elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I released the brakes when the Ramp Agent gave me the 'chocks' signal. The airplane rolled backward approximately 6-12 inches. After completing my checklists I went down to the ramp level to check if anyone had been injured or if any damage had occurred to the airplane. Fortunately neither had occurred. I spoke to the Lead Ramper and he informed me it is standard practice for the ramp crew to not approach the aircraft at [this particular gate] until after it had rolled back! Evidently; due to the slope of the ramp at this gate it is common for the airplane to roll back.




Synopsis: After parking and releasing the brakes; an Air Carrier aircraft rolled backward about a foot because of ramp slope. The Captain was concerned about ramp personnel safety but was told they know to stay clear.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y was in front of pack of planes for an ILS approach; Aircraft X was on downwind to base; Aircraft Z was straight in approach. Similar sounding call signs created a bit of confusion at the beginning. I had appropriate separation at the final approach fix with Aircraft Y and Aircraft X. I did however assign 190 knots to Aircraft X and forgot to relinquish the speed control; prior to transferring the aircraft to the tower. Aircraft Y slowed to a slower than normal speed inside the Final Approach Fix. The closest point was 1.81 miles; Tower was providing visual separation. The tower sent the Aircraft X around after ADSB-X alert. For an unknown reason the crew of Aircraft X advised the tower of a near mid-air situation. I am not aware of any aircraft in a close proximity to Aircraft X.




Synopsis: A90 TRACON Controller allowed spacing between two aircraft on final approach to decrease to less than required minimums.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While in cruise flight to CLT; ATC instructed the crew to proceed direct to the MEI waypoint. The waypoint was entered into the FMS and both pilots verified the aircraft was indeed proceeding to the selected course. For an unknown reason the aircraft continued turning past the desired course about 60 degrees although this was not selected. After about 15 seconds the crew noticed the course deviation and corrected. ATC verified we were on course after we initiated the turn back on course.The aircraft deviated from the assigned course for approximately 15 seconds.Verify the aircraft actually intercepts the course it says it will rather than just both crewmembers verifying the aircraft is turning toward the course and the correct course is set.




Synopsis: EMB-145 FO reported a track deviation when the FMS failed to navigate direct to the cleared fix.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PIE.Airport, FL
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E TPA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Less than an hour from arrival into St. Pete we received a call from Dispatch. We were updated that the weather in PIE had become worse than what was forecast. We were told that it was 1/4 SM (RVR 2;200 v 2;600); 200 overcast with the winds at 200/8. I informed Dispatch that [Runway] 18L would be used and the approach plate was approved for 1;800 RVR with flight director; heads up display or autopilot to decision height. After the call we both studied the plate and briefed the approach with a possible missed. Once in range the First Officer picked up the ATIS and we noticed it was roughly 2.5 hours old. I was puzzled because the Tower should have been closed and the ASOS should have been running. Once we made contact with Tampa Approach we informed them the ATIS that was running was 2.5 hours old and Tampa stated that the controllers must have forgotten to flip the switch. At that time Tampa Approach gave us the new altimeter setting and we adjusted our decision altitude for the higher approach minimums because we were using Tampa's altimeter. Knowing that we had weather that was less than an hour old from our Dispatch we shot the approach and were able to land safely. As I drove home this morning I began to think about the unusual situation. I did have current weather from Dispatch that was given to me within an hour from landing. The timing of the descent and approach would not have allowed us to call Dispatch again because we were below 10;000 and preparing for the approach. The only other option to receive further 'more current' weather data would have been to contact FSS at the field. I looked up the NWS METAR for our time frame and they were reporting 200 overcast and 1.25 SM visibility.




Synopsis: MD80 Captain reports the ATIS at PIE not being switched to ASOS after the Tower has closed for the night and the report is not current. Weather received from the company; which may not have been current either; is used for a successful ILS 18L approach and landing.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Time Pressure; Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working a double shift and was assigned to shipping to begin my second shift. I absolutely love shipping and have for many years. It was a more busy than the norm day with multiple HAZMAT and internationals one after the other. I had a paint kit Aircraft on Ground (AOG) to ZZZ1 put on my desk to stop everything I was doing to complete it ASAP as it was to be sent on Aircraft X. There is supposed to be a 3 hour window with HAZMAT shipments to be processed correctly; entirely; booked and verified over the phone and through the freight house as well. I immediately brought it to my lead's attention since I was only given less than an hour and a half to complete all steps. I also pointed out that we only had 1 on hand but ZZZ2 had 2 and also ZZZ3. They are also closer. I was just trying to handle this the best way possible given the task of getting the shipment out in such a short time. My lead made a phone call. After the call I was instructed that I had to do it. Not a problem. I proceeded to work under the pressure to complete the shipment. Every step was followed and correctly completed. Wrapped each of the two tiny paint cans in proper absorbent and affixed them securely upright; padded and unmovable. I was able to complete the shipment and have it verified through cargo; freight; and depart and arrive successfully. The task was complete with the very short window to do so. Went on to complete all of the other HAZMAT and internationals for the day without error. The next day; a ZZZ1 clerk was returning the kit back to stock. The clerk then wrote an email to all ZZZ supervisors telling that I missed the step about using a certain polyliner bag with the intent to have me punished; broadcasted discrediting everything that was done in that very small window to safely; securely complete the timely AOG. The pictures taken after all was said and done are absolutely in no way what it looked like upon packing and shipment. Not at all. I am more than willing to learn as I go. Learn from our mistakes. Learn from one another and communicate. Learn new things each day and different ways to handle the circumstances. I'm not afraid to try; and at the end of the day; just want to do the right thing.




Synopsis: Shipping personnel reported being notified of procedural errors committed on a Hazmat shipment.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine quit on downwind. Made emergency landing ground loop left main gear collapsed.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Bearhawk homebuilt aircraft reported experiencing an engine failure while in the traffic pattern at a foreign airport. A successful forced landing was accomplished at the airport; however the left landing gear collapsed as the result of a ground loop.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our mission was to re-position the aircraft to the Monterey Airport. The conditions were VFR. On pre-flight it was noted the right battery voltage was below the minimum value for an APU or engine start; this necessitated the use of a ground power unit to start the APU and caused a delay in the time table we had established to meet in Monterey.In the subsequent haste to start the mission I did not properly program the FMS to include the assigned SID. On hand off to NORCAL I was queried as to why we were not following the SID. I realized I had not entered it in the flight plan and had not reviewed it. The clear weather had lulled me into thinking we could proceed direct Monterey in visual conditions providing our own terrain avoidance. I asked for a vector and was told that we were below minimum vectoring altitude; we were issued a climb to 5000 and then given a heading. We also communicated that we were in visual conditions with the terrain in sight. Because of the delay in getting a turn I believe we set off a terrain separation alarm.This whole event could have been avoided by my not letting myself be rushed and taking my time to review the task at hand.




Synopsis: Cessna 680 Pilot reported setting off a terrain awareness event during reposition leg due to being in a hurry.
Date: 201811
Location: MMSD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MMSD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
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
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had just been cleared to line up and wait on Runway 34; with an approaching aircraft on 8 mile final which had been cleared to land. Once we were on the runway after about 30 to 45 seconds we started feeling uncomfortable. Upon a short discussion I made two radio calls stating we are ready for departure. With no response the Captain followed up stating 'tower we are still on the runway.' It was then Tower instructed the aircraft on final to go-around. Once they were clear we were cleared for takeoff.

Callback: Reporter indicated this as an isolated incident with no other occurrences that they had heard of or experienced at MMSD.



Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported being cleared to line up and wait on Runway 34 at MMSD airport with an aircraft on final.  Flight crew questioned ATC about the possible conflict and Tower instructed aircraft on final to go-around.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: HPN ILS16 LGA ILS22Aircraft X; IFR; standard at 4;000 on localizer for ILS22. Aircraft Y; VFR; departure off HPN eastbound climbed through Aircraft X. Aircraft Y checked in on my frequency at 3;500 before radar identifying him I advised he stopped his climb to avoid collision. Aircraft Y pilot advised Aircraft X in sight and turned to avoid. Another Near Mid Air Collision from HPN Tower with a VFR to IFR.HPN Tower provides zero assistance to avoid IFR arrivals east of their airport and switches 1200 code VFR departures from their Class D to N90 approach. A change in HPN class of airspace is necessary to avoid this situation; it happens constantly and is a major problem. This is the first and I am sure it isn't that last report that I will have to fill out with the same issue.Another suggestion is that HPN inputs into the National Airspace System (NAS) every VFR flight plan for their VFR departures and instructs the pilots to maintain 2;500 until advised by approach. 90% of the VFR departures from HPN call N90 for advisories there is no reason they shouldn't get a code from HPN Tower. This will help insure positive separation with IFR aircraft landing at both HPN and LGA.




Synopsis: N90 TRACON Controller reported of a Near Mid Air Collision. The reporter stated this was the fault of the Tower not advising departing traffic of IFR traffic in their flight path. Reporter would like a change in the HPN airspace and better procedures for the HPN controllers to follow.
Date: 201507
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
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot flying and we commenced a takeoff. Upon rotation I noticed a failure of flight instruments (HSI and RMI) along with the stick shaker warning. Immediately I said to my copilot that I have no flight instruments and that I was flying by Standby gyro and compass. We told ATC that we needed to return for landing due to flight instrument issues. We took into effect that we were going to make an overweight landing (approximately 3;000-4;000 pounds) and commenced a short base to final for a visual approach. Upon landing we parked at a holding pad and contacted Dispatch and Maintenance; at that point we realized that the IRS's were in the off position. After we initiated a full alignment; we contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control to appraise them of the situation. We completed a full alignment and that seemed to alleviate all the flight instrument issues. Once the flight instruments seemed to be corrected; we taxied back to the FBO to make logbook entries and allow the flight mechanic to do an overweight landing inspection without a hard landing. We were in constant contact with Dispatch and once the necessary inspection and paperwork were complete; we continued the scheduled flights per Dispatch.




Synopsis: B737-400 Captain experienced failure of his HSI and RMI upon rotation. The flight returned to the departure airport for an overweight landing; where it is discovered that the IRSs were never aligned prior to takeoff.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-5
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: With two souls aboard; returning to airstrip; arriving at sunset with clear skies and calm wind. Using right hand pattern approach; descended to short final altitude of 750 feet MSL; monitored sink rate/airspeed to intercept target landing spot. Determined at approximately 650 feet MSL that sink rate was to steep and did not get enough power restored to mitigate imminent hard landing; aircraft bounced once and power arrested any further contact with the ground. Continued with go-around and set up second approach. Repeated procedure to target landing spot; landing satisfactorily and rolling out. Near the halfway point of the roll out; the right wing began to slowly drop; maintained straight directional control and continued to the turnaround point at end of airstrip. Just before the aircraft could be turned; the right gear leg completed its impending collapse and the wing tip fell to the ground; and the prop struck the airstrip surface. There were no injuries and no disturbance inside the aircraft. Due to the initial hard landing; the right gear leg was compromised and during the subsequent landing rollout phase that weakness manifested itself in a collapse. Knowing how hard we hit the first time; there can be no fault in the design of the aircraft and credit the aircraft with allowing us to safely land with limited damage. It is possible that the waning light contributed to misjudging the sink rate to the target landing spot.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Maule M5 reported a hard landing that resulted in a subsequent landing gear failure.