elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wet Runway; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a training flight. I am a flight instructor and I was practicing full stop landings with a pre-solo flight student. While on short final; during the flare of the aircraft; a gust of wind slightly from the right caused a ballooning of the aircraft; pushing the aircraft slightly to the left. The aircraft touched down to the left of the runway center line; as well as heading slightly to the left. I attempted to use right rudder to guide the aircraft back onto the center line; however due to the wet runway conditions; the aircraft began to skid further to the left; ultimately going into the snow on the side of the runway. The aircraft came to a stop partially on the runway; and partially in the snow. The tower then closed the runway for approximately one hour; while the aircraft was inspected and removed from the runway. I believe this situation was caused by my desire to allow the student to learn and correct from unexpected gusts of wind; but delayed my reaction in taking over the controls of the aircraft before an irreversible situation developed.




Synopsis: C-172 flight instructor describes the circumstances leading up to a runway excursion during a student landing.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Tecnam P2012 Traveller
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the landing rollout; after all three wheels were firmly on the ground and brakes were being applied; the airplane began to yaw to the right. At the same time; the right suspension settled down and the left wing rose significantly. I could not steer the airplane back towards the center line. I then brought the airplane to a stop via braking. Upon coming to a stop; I applied power to attempt to move and steer the airplane with neither being successful. The entire event was felt the same as a blown tire would. I then told the tower we had blown a tire and requested to shut down engines. After gaining permission; we shut down the engines and awaited city employees. After a city car arrived and circled the airplane to inspect the damage; I alone exited the airplane to speak with him and inspect the airplane myself. He informed me there appeared to be no damage; and I verified this with my own inspection of the tires and landing gear struts. I then decided to start the engines and attempt to move the airplane. Upon advising the tower; I started engines and applied power. The airplane moved normally. We then taxied to the gate with no further incident. It is my opinion; after observing no bald spots on the tires; that a gust of wind from the left lifted the left wing significantly and at the same time the right brake locked up or would not release from an applied position. After letting the airplane rest for a few minutes; the sticky brake may have released itself allowing movement as normal.


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


Synopsis: PC12 Captain reported brake system malfunction during landing rollout.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On [date] at approximately XA:00 hours local time; I checked my Temporary Airman Certificate and realized it was expired. I have been flying a [type X aircraft] as second in command with the expired certificate. I will contact local FSDO to verify the status of the permanent certificate; and to issue a new temporary certificate. My guess is that the delay is in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported flying without a current Airmen Certificate.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the B position doing a passenger count when I noticed our final passenger being boarded in a wheelchair and a man behind him carrying a full size oxygen bottle. I immediately said to the flight attendant working the A position we should check our manuals because I'm fairly certain they are not approved and are considered HAZMAT. We also informed our Captain what was going on and he began checking manuals and making the appropriate phone calls. In the meantime the wheelchair assistant proceeded to bring on 3 additional full size oxygen bottles for the passenger at which point we asked them set them down in the boarding area and go get a gate agent.Eventually the passenger was told it was against FAA regulations to have an O2 bottle on the aircraft; he was informed he would need an oxygen concentrator; and removed from the aircraft. The flight continued as normal; however; during flight a female passenger flagged me down to express her concern as a passenger that HAZMAT was allowed through security and past however many [Company] representatives before it was noticed by us. I told her I agreed and would be filling out the appropriate paperwork to report the issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported a passenger went through security and was in the process of boarding with four full size oxygen bottles in violation of HAZMAT regulations and policies.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MTPP.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MTPP
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to Runway 10 at MTPP; we got false glideslope information with the autopilot engaged. Localizer and glideslope were captured. The localizer had also been properly identified. We were descending through approximately 3;000 FT on the glideslope when the downslope all of a sudden showed us low. The aircraft pitched up to maintain glideslope. The Captain; who was the flying pilot; disconnected the autopilot and we continued the approach visually to an uneventful landing.


Second narrative: ILS coupled being flown in VMC. Everything normal until approximately 2;500 FT when aircraft pitched up approximately 15 degrees. I left engaged to see what it would do and it climbed rapidly to over 4;000 FT while still showing on GS. Disconnected prior to stall and took over manually.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports capturing a false glideslope during a visual ILS to Runway 10 at MTPP. Descending through 3;000 FT with the autopilot engaged; the glideslope suddenly showed low and the autopilot pitched up to maintain the new glideslope. Approach is continued manually to a normal landing.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Dispatch routed flight around known weather and the initial route was acceptable. After pushback; Ground Control advised us that the flight had been rerouted by some Washington DC Central Air Command group. The reroute put the flight in direct path of the weather and potential severe weather in the event the weather moved onto the new route. I found the route unacceptable and stated so to the ATC folks. They told me that we were not able to change the route as Washington DC had mandated all flights fly this new route. I was completely dumbfounded that a person who I could not speak with was unwilling to stay on the filed route to the destination. Instead; some person in a room without the knowledge and experience of flying has determined which direction a pilot was to fly. I find this counter to the FARs that specifically allow for pilots to make decisions as to the direction of flight. I would like an answer as to when this FAR changed and the dynamic that constitutes a Ground ATC person to direct this type of action against the flight I am in charge of.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported receiving a rerouted flight clearance by ATC due to weather.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZJX shut off ZTL for all Orlando; FL (MCO) arrivals with no advanced notice. This led to both the Macon Hi and Hampton Ultra Hi sectors having to issue no notice; random holding to enroute aircraft. Additionally; a TMU altitude restriction was in place to have the MCO arrivals cross the ZJX/ZTL boundary FL310 or below. A few aircraft diverted to alternate airports. The delays were significant with no idea provided by ZJX as to when they would begin accepting aircraft again. Further investigation would find that no equipment malfunction was to blame and this was all controller inflicted. The ripple effect was felt throughout ZTL for 90 minutes after this began. ZJX TMU admitted that the controller working the sector was 'not used to that volume of traffic'. ZTL had additional restrictions for other airports in the ZJX airspace (TPA; ORL; DAB; SFB; JAX) which led to further complexity in trying to comply with these while missing the MCO holding aircraft. ZJX TMU has been known to be inferior. They have a reputation throughout the Agency to communicate with their own people and provide the adjacent facilities with realistic requests. Given the diminishing staffing of ZTL and the expected demand of Spring and Summer weather; effective Traffic Management roles in both facilities (ZJX and ZTL) is going to be paramount. ZJX TMU's methods and ability to function within the NAS needs to be reviewed.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller reported of no notice holding. The ZTL Controller discovered that the delays were all inflicted by a workload overloaded ZJX Controller. Reporter claimed ZJX TMU to be inferior and that the methods and ability of the ZJX TMU need to be reviewed.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL604
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
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 - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were climbing from FL390 to FL410 and around FL405 we got an EFIS COMP MON warning accompanied with IAS and erroneous altitude on the Captain's side. I called for the checklist and the action led us to troubleshoot and determine the failed instruments. We found that the ADC 1 was failed; and switched the ADC to 2. The system detected an overspeed; however; seeing the power setting; we determined it was an erroneous indication. The indication led to the clacker continuing for the entirety of being at the altitude. I chose to stay at FL410 because we were on top of the clouds and could see the horizon. Also; with the erroneous overspeed indication; we had a Mach Trim fail and CAS Miscomp alert. We advised ATC we are unable RVSM; emailed the company and asked if we should divert to TEB; and as we descended; (as the plane got warmer) the clacker went away; the Mach trim was able to be engaged; and the Captain's ADC 1 was working normally. I suspect it was due to ice in the static system.


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


Synopsis: CL-604 flight crew reported inflight failure of Air Data Computer 1; suspected cause was ice in the static system.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03; Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I don't believe takeoff separation between departing aircraft from 18L and 18C was adequate. IFR departures were in effect. Aircraft Y was cleared previous to our departure. If clearance was adequate for the conditions in play; then Aircraft Y has a drastically different climb profile than industry practice. Combine two different company profiles for performing departures along with an RNAV departure procedure from adjacent runways that are coincidental at the first RNAV point; and you have a recipe for unsafe separation. I assume that Aircraft Y was the target which triggered a TA/RA alert at RIBZZ on the GOETZ 4 Departure. This was a real head turner as the RA to increase vertical speed immediately followed the traffic alert. The FO immediately made corrective action; but the target(s) turned red and appeared to merge. We were IMC from approximately 800 ft AGL until well after the RA. There is a lot happening with changing configurations; frequency handoff; and checklists. As a crew; we shouldn't have to be concerned with ATC separation under these kind of meteorological conditions in the condensed departure environment of the afternoon launch. ATC never made a call nor seemed concerned about the takeoff interval. I don't know how they could have missed it.I think exact attention to spacing intervals on departures should be prioritized in the departure environment that is the Memphis Hub. I think special attention should be given to regional jet departures interspersed in this condensed setting. Don't run VFR interval departures during IMC environment.




Synopsis: Pilot reported of being too close to preceding departure. Aircraft received a TA/RA on climb out.  Reporter wondered if the ATC facility was running VFR separation during IFR conditions.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: I was working in the cockpit and there was multiple floor panels removed for inspection purposes. Reliability department asked me to move the elevator trim wheel so they could take a look at elevator trim cables in the cockpit area. I found forward elevator trim cables frayed. Cables frayed close to where they attach to chain. Inspection of cables had not yet been reached in our work flow; more than likely would have been found when we inspected the elevator trim cables on elevator functional test. The Maintenance Manual (MM) and Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) are not that clear on what parts are required; 2 cables and chain; and method to attach parts together. Reliability department is working on campaign to accelerate inspection/replacement of forward elevator trim cables.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported the C560XL Maintenance Manual and Illustrated Parts Catalog are not clear on what parts are required or procedures when replacing elevator trim cables.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CMI.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 119
Flight plan: VFR
Airspace: Class E CMI
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMI
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Y operating under a previously coordinated beacon code for agricultural spraying operations appeared to have departed TIP SW bound approximately 16NM north of CMI. At the same time an unidentified VFR target was observed maneuvering 11-13 NM north of CMI. The ceiling in the area had been reported at OVC029 with a field elevation at CMI of 755 feet. Aircraft Y continued to track SW bound before calling East Radar requesting VFR transition through the Class C airspace for agricultural spraying 7NM SW of CMI. East Radar told Aircraft Y to Ident for radar identification. After radar contacting Aircraft Y the Radar controller observed the unidentified VFR target maneuvering in very close proximity and issued a traffic advisory. 'Aircraft Y radar contact 13 mile north of CMI airport; altitude indicates 015. Traffic in your immediate vicinity type unknown; altitude indicates 015 and appears to be turning back eastbound within 1 mile west of your position'. Aircraft Y did not report the aircraft in-sight. Shortly after Aircraft X; called on frequency and said that it was him operating to the north and that the [other aircraft] was 'Really Close'. Aircraft Y then reported Aircraft X in-sight and said 'It appeared to be close'. Neither aircraft advised of any evasive maneuvers and no other aircraft were affected.Advise aircraft that will be maneuvering low level VFR when lowering ceilings are prevalent; to remain with radar for traffic advisories.




Synopsis: CMI Tower Controller reported a Near Mid Air Collision between an aircraft under their control and another VFR aircraft.