elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On two aircraft; in two nights; I have encountered aircraft that have excessive brake pressure decay with the brakes released and hydraulic power off. In both cases the aircraft had to be taken out of service due to the decay because it was well out of maintenance tech order limits. Our flight manual says nothing about this and gives us nothing to look for to find this malfunction and we are forced to use a 'this doesn't look right' approach to writing up the problem. To me; not having guidance similar to the maintenance manual when encountering very low brake pressure indications during preflight is a major problem on a fleet that requires optimum braking performance on most landings. The mechanics in both cases gave us very tight limits for the decay which is allowed to happen in this case; and the problems that large decay might indicate are both leaks and improper valve positioning; both of which may have significant impacts on landing and braking performance.

Callback: The reporter stated on preflight he noticed that the brake pressure was low and the aircraft was sitting a very short time. After turning off the electric hydraulic pumps the brake pressure would bleed off very rapidly which was not normal. This was observed on two different aircraft on two different days. The reporter also stated that there was nothing in the Flight Manual that addressed this situation and felt that there should be. The reporter stated that maintenance control told him that this happened on another B737NG aircraft.



Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported two aircraft in two nights were taken out of service due to excessive hydraulic brake pressure decay.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to SAN we saw what appeared to be a drone or unidentified aircraft crossing our flight path. We called it and were asked what altitude. We replied possibly 5000 feet or 6000 feet MSL. We were issued to fly LOC 27 or RNAV 27 after LUCKI Arrival and keep the speed up. We closed the loop and remarked about the [weather] south of the border and were both curious what a large drone would have been doing. About 5000 feet on arrival; we were questioned as to our track and asked if we had the field in sight. We replied yes and after landing were asked to contact ATC.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a drone sighting while established on arrival to SAN.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DXR.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D DXR
ATC / advisory: Tower DXR
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was practicing takeoff and landings in a C182. Tower cleared me to land. First landing was good. I taxied back to take off again. I was staying in the pattern for another landing to then head back to [home airport]. On downwind; I started setting up the aircraft for landing. Power back; carb heat out; below the white arc; first set of flaps. I turned base too soon before descending another 100 or 150 FT. When I was on base; I pitched down a little harder because I thought I was too high. When I pitched down my airspeed picked up to 90 KTS. When I turned final; I was too high too fast; but I was committed to landing the aircraft. Cut my power to idle; added second set of flaps and my airspeed dropped a little. On touch down I was clearly still too fast and the aircraft picked up from the runway but at this point I was running out of runway and I felt like I could not go around because at the end of the runway there were hills that I thought I would not clear so I landed the aircraft again. I landed on the main gear; keeping the nose off the runway for as long as I could and then I hit the brakes hard and they locked and the airplane slid off the end of the runway to the right. I kept calm. Tower asked if I needed assistance. I replied I was ok and that I needed to shut down the engine to check the status of the airplane. Tower sent the Airport Manager over and I inspected the wheels; propeller; wings; tail and everything look good still. I was they pulled out from the grass and I taxied the aircraft to a FBO where two kind gentlemen inspected the airplane and said everything was good and the airplane was safe to fly.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C182 felt unable to go-around following an unstable approach and departed the end of the runway during rollout.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FTW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We landed FTW RWY 31L. Tower stated we were allowed to vacate right on upcoming taxiways E; or C4. As we slowed down; we noted there were two right turns off of the runway; one which was clearly marked C4 and the one closest to us; which was not clearly marked. The visibility was low and the windshield was covered with water. Pilot Flying assumed the exit was E and started a right turn to vacate the runway. As the turn was completed; we realized this was in fact not a taxiway; but a closed off part of either an apron or old runway. There were no signs or runway edge lights to prevent us or warn us that this area cannot be used; instead there was red lights some 80 feet ahead; so we pretty much knew this was a dead end prior to fully vacating the runway. Crew realized we had made wrong turn and proceeded to turn back to the adjacent taxiway (C4); to vacate. As we completed the turn we realized ATC had cleared another aircraft who announced we were still in use of the runway and was requested to abort rollout. We contacted Ground once cleared of runway and were given taxi instructions and a phone number to call due to deviation. The PIC contacted them and was advised there would be an investigation on the matter. I question some aspects that possibly lead to this incident. The fact that there are no visible runway edge lights or signs to prevent aircraft from entering this part of the runway. The lack of information on the taxiway plate; though there is a X mark; there is not a hotspot highlighted as high risk for deviations; and ATC's decision to clear another aircraft for takeoff during precipitation and low visibility conditions without the certainty that us (the landing aircraft) had fully cleared the runway.




Synopsis: Air taxi First Officer reported inadvertently exiting the runway into a non-movement area rather than a taxiway.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ASE.Tower, CO
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local Control and had cleared Aircraft Y to land Runway 15. At some point prior to Aircraft Y on final for Runway 15 I taxied Aircraft X to Runway 33. Aircraft X then reached the end and called ready for departure.I missed Aircraft Y in my scan and cleared Aircraft X for takeoff Runway 33. I then realized that there was an aircraft (Aircraft Y) very near touchdown Runway 15 and cancelled Aircraft X takeoff clearance and instructed Aircraft X to turn left at B8 taxiway and hold short of Runway 33 due to the fact Aircraft X was already past the hold bars entering the runway; and as Aircraft Y was on the runway.I felt issuing a go around would have been more dangerous at this point due to the mountainous terrain and Aircraft Y was already on the runway and decelerating; and Aircraft X was on the runway. Aircraft X taxied clear of the runway at B8; and Aircraft Y taxied clear of the runway at A5. Aircraft X was then cleared for takeoff runway 33 and Aircraft Y taxied to the FBO.I could have been more precise and complete on my scan; had I done that; the situation would have never happened. If I had realized it sooner I could have cancelled Aircraft X takeoff clearance prior to the aircraft entering the runway. Maybe a memory aid to help with the scan of arrival aircraft.


Second narrative: I was working standalone CIC. There was training on another position which had my attention due to potential conflicts. I heard Local Control cancel Aircraft X takeoff clearance for runway 33 and instructed the aircraft to exit B8 and hold short of the runway. I went to look what was going on and saw Aircraft Y was landing Runway 15 as Aircraft X was on the runway exiting at B8. Aircraft X had never started his departure roll and Aircraft Y exited the runway at A5. Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff once Aircraft Y was well on the taxiway taxiing to the ramp.


Synopsis: Local Controller reported clearing an aircraft for takeoff with another aircraft on short final in the opposite direction on the same runway.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After pushing from gate we were handed from Ramp to Ground ATC. We reported at the box '2 west north line'.  Ground gave us a change of runway from 34 Left to 16 Right and taxi via Bravo which was now a right turn instead of the expected left.  On the taxi chart it is unclear that there is an F4 taxiway on the ramp prior to reaching Bravo when exiting the ramp. We followed the first right turn which was not taxiway Bravo. It was Foxtrot 4. We looked around and saw no signs for a Bravo taxiway; only Alpha. We spoke with Ground Control; who also was unfamiliar and checked with Ramp. We then proceeded north on F4; Echo; Bravo as recleared by Ground. Taxi lines are not painted with turn off letters indicating what line they are. No signage for Bravo anywhere to be found.




Synopsis: An Air carrier pilot reported a lack of taxiway signage and markings caused taxiing confusion.
Date: 201711
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: EMTs were called to meet arrival aircraft; reported that passenger had fainted onboard and vomited. When aircraft arrived at the gate Captain had made the decision that since the passenger was no longer in distress that everyone would deplane and EMT could treat passenger last in the back of the aircraft. EMTs were upset about this decision and complained that it is not proper policy to delay medical care of a passenger to deplane an aircraft. This is not an isolated incident and needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported concern with flight crew not allowing medical personnel access to an ill passenger until after other passengers disembarked the aircraft.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Near midair collision at 4;500 feet MSL. I was the division lead for a student formation flight of three. While the students were performing a series of turns; I received a TCAS traffic advisory. It extinguished after approximately 5 seconds. It was so close to us that I assumed the -2 student had inadvertently turned his transponder on and back off when the advisory extinguished. I didn't see anyone.Shortly thereafter; I saw Aircraft X in a hard left hand turn to avoid us. He was heading south at 4;500 feet MSL; and we were heading north. We passed within 300 feet of each other. Had he not aggressively maneuvered; he would have flown directly through our formation. I checked the Tactical Situation Display; and we were inside of our approved working block based on Training Air Wing FIVE's internal de-confliction procedures. I made a radio call on our common frequency; and I received no response.




Synopsis: A four plane formation of T-6 Texan II's was maneuvering in their assigned training area when a TCAS traffic advisory alerted flight lead to a possible bogey at their altitude and closing fast. Shortly thereafter; reporter saw another T-6 in a hard left hand turn to avoid. He was heading south at 4;500 feet MSL; and reporter's aircraft was heading north. They passed within 300 feet of each other. Had other aircraft not aggressively maneuvered; it would have flown directly through reporter's formation.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a regular training flight as the instructor I had simulated an engine failure which my student had set up for a glide and was gliding to a place to land. It was in an area that I was unfamiliar with that has a ground elevation of around 1;000 feet vs the 800 feet that I am usually in. During the glide I had gotten disoriented in interpreting the altimeter and saw us pass 1;500 feet MSL; but had interpreted it as 2;500 feet MSL. Normally without the disorientation I would have told my student to go around. I was just a little late on the 'go-around' call out and after my callout my student had initiated a go-around at around 350 feet AGL. I would not say it was unsafe at any point as we had no obstacles near us. But typically I like to do a go-around after simulated emergencies no lower than 500 feet AGL. This was a sparsely populated area as we were simulating a glide into a farm field. One of my personal minimums is not to fly lower than 500 feet AGL as FAR 91.119 states I must stay 500 feet from any person; vehicle; vessel; or obstacle. There was no obstructions or persons in the immediate area. A factor that could have contributed to this error on my part could be that during the flight I had realized I had double scheduled another student during the time we were flying and had an increased stress level from that. To prevent this from happening again; I will try and keep better situational awareness of the area I am in.




Synopsis: PA-28 flight instructor reported that confusion over terrain altitude resulted in a lower than intended altitude during the maneuver.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
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; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Landed on the runway and ground looped off right side.




Synopsis: Aeronca Champion pilot reported landing and ground looped.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During ILS Approach SEA Runway 16L; I was distracted by above glide slope turn onto the ILS and traffic separation issue which resulted in an unstable approach to a go-around.Above glide slope turn onto the ILS caused early extension of the landing gear which interrupted the normal flow of the before landing checklist. The marginal VFR conditions complicated concerns about sufficient landing separation creating an additional distraction. TCAS indicated 2.5 miles separation from the aircraft in front of us; so I asked Tower for our interval. They responded; our separation was an aircraft 2 miles in front and 2 miles behind us. While sorting out the traffic separation issue; we inadvertently did not select flaps 35 (final landing configuration). Below 500 ft; we got an EGPWS aural call out; too low flaps. We executed an immediate go-around. The cause was human error; we were both distracted by the traffic issue and request to maintain 170 kts to the FAF.[Recommend a] more conservative profile from ATC; better communication (Tower referred to separation from an aircraft ahead of us going to the parallel runway 16R; causing confusion that was a major distraction); and improved checklist discipline (early gear extension disrupted Before Landing Checklist). We made the correct decision to go-around.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a go-around at SEA attributed to an above glide slope turn onto the ILS and an improper flap configuration on final.