elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft takeoff weight was 160 Klbs; flaps 1; 24K engines with an assumed temperature of 34C. I performed the walk around prior to gate departure and there were no discrepancies noted. From the perspective in the cockpit; takeoff roll and rotation were normal. I was the pilot flying and the FO was monitoring. Neither I or the first officer noted any abnormal issues with the takeoff; cleanup or climbout. About 30 minutes after takeoff; one of the FA's called on the interphone to inform me that several PAX on the right side; mid-cabin in coach had heard a loud bang and felt something as the airplane took off. The FAs in the back did not report feeling or hearing anything themselves.Upon receiving this information we rechecked all indications in the cockpit and did not find anything unusual with any of the systems. Since no one in the crew could confirm anything reported by the passengers; we decided we would continue. We reviewed the information in the QRH regarding landing with a bad main gear tire. The main point being to make a normal landing; but not to use the auto brake system. We briefed a 40 flap landing with the auto brakes off. The touchdown was normal and I deployed the thrust reversers and then gently applied the brakes. The aircraft pulled slightly to the right and we could feel the bad tire rotating on the right side. We cleared the runway and taxied slowly to the gate.After parking; we joined maintenance inspecting the tire and the damage. The inboard tire on the right side had sustained catastrophic damage and there were rubber marks on the fuselage behind the wing and up just below the cabin windows. There appeared to be some damage to the skin of the plane; but pressurization had been normal throughout the flight.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported the right inboard main gear tire failed on takeoff.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had an aircraft which was going to Denver at FL360 in level flight going to Denver 28 sector (Aircraft X). Denver 28 had an aircraft at FL350 (Aircraft Y) which they chose to climb to FL370 for another aircraft they took a point out on coming from Denver 17 at FL350 (Aircraft Z) which was on a vector to miss Aircraft Y. Denver 28 called and said that Aircraft Y was climbing to FL370 and they would be level by the boundary in order to miss Aircraft X. I showed FL370 in the datablock for Aircraft Y and started Aircraft Y flashing at the next sector. Denver turned Aircraft Z back on course from the vector putting him on a converging course with Aircraft X. A couple of minutes later; Denver 28 called and said that Aircraft Y which they climbed was not going to make the altitude to miss Aircraft X. Instead of vectoring either aircraft they said they needed Aircraft X at FL340 instead. This was an issue because they turned back Aircraft Z from the vector and put him in direct conflict with Aircraft X. I expedited and had Aircraft X report level at FL340 to miss the climbing traffic they had climbed into him and to get him below the additional traffic they turned back into Aircraft X. I was not given communication with either Aircraft Y or Z while I was attempting to fix the situation they had created until it was over. This unfortunately is not an uncommon occurrence with Denver 17/18 and Denver 28/39. Poor coordination; poor understanding of traffic situations; lack of care for the flying public; lack of positive control and a reliance in someone else fixing problems created by their Controllers is observed on a daily basis. Additionally; if you are not capable of fixing the situation you caused; communications need to be transferred to the Controller who is attempting to fix your mess up in their area. Provide Controllers at those sectors additional training on communication best practices; separation standards; vectoring; and proper coordination procedures. This is a real problem. Instances like this and worse happen daily. It needs to stop for the sake of the flying public.




Synopsis: Kansas City Center Controller reported an unsafe situation due to the poor coordination from Denver Center Control.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Light: Night
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 B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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 FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Final and Aircraft X checked in on the RNAV arrival from the west and I acknowledged with what runway to expect and to use caution for a similar sounding call sign on the frequency.  I then told Aircraft Y to turn left heading 070 degrees for a base turn and also cautioned that pilot of a similar sounding callsign of Aircraft X on the frequency.  By that time Aircraft Y was in the turn and I could descend to the lower Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA); so I transmitted to what I thought was 'Aircraft Y descend and maintain 6;500'  I heard the readback and went on with other aircraft instructions.  It turns out that I used Aircraft X callsign when I descended Aircraft Y.  [Aircraft] descended just below the 8;500 MVA and close to the 8;000 MVA so I turned their base which is away from the higher terrain and then I observed them about a mile from the 7;000 foot MVA and descending through 8;000. So I told them to maintain 7;000 feet and they read back the instruction.  I am not sure why the event happened; I must have jumbled the similar callsigns in my head.Unfortunately; I don't have a recommendation on how to prevent this; other than exercising extreme caution; which I 'thought' I already did; but apparently the law of averages got me on this one.  I will hopefully double my efforts now that this has happened and when I give the similar sounding callsign transmission... I need to slow down and really pay attention to my callsigns.  We as controllers seem to think that the similar sounding callsign warning is just for the pilots... but I have learned that it is for me also!




Synopsis: A Controller had two aircraft from the same company with similar sounding call signs. The Controller used the appropriate warning phraseology but then descended the wrong aircraft. The descent placed the aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Texan T6/Harvard (Antique)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The incident flight was a passenger flight scheduled for a [mid-morning] launch. The passenger was briefed on all safety features of the aircraft. Startup was delayed to await clearance of [another aircraft] from the ramp to facilitate a safe taxi. Startup and taxi out were normal. ZZZ ATIS was reporting winds from 040 at 4 knots. I asked Ground Control for Runway XXL even though XYR was in use at the time. I was given instructions to taxi to XXL at E taxiway and told to expect delays. I was cleared into position Runway YY; then given takeoff clearance. The flight proceeded normally and I reported over [VFR waypoint] with ATIS [information] requesting an overhead pattern. The Controller reported winds 030 at 3 knots and instructed me to report initial XYR. I reported initial XYR and was given the option for an [overhead] break for the overhead pattern. I made the right hand break and completed the landing checklist. I reported right base XYR and was cleared to land XYR and advised the winds were 010 at 4. I verified gear down and selected landing flaps 30. I crossed the threshold at 95 mph and noted no crosswind drift. I touched down in a 3 point attitude and rolled out straight. Decelerating through 40-30 mph the nose began to swing to the left. I applied almost full rudder to stop the swing then went neutral on the rudder. The nose continued to swing left; approximately 30 degrees off centerline; so I again applied rudder to the stop. The nose began to reverse to the right so I neutralized the rudder. The nose swung rapidly to the right so I applied full left rudder then light left brake. I was unable to stop the swing and the aircraft ground looped to the right; dragging the left wing tip. The aircraft came to a stop and I unlocked the tail wheel and taxied down the runway to the next taxi way. I advised Tower that I did not require assistance and taxied to the ramp. After we cleared the runway I asked the passenger if they were okay and [they] said yes and did not realize an incident had occurred.




Synopsis: T6 Texan pilot reported loss of aircraft control on rollout resulted in ground loop and wing strike.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing; just prior to arriving at gate we received a call from aft cabin. Report of loud banging noise; electrical odor and aft cabin visibility reduced by insulation particles from lower ventilation area at rows 41 thru 43 ABC.Ground Fire Rescue equipment called as a precautionary measure to meet the aircraft at the gate.




Synopsis: The Captain of a B777 reported after landing; just prior to arriving at gate he received a report of loud banging noise and electrical smell in the aft cabin area.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On RUUDY 4 departure; sometime after flap retraction; I called for autopilot engagement. I noted indications on the PFD that the autopilot was engaged. I then selected Vertical Speed (VS) and decreased the rate of climb. The PFD switched from VS to ASEL as we approached 1;500 FT MSL. I then noted that the vertical speed and pitch drastically increased. I disconnected the autopilot and stopped the climb in a positive manner with considerations for passenger comfort; and returned the aircraft to 1;500 FT. The maximum altitude was 1;640 FT (1;500 mandatory crossing altitude at WENTZ). There was no comment from New York Departure about the deviation. The autopilot functioned normally for the remainder of the flight; except for a tendency to not level off smoothly when climbing at rates great than 1;000 FPM. With the time compression on the initial stages of the RUUDY 4 departure; I should have called for the autopilot engagement earlier. Most pilots engage their own autopilot; rather than call for the pilot not flying to engage it. This may have caught the pilot not flying off guard and delayed engagement; as he was busy with radio calls.




Synopsis: A CE-560 Captain reported the autopilot failed to capture the TEB RUUDY 4 WENTZ constraint so it was disconnected and the aircraft returned to 1;500 FT.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After an uneventful cross country flight and landing; exited on high speed and turned north on taxiway.  Noticed the plane veer left on taxi and was unable to control airplane with nose wheel steering.  Had ECAM Green Hydraulic Low Pressure and loss of nose wheel steering.  Stopped airplane with brakes before exiting the taxiway.  Coordinated with Ground and Maintenance to have a tug pull us to the gate.  Handled the ECAM and shutdown the engines.  Coordinated with the flight attendants that we were ok and would be towed in.  Airport personnel said they saw hydraulic fluid leaking.  Uneventful tow in to gate.




Synopsis: A320 Captain experiences a Green Hydraulic system failure during taxi in after landing resulting in loss of nose wheel steering.  After stopping on the taxiway the aircraft is towed to the gate.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EVV.TRACON, IN
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Airspace: Class C EVV
ATC / advisory: TRACON EVV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After an overnight RADAR outage; maintenance had been working to restore RADAR all morning.  When maintenance requested to switch off of CENRAP; I turned our CENRAP trigger switch to the OFF (normal) position.  At that time; all ARTS data disappeared and the controller working RADAR was unable to make the ARTS entry to disable CENRAP leaving us with a blank scope.  Returning the switch to the ON position regained ARTS data; but an entry to inhibit CENRAP was still unsuccessful.  Several changes were made in the equipment room the past several weeks to facilitate installation of STARS eLITE.  Apparently one of those changes caused the CENRAP switch to interact with ARTS.  Maintenance personnel failed to realize the magnitude of the changes made and their effect on other systems.  Air Traffic was then unaware of the change in function of the switch and the result was a complete outage of RADAR presentation to controllers.




Synopsis: EVV FLM reports of a situation when maintenance is returning RADAR equipment back into service and the ARTS equipment doesn't work correctly.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 5 minutes after top of climb; got an EICAS warning 'LE Slat Disagree' Slat flap indicator was showing both slats and flaps stowed. QRH. Notified [Operations] and [Maintenance]; we chose to continue flying to ZZZZ. We had time to prepare; approaching top of descent we swapped controls and I took over as the flying pilot; we had discussed to [advise ATC] once we were with ZZZZ approach and as we did that they offered us a direct to the marker for the ILS Y XXR; we elected to stay in the RNAV STAR as we had briefed; to properly and timely do the LEADING EDGE SLAT DISAGREE checklist. The leading edge Slat disagree light extinguished after flaps 1 were selected; but it came back after we extended the flaps to 5 and point 8 of the checklist directed us to execute the LEADING EDGE SLAT ASYMMETRY checklist. We then prepared for Using trailing edge flaps 20 and VREF 30 + 30 for landing. Obviously since ZZZZ sits at [over 8;000 feet] of elevation; the concern was not exceeding max tire speed at touchdown; we determined that our true airspeed at touchdown would be 186 KTS due to the fact that we were flying a very light airplane VREF30+30 was 155; VAPP 160. Aided by a slight crosswind; GS at touchdown was 178. When we [advised ATC] we declined assistance after landing; but they rolled out the emergency trucks; which followed us to our parking spot. The landing was uneventful; I think the HUD is a tremendous asset landing an airplane with a broken wing.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported a Leading Edge Slat Disagree EICAS message.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After completing the check flight and during the visual approach; the landing gear handle was put in the down position but we had no indicator lights that the gear was locked down. So we executed a go-around and stayed in the pattern while doing the appropriate checklist. After the landing gear was blown down and declaring an emergency; we had a low brake pressure indicator so  we continued to circle in the pattern while running the appropriate checklist for low brake pressure and the emergency equipment deployment.  We then landed without incident.




Synopsis: CE-525 Captain experiences a landing gear failure to extend during approach. A go-around is initiated and the landing gear is blown down successfully but low brake pressure is indicated. The appropriate checklist is complied with and a safe landing ensues.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing; on roll out aircraft brakes locked up and aircraft went over the nose onto its back. I believe the braking was caused by the student in the front seat freezing up and pressing the brakes instinctively. There was no need for brakes as there was plenty of room in front of us. I think he just panicked.




Synopsis: A PA-18 instructor reported that he believes his student inadvertently locked the brakes on landing causing the aircraft to pitch over onto its back.