elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A-1 Husky
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
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: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Touchdown on the numbers runway 32R. At the 200 ft mark of landing rollout; a sudden gust of wind from the left; lifted the left wing; and the right wing tip started scraping the pavement; inducing the start of a swerve to the left. Immediate left stick and right rudder were instituted; along with light feathering of left brake only because of weight removed from left tire. Left tire stayed in contact with pavement. Right wing raised after 70-75 feet; directional control reestablished with runway. No brakes were used once the rt. wing started lifting. When weight of plane was shifting back to both wheels the tail started to slowly raise. During the final 80 feet of rollout no brakes were used and as the aircraft lost momentum and rolled to a stop; the tail slowly raised (even with full back stick/elevator); and the aircraft slowly nosed over. No injuries of any kind to pilot. ATIS wind 320 @ 6kt. There is only 1 wind sock in the center of the airport. Light aircraft would benefit from windsocks near the end of the main runways at this class D airport.




Synopsis: Husky pilot experiences a gust of wind during landing causing the left wing to lift and the right wing to drag and a left swerve. Directional control is regained but the aircraft slowly noses over with full aft stick and no brakes applied.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Control Column
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taking off Runway XXR we rejected our takeoff around 110 knots due to a flight control irregularity. I was performing pilot monitoring duties; and pilot flying said the control column came back into his lap at 110 knots; which I did observe; and when he moved forward the control column had an irregular input. At this point the pilot flying decided to reject the takeoff; in which we followed standard procedures and eventually returned to the gate. The flight eventually operated with a new aircraft and without incident.Flight control column moved aft abruptly and felt irregular after returning to forward position.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a rejected takeoff after an elevator control anomaly.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were getting vectors to final approach for the ILS. The approach procedures were fully briefed prior to approach. We had been flying IMC for most of the descent and in and out of light rain showers. Auto brakes were set to level 3 and I was planning a Flaps 30 landing. Vref was 142 knots and initially planning a target of 150 knots due to winds. Approach needed us to slow to 150 knots on approximately a 20 mile final for spacing. The plane was in landing configuration and flaps 30 from about 4;500 feet. I elected to leave autopilot and autothrottles engaged due to weather. I believe we broke out and acquired the runway at approximately 2;300 feet MSL. I disconnected autopilot at approximately 500 feet AGL and auto throttles at about 150 feet AGL. It was a very stable approach. At approximately 70 to 50 feet AGL as I scanned the instruments I noticed the glide slope was showing just a very slightly high indication maybe a quarter dot. I was thinking I needed to ensure I landed in touchdown zone due to the rain and also being a relatively short runway. With that as my mindset I lowered the nose what I thought was just a little bit more to make sure I didn't land long. As I was just starting to begin the flare the First Officer (FO) announced a 1;000 FPM descent rate. I didn't want to correct too abruptly and possibly drive the main gear onto the runway harder. As I was making the correction we touched down and bounced. As we were on our way back down I added some back pressure and we landed firmly. The rollout and taxi to the gate was uneventful. After the parking checklist was complete I discussed the landing with the FO. He as well as I believed that we did not strike the tail just due to the observed pitch attitude. After customers deplaned; I went outside to inspect the tail skid and saw evidence of a tail strike. I placed it in logbook and called maintenance to alert them to this write up.Finally; during a post flight debriefing with the flight attendants; it was discovered that one of the attendants that was seated in the aft galley area may have suffered a neck strain due to the firm landing and was planning to seek medical attention.


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


Synopsis: B737 crew reported a tail strike due to a bounced landing during touchdown.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GSP.Airport, SC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GSP
ATC / advisory: Tower GSP
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for a visual approach to runway 1 at GMU. As he was turning final; I saw traffic coming head on at him and within 300 feet. I issued a traffic alert.We continually have problems with aircraft departing GMU or GYH; 2 airports that are adjacent to the main airport GSP. A procedure for working these aircraft departing these airports south and southeast bound would help.




Synopsis: GSP Tower Controller reported an unsafe operation that was between an IFR arrival and a VFR departure from a different airport.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEE.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower SEE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
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; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying with a student who already is a private pilot. He is my instrument student. We were flying from an airport with two parallel runways. We departed with another airplane and tower told us to turn when you have that traffic in sight. He had them in sight and I was on the right seat and couldn't see anything. He turned and I saw they are close to us and I took the controls and corrected it and had a ground with him about this later on. The tower didn't say anything. We covered everything in a ground and how far he should stay from airplanes.


Second narrative: Tower asked me to turn when I had the aircraft in sight. I turned when I had the other aircraft in sight. I turned when I had them in sight. Given that they were climbing; this resulted in close proximity.


Synopsis: Pilots reported taking evasive action to avoid mid air collision with an aircraft departing on a parallel runway.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Having made the trip from FQD to CRE several times I planned to fly south of Charlotte airspace heading from FQD to Bubba intersection then to FLO then CRE. I had requested and received flight following from Greer Approach and was squawking a discreet transponder code. After a while with Greer I asked if Gamecock was active. Greer asked what my destination was and I advised CRE. After a few seconds he said 'you are cleared direct to your destination.' I assumed that meant I was cleared through Class B as I knew I was near the southwest section. I turned direct to CRE. After a few minutes I was advised to contact Charlotte Approach on a new frequency. I contacted Charlotte and advised I was with them at 5;500 FT. This was acknowledged and I was given a current altimeter setting. After a few minutes I was told that there was sky diving over Catawba Airport from 11;500 FT. I acknowledged and advised I would be through the area ASAP. After a minute or two Charlotte advised that I was in Class B airspace and needed to verify I had clearance before entering in the future. I responded by indicating I had been cleared direct to destination and would certainly do as she requested in the future. She provided clearance and we proceeded to our destination. The 'cleared direct' terminology made me assume I had been cleared into Class B as I was talking to ATC and was under radar coverage. I knew where I was and had planned to stay outside the area but assumed Greer had worked the transition. On the return trip I just filed IFR to avoid any problems and will be doing this in the future as well.




Synopsis: Pilot was cleared direct to destination and thought he had clearance through Class Bravo airspace.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Second in Command (SIC) was Pilot Flying (PF). On arrival into TEB from the north on V489. Cleared direct to UNVIL and descending through 3;600 feet to 3;000 feet. ATC was task saturated. Received Monitor VS RA for climbing traffic at 12 o'clock 2 miles 500 below. We stopped our descent. Changed to Climb RA. Began to climb and called ATC; reported RA and climbing to 4;000 feet. ATC then reported traffic and told us to 'Climb; climb now'. Comm frequency was very congested. We climbed to about 4;000 feet and RA shifted to adjust vertical speed but the traffic was still climbing. We again received a climb RA. The traffic was 300 feet right under us and climbing. We continued up to about 4;800 feet before receiving clear of conflict. We reported clear and descending to 3;000 feet and received a vector for the ILS 19. We never saw the traffic.If controller had a way to block out or override incoming transmissions so that he could get a warning out.


Second narrative: It was a tough situation to avoid. We were being vectored at low altitude presumably to remain clear of the traffic for LGA and EWR. That puts us down with a lot of VFR traffic. I don't think ATC gave us any heads up traffic notice but they may have done so and been stepped on. Perhaps the approach sectors should be smaller for each individual controller. Perhaps the controller's comm transmitter should be powerful enough to block out other aircraft's transmitters.


Synopsis: DA-2000 flight crew reported an NMAC on arrival into TEB; citing airspace structure; frequency congestion; and controller workload as contributing.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: AS 355 Twinstar
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During a 91.411/.413 test; it was found the aircraft airspeed indicator (ASI) was faulty with a major case leak. A technician took a repaired ASI unit from the parts room and installed it. The aircraft was then put back in service with no work order or log entry of the instrument change. Later that day; a pilot informed me that the airspeed range markings were incorrect. I verified this and removed the aircraft from service. Our chief pilot; Director of Maintenance (DOM) and operations were informed that the aircraft was out of service. A replacement part was then ordered by the DOM. The aircraft remained out of service for the duration of the week. Upon my return [8 days later]; I noticed the aircraft's flight record container was missing from the maintenance shop. I then found the airspeed indicator with the wrong range markings on a technician's tool box. The old faulty airspeed indicator had been reinstalled and the aircraft was back in service. There was no work order or log entry for any of the above maintenance including any post installation system checks. The aircraft is currently in service with a faulty airspeed indicator. This action does not follow procedures in the repair station manual for proper return to service record completion; replacement of faulty components and does not comply with established FAR part 43 and manufactures system leakage limits. The aircraft is a light twin helicopter and is used as a part 135 passenger transport/air ambulance. Management seems indifferent to the possibility of a certificate suspension and fines due to improper service and maintenance records.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported an AS355 helicopter airspeed indicator was replaced with an incorrect unit. The original faulty indicator was reinstalled and the aircraft returned to service without documentation.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 15 minutes prior to landing an intense; heavy; wet-like; moldy smell overcame the cabin.  Within seconds my eyes were burning and with within minutes I had a headache.  Smell lasted through landing and during deplaning but not quite as intense during deplane.  The pilot to take aircraft out was on the jet bridge and noticed the smell.  Maintenance was called and plane was removed from service.


Second narrative: Deadheading on Aircraft X. Seated in XXD. During initial descent noticed chemical smell; checked with [deadheading flight attendant] seated behind me and she noticed as well. Working Flight Attendant #1 stopped by both of us shortly after to confirm what the working crew was smelling. We confirmed status of crew in jetway after deplaning flight.


Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant on duty and deadheading Flight Attendant reported an 'intense; heavy; wet; moldy' smell throughout the cabin during initial descent which lasted until deplaning.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Indy Center told us direct to KLINE fix somewhere after we passed PXV; then [a] few minutes later inquired us if we were flying to the fix. We then figured out center was referring to 'KLYNE'. Because there were two similar sounding fixes; there were some confusion with the direct to. We proceeded to the new assigned fix 'KLYNE' and continued the flight.During pre-flight; my First Officer (FO) was receiving ATC clearance; and we were given a reroute KDFW to ZZZ. I was listening from the speakers and copied the new route on the flight release. I had copied it on the paper release as the controller spelled out the fixes. The FO copied it just the same way as 'KLINE' was spelled out to us on his notepad. Shortly after we input the flight plan to the FMS; and found out that Q29.WWSHR returned an error WAYPOINT NOT FOUND from the FMS. The EFB JeppFD-Pro gave 'Q29 Not Connected to WWSHR' error. So FO called ATC again to verify our route. The [new] route was sent via ACARS to dispatch to check with fuel requirements. Rename one of the 'KLYNE' or 'KLINE' fixes should clear confusion with ATC and pilots. The fixes are about 50nm apart on the same ATC center. That way; there will be no 2 fixes that can pronounce the same.


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


Synopsis: ERJ-175 flight crew reported they deviated from cleared track after confusing the similar fixes KLINE and KLYNE.
Date: 201503
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We flew the INDIE ONE Departure out of HOU. The database had an effective date of (date) and was loaded properly. The INDIE ONE Departure had an effective date of (date).  On the bottom of the chart it lists no change.  We later noticed that there is a fix 'WWELL' between SUSHI and INDIE ONE the 026 at 38.8 DME.  This fix was not on the LEGS page of the updated database. Upon landing; Dispatch and HOU ATC was notified of the suspected chart error.  ATC said they did not depict the 'WWELL' fix on their government chart and they suspected a Jeppesen error.  According to ATC; our database was correct and the chart incorrect.  We double-checked both charts (expired and current) to verify that 'WWELL' was only on the (date) effective date chart.  We also found it interesting that the old and new chart are both titled INDIE 1 and the new chart states no changes at the bottom but has an extra fix!




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported his HOU INDIE ONE RNAV SID printed chart contained a waypoint named WWELL which was not in the aircraft's FMS database. That chart edition may be in error.