landing traffic in the holding bay after landing and does not have 2 planes on the runway at the same time.What 'saved' the situation was good CRM and situational awareness of the relief pilots.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported beginning their takeoff roll too early with an aircraft that was cleared to back taxi was occupying the runway.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: LNAV to BTG on the HAWKZ 4 Arrival to SEA. We were descending to FL240. We had briefed the HAWKZ STAR and the Approach to 16R. At about FL260; Center asked what our speed was. We reported around 300 knots. Controller said we should be at 280 knots via the speed restriction on the STAR. We slowed to 280 knots and went in search of the speed restriction since we had just briefed the STAR and did not see said restriction.The simplest explanation is that in order to read each fix on the arrival; we both had to enlarge the screen on the HAWKZ 4 STAR and the speed restriction was pushed off the screen. Any speed restriction should be assigned to a fix. Such as; cross BTG at or above FL240 at 280 knots.




Synopsis: A B737 flight crew cleared to descend via the HAWKZ RNAV STAR to SEA failed to note the restriction to maintain 280KIAS and were reprimanded by ATC. The reporter cited the inability to read the STAR chart on their tablet EFBs without zooming and scrolling as a major contributing factor. As a result; when zoomed in to the degree necessary to read the text the speed restriction box--which was separate from the arrival graphic rather than a part of a waypoint restriction 'balloon'--was not visible.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft NXXX: right engine failure about 30 minutes away from ZZZ our destination.




Synopsis: A CRJ-700 air crew experienced an engine failure about 30 minutes away from their destination.