elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The only issue is that the terminal lighting is so bright and aimed outward toward the taxiways that it makes it very difficult to see normal taxiway markings and lighting not to mention it makes it more difficult to see other aircraft moving on the airport.

Callback: The Reporter stated that after landing on EWR Runway 4 and exiting onto Taxiway A; the terminal lights appeared so bright that he had difficulty seeing taxiway markings and even aircraft in the foreground. He believed the lighting was very good for ground worker safety but because the lights were so bright and pointed toward the taxiway/runway environment; they were a hindrance for flight crews navigating on taxiways.



Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported after exiting EWR Runway 4 and entering Taxiway A the terminal lighting appeared so bright that seeing other aircraft and taxiway markings was difficult.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X came from ZDC to our sector with the IVANE STAR in the route of flight. The Radar Controller issued a 'descend via' clearance and the pilot stated that he could not accept the clearance. The pilot stated that he had received the MAJIC STAR on the ground and never received any other clearance. The pilot also stated that directions from his company have stated that he cannot accept a descend via clearance and even refused to fly the lateral path. The Radar Controller coordinated the MAJIC STAR with Approach and issued the appropriate clearance. Something is still broken in either ZDC; the Airline; or both. It appears that someone in ZDC 'acknowledged' the incorrect routing and failed to issue the IVANE STAR to the pilot or even find out why it was not previously issued. This problem is still occurring too many times. This is simple ATC. Do not click on the routing if you are not going to issue/confirm it. This only creates coordination/work at times when it is especially unwanted. This is also a safety issue when 'Lost Communications' procedures are considered (Pilot cleared via different routing than in the computer).




Synopsis: ZTL Controller received an aircraft whose routing in the ATC computer showed IVANE STAR. However; ZDC had cleared the aircraft via the MAJIC STAR and the pilot advised he would not accept a descend via clearance for the IVANE STAR. The previous facility made a computer entry to suppress the IVANE route from the flight plan; but this update did not get forwarded to the ZTL Controller.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10+
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The wind was 170 at 7 knots; landing on XXR at ZZZ. I had just finished a flight with VFR flight following from ZZZ to ZZZ1 and back to ZZZ; and already safely landed once on XXR. As I'm building time; I chose to do several more landings at ZZZ; where my owned aircraft is based. My approach was stabilized and on approach speed. I applied crosswind correction; touching down on my left main first. In this Cherokee the rudder is directly linked to the nose wheel. I believe that I did not align the nose wheel with the center line of the runway prior to the nose wheel touching down. Because of this; the aircraft pulled hard to the left and I veered off the side of the runway; through the grass; and came to a stop just short of the taxiway on the grass. There was no damage to the aircraft; and I was able to taxi back to parking on ground frequency without being given a number for the Tower. During taxing; handling characteristics were normal (I was able to taxi at normal speed with normal inputs) and upon shutting down the engine I inspected the aircraft and did not find any anomalies. The aircraft just completed its annual in March 2020 and has been flying well.




Synopsis: Piper 28 Single Pilot reported a loss of directional control during landing resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on with Sector 21; east of ZFP.  The route of flight was ZFP BR21V PBI. At some point over or west of ZFP; myself or the R-side dropped track (not RS'd (Removed Strip)) on Aircraft X.  The Intruder was noticed and a manual handoff call to the WALIK controller at PBI was made prior to Aircraft X entering PBI Approach airspace.  The aircraft was then tracked-up and track control transferred to PBI. Scan diligently for intruders and ensure track is being dropped on the correct aircraft.




Synopsis: ZMA ARTCC Controller reported an aircraft they thought was an intruder; but was actually an aircraft whose radar track was dropped by ATC.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight pushed without final dangerous goods report.




Synopsis: B-767 First Officer reported flight pushback without final Dangerous Goods report.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training in progress; I was allowing the CPC-IT to control the situation. First aircraft had landed on the runway and was rolling out. Second aircraft on short final to same runway; very close behind. AMASS alerted to send second aircraft around. Recommendation; be more aggressive with CPC-IT about making a decision earlier.




Synopsis: Tower Controller providing OJT described a AMASS alert requiring the issuance of a go-around. The reporter acknowledged that instructor intervention was late.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IND.Airport, IN
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: [I] accepted a RADAR hand off from IND ATCT on a B737 west of the route track of the DAWNN Departure Procedure (DP). The aircraft checked on the frequency and was climbed to FL230 on initial contact. Aircraft was observed flying through the VHP radial that makes up the DP. The aircraft was issued direct DAWNN Intersection to avoid R3401 airspace which was active at the time. After questioning the pilot; it was determined that the aircraft was issued a heading to join the DP on the VHP radial. The aircraft's FMS equipment; however; showed the pilots that it would not intercept the procedure until southeast of IIU (a distance of approximately 60 miles). Had the aircraft stayed on the issued heading; it would have violated R3401 airspace.There are a couple of things that would seem appropriate for this issue. 1) There seems to be an issue with some FMS software and this particular departure procedure. While some aircraft display the VHP radial to DAWNN Intersection and are able to join the procedure where expected; others report that the radial is 'X'd out' or otherwise not depicted. This leads the pilot to believe that he/she will join the procedure at a much different point than the controller expects/needs them to. We have experienced this issue with several air carriers. 2) The procedures (both internal within ZID and external with IND) used for this departure needs to be changed to allow the IND ATCT or ZID-SHB Controller to issue the aircraft direct DAWNN without the requirement of putting that routing in the HOST. A feature within URET makes putting that particular amendment in the machine problematic. When done; quite often the aircraft's route of flight is changed within URET to show the aircraft proceeding to DAWNN; but then going back to VHP before returning to DAWNN and then the rest of its flight plan.




Synopsis: ZID Controller described a potential Restricted Airspace incursion when a IND departure; assigned a heading to intercept the DAWNN5 SID; was heading toward the R3401. The reporter was alleging a FMS software issue with several air carriers utilizing this SID; as well as problematic ATC equipment when route modifications are entered.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Takeoff roll began normally and the aircraft accelerated as expected. Tower had reported patchy standing water on runway but none was seen by crew. At 85 KTS the EICAS indicated an amber 'WOW FAULT' [Weight On Wheels fault] message. The takeoff was continued as aircraft was above 80 KTS. When the message illuminated I; as the pilot not flying; glanced at the flight control synoptic on my PFD; noting both main WOW indicators showed inverse video; amber; and in the ground mode. The nose wheel indicator was normal color but I was unable to determine its indication due to subsequent events. At 90 KTS the aural Master Warning Chime began sounding and the pilot flying/PIC announced; 'abort; abort; abort' as the EICAS displayed a red 'GROUND SPOILERS' message. Both pilots immediately executed an aborted take off per SOP and the aircraft was slowed without incident. ATC was notified of the abort and we requested to taxi clear of the runway.The Tower asked if we had aborted because of runway conditions. We informed them that at no time did we encounter any standing water and braking action was good; explaining that the reason for the abort was due to an aircraft indication. After clearing the runway we requested a short hold on a taxiway to allow us to inform the passengers of what had occurred and to discuss the situation. After a brief stop on the taxiway the aircraft was taxied to the FBO ramp without incident.Since the cause of the 'WOW FAULT' and 'GROUND SPOILER' messages is still unknown at this time it is difficult to suggest a way to prevent the problem from occurring. However; I believe it is important that the cause; or possible causes; be passed on to the crew when the information becomes available.




Synopsis: A Gulfstream 550 flight crew rejected their takeoff at approximately 90 KIAS when the EICAS displayed a amber 'WOW FAULT' message followed shortly by a red 'GROUND SPOILERS' message.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was the First Officer and flying pilot. As the first flight of the new day CA (Captain) and I conducted a full briefing including reject and engine out procedures. Normal pushback and taxi out subsequently occurred on time. As we were cleared for takeoff and taxied into position. I performed my usual scan of the runway and did not see any runway hazards or reasons not to continue with the takeoff. Takeoff power was set and confirmed as we began our takeoff roll. As I was the flying pilot my eyes were outside the aircraft scanning the runway and maintaining runway centerline. Shortly thereafter I noticed a large flock of birds from one side of the runway to the other and I made a 'birds ahead' call to CA. Within a second of seeing the birds; one hit the windscreen and dozens passed both sides of the cockpit at engine level. CA called for the reject; positive control transfer occurred; and CA performed the reject takeoff procedure. I informed the Tower we were rejecting and made the PA announcement to 'remain seated; remain seated' to the passengers as we slowed. We cleared the runway; performed the Reject-Takeoff procedure in the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) and we determined that assistance as well as an evacuation was not required. No emergency was declared. CA determined our speed at reject to be 110kts and we consulted the Brake Cooling chart in the QRH. We then returned to the gate and made the Maintenance ELB (Electronic Log Book) report. There were no bird reports by preceding aircraft or any Tower-issued reports.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported rejecting the takeoff at 110 kts after experiencing multiple bird strikes on the takeoff roll.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Approaching 10;000 FT MSL; saw three powered gliders in flight path. Captain disengaged autopilot and started left turn with an additional climb to miss gliders.  Passed 300 FT from one glider and within 800 FT of all three gliders.  Advised ATC of the gliders' location.  Continued to RNO uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported NMAC with three powered gliders on approach to RNO.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in the process of Remove and Replace (R/R) #3 Slat rod end switch. I just had removed the #3 Slat rod end switch mounting bolt and I needed to disconnect the Cannon plug off the rod end switch; but there is not enough room in the compartment to put my hands in and disconnect it; so I asked ZZZ Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) to go up to the cockpit to retract the Leading Edge Devices (Slats). Once I thought that the #3 Slat actuator was retracted enough so I could disconnect the Cannon plug; I told him to 'turn off' hydraulics; he did and I was able to disconnect the Cannon plug without a problem. But then I realized that the actuator was not retracted enough so I could removed the slat rod end switch; so I asked him again to retract the Leading Edge a bit more and as soon as he turned Hydraulics 'On'; the actuator jerked forward; damaging the back section of the #3 Slat. I immediately told him to turned hydraulics 'Off'. That's how it happened. We reported the accident immediately to our Supervisor on Duty.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports how the aft side of #3 Slat on a B737-300 aircraft had been damaged by the slat actuator during removal of the slat rod end switch.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach turned off the autopilot; the switch worked properly and heard the aural 'autopilot ' warning. Attempted to move the yoke but it was locked up on all axes; the FO tried his side and was locked as well. We had no indications on EICAS and and no other abnormal indications.  I tried to introduce some power and back pressure to see if I could keep the plane in the air and didn't like the response.  With low fuel and no flight controls; trying an autopilot go-around seemed like a very poor idea so I had the FO come up on the controls and together we broke free whatever was stuck. Later learned I had to apply significant lbs of force to break it free. I recovered the aircraft and landed without incident.

Callback: Reporter stated that Maintenance advised them the problem was caused by an autopilot servo malfunction.



Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported they found the flight controls were locked in all axes after disconnecting the autopilot at on short final.  The Captain and First Officer applied enough force to break the controls free and landed without further incident.