elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other On Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was completing a training flight for insurance coverage having previously obtaining a tailwheel endorsement in different make and model. Pilot and instructor were returning from the airport where the proficiency training was conducted. I flew a normal approach to airport and Runway 16. Wind approximately 140 at 5 KTS. Three point touchdown with a bounce; recovered straight ahead. Aircraft veered left; and then over-correction resulted in veer to the right. Aircraft exited right side of runway at slow speed. Aircraft impacted the side of a culvert damaging landing gear; aircraft belly; and propeller. No injuries to either occupant. Inspection of the tailwheel showed that both tailwheel springs missing. Inspection of the runway [had] located one spring at the approximate location of the initial touchdown. The second spring was found several days later in roughly the same area. Neither spring; nor the spring attachment clips; nor the rudder horn was damaged. The springs came off due to excessive slack and large gap on the spring attach hook. The slow speed made the rudder ineffective for directional control. Loss of tailwheel steering left the brakes as the only directional control. There was insufficient time and space due to narrow runway and adjacent drainage culverts for braking action to bring the aircraft under control. Aggravating the situation was the upward runway slope in the touchdown zone; narrower than standard runway; and the culvert close to the runway edge.  The proper investigation would be to determine if the tailwheel springs were the correct parts for the installed tailwheel and if the resulting combination was properly rigged to resist shimmy and the risk of spring rejection.




Synopsis: Pilot reports both tailwheel springs had separated from an Aeronica-7AC aircraft on landing as he was completing a training flight. The missing springs caused the aircraft to veer left than right; exit the narrow runway; impacting a culvert; damaging landing gear; aircraft belly; and propeller; no injuries to occupants.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant; Other Maintenance Controller
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other RON Records Check
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: On DATE; Time; the Internal Baggage Door was placed on MEL by a different Controller. In the morning of DATE1 I unassigned this MEL; techs could not complete this MEL and Ops needed aircraft for a flight the next day. I didn't review the MEL 52-11 and assumed it was a good MEL and removed it from the work order to be troubleshot at a later date. The aircraft flew during the day of DATE 1 and landed in ZZZ to be worked for maintenance. Tonight; on DATE 1 this MEL was back in a work order to be worked again; I was researching parts and reviewing the MEL when I noticed that 52-11 excludes the internal baggage door and that there is no relief. I immediately notified the Duty Manager NAME and grounded the aircraft. MEL 52-11 Internal baggage door does not close properly. It slides open occasionally.Review MEL's in Work Orders before unassigned them.




Synopsis: Maintenance Controller reported a misapplied MEL allowed a Gulfstream IV aircraft to fly with a baggage door malfunction for which there was no relief in the MEL.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: PA-42 Cheyenne IIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At around 4500 ft descending on the HYPER7 STAR to 19L waypoint YYANG passed inbound DADEY; cleared to descend according the STAR; cleared to intercept the LOC 19L; we received a TCAS TA. Even coming directly out of the sun the intruder was quickly identified about 300 ft lower approaching fast from a 1 to 2 a clock position directly towards us. The PF reacted instantly and followed the upcoming TCAS RA. Even with this quick reaction the intruder; a PA42 twin turboprop; passed just 100 feet (-01red) below our cockpit. ATC was very busy and our TCAS RA call could only be sent with some delay. Our information; TCAS RA; nearmiss; twin turboprop 100ft lower; was not commented by ATC but we were cleared to descend to 3000 feet for the ILS 19L. We landed without further disturbances.


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


Synopsis: A330 flight crew reported a TCAS RA and NMAC with a PA42 on the HYPER7 STAR to IAD.
Date: 201308
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During day VMC thunderstorm deviations; we were having a difficult time getting proper radar returns for weather that was clearly visible. Only after we were through deviating did I discover the GAIN on the weather radar was just out of the auto position; resulting in a MIN GAIN setting. The real issue; and the reason for the report; is that the CAL indication on the Map Display showing the GAIN was in MAN was masked by the airports also being displayed. The font and color of the two are nearly identical; making identification of the GAIN setting easily missed/masked. The hazards of being in MIN GAIN and not knowing are self-evident. The font and/or color of the radar status should be modified so as not resemble that of the airports on the map display.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports not being able to detect obvious thunderstorms on the aircraft radar. The storms are avoided visually and it is later discovered that the gain is set to MIN instead of Auto.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain was flying and being vectored for an ILS 2R approach in IMC conditions. ATC cleared us to 2500 feet MSL and had us on a heading towards LOUDN I think; perhaps UNIVE. This clearance was prior to us reaching TEARS intersection on the SWFFT2 RNAV arrival. Shortly after leveling off at 2500 feet we received an EGPWS warning 'Terrain Terrain'. Captain flying immediately climbed and the first officer requested a top of climb safe altitude for level off from ATC; BNA approach control. We leveled off at 4000 feet MSL; ATC said there was no terrain conflict. The MSA in the area was 3100 feet MSL. The crew had climbed in response to EGPWS warning in IMC conditions. After level off we requested to be vectored for the approach using published altitudes. ATC provided vectors and the next approach to the same runway was successful.It is my feeling that the vectored altitude was too low for the track the aircraft was on while being vectored. We saw 1300 feet on the radar altimeter while level at 2500 feet and being vectored a few seconds prior to the warnings. Perhaps the terrain was uneven and had a momentary rise in our vicinity triggering the warning. I feel that ATC should not have vectored us this low in the area between the STAR vector point and the published portion of the ILS approach.I don't feel that ATC should have vectored us so low in an area of varying terrain 1300 feet below us and 1500 feet below the nearest localizer fix (LOUDN) ahead of us. The warning occurred in the vicinity of the 1220 feet surface location left of the SEWART frequency box. From there we climbed then received a series of left turns back to the localizer course. We completed that approach to a landing without warnings.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported receiving an EGPWS warning while being vectored below the MSA by ATC on an approach to BNA in IMC.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Brand new RNAV SID has very confusing altitude constraint text; says 'top altitude assigned by ATC'. The CPDLC top altitude assigned was 7000 feet; the same as the BLOSM waypoint of 7000 feet or below on the SID. Just prior to BLOSM; ATC cleared us to 'climb via except maintain 10;000 feet.' Again very confusing clearance wording and a total setup for miscommunication. Wording should be 'after BLOSM climb and maintain 10;000 feet.'




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the text on the new SID regarding the assigned altitude by ATC is confusing after receiving the CPDLC which contain a hard altitude.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: External Power
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being marshalled into the gate; the Ramper with the ground power service cord was standing under the jetway. When I was almost even with the engine run-up markings; he walked in front of the aircraft in order to stand on the other side of the Safety Zone so that he could plug in the ground power service cord. I had to stop the taxi and wait until he cleared the Safety Zone. During the pushback; when leaving; the Ramper driving the tug informed me that he was the Ramper that walked through the Safety Zone. When I asked him why he did that; he said that the aircraft was not deep into the Safety Zone and that they could walk through the Zone even if the aircraft was taxiing in the Zone. Ramper in Safety Zone while aircraft was taxiing. Train the rampers to stay out of the Safety Zone while an aircraft is moving in the Zone.




Synopsis: A pilot reports he had to stop his taxi while being marshalled into a gate because a Ramp Agent with an external ground power cord had crossed through a Safety Zone in front of their B737-700 aircraft; so he could plug in a power cord.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I made a delayed turn from base to final approach while conducting the ILS XXR into ZZZ. The reason for the delayed turn was a momentary lapse in CRM skills. I was the flying pilot; my copilot was the monitoring pilot. We were on a base leg when the Controller gave us a turn towards the final approach. I remember dialing in the correct heading; but forgot to press heading select.  About ten seconds or so elapsed before the Controller asked if we were turning. I realized my error and immediately pressed heading select. The Controller gave us a new heading and an approach clearance. We turned onto final with a slight overshoot and above the glide slope. We configured for landing and used vertical speed mode to intercept the glide slope from above. We were on speed and altitude well before the 1;500 foot gate. Other than the late turn and the high glide slope intercept; there was no other incident or error.The fact is the I/we made an error by not following through with Verbalize Verify and Monitor. I know that we both verbalized the heading change; I recall we both Verified setting the heading; we both; however; forgot to monitor the FMAs for the change. I think that we realized the something wasn't right a split second before the controller queried us. There were many threats preceding this error. This is an all-night flight with an early morning low visibility arrival. The airspace is quite congested and there were many aircraft with similar sounding call signs. We had a runway change while on the arrival and the Controller kept us little higher and gave us a turn a little earlier than we had expected. I had a scheduling change in the middle of this pairing which reduced my rest time a day before this leg. Do to the current global pandemic and the reduced airline schedules; neither of us had flown very much in the past six months. I know I felt a bit rusty and tired.To mitigate this I gave what I thought was a good approach brief before top of descent; and we briefed the changed approach during the arrival. We still failed to monitor the FMA change at a crucial moment. It was an error I hope I/we don't repeat.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a track deviation during approach and cited fatigue and low flight time during the pandemic as contributing factors.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were at 10;000 FT between ESSPO intersection and the ORD VOR approximately ORD 150 deg radial at 10-15 DME and 300 KTS assigned speed when we were given a turn to heading 270 degrees. As Captain and PM I had just noticed a couple of TCAS targets when we received a TCAS RA to descend below the 10;000 FT. I confirmed that the F/O PF started to descend via the TCAS resolution as we did not have the target in sight and the TCAS showed the target only 400 FT above our altitude. I then called ORD Approach to let them know we were descending because of the RA and we were still above 250K. The ORD Controller responded 'oh yeah; there is a Citation at 10;500 FT.' Something similar happened to me last week; but without the airspeed issues; going into EWR on a 15 mile final to RWY 4R where ATC let some VFR guy go through the 'Final' at 500 FT below our altitude without notifying us. These situations are happening way too often anymore in NYC and ORD. Why do the controllers have to put traffic with such high speed closure rates i.e. 400-500K with less than 1;000 FT vertical separation?




Synopsis: The Captain of an ERJ-170; following his second TCAS RA in busy terminal areas incident within a week; took vocal exception to ATC permitting 500 foot vertical separation between IFR and VFR traffic in VMC conditions.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Sport / Recreational
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I] went to a fly-in the southeast part of Arizona. Non-predicted winds came up flew back with head winds of 20 KTS. The closest airport had 45 KT gusting winds; unable to land cub there but believed [I] had appropriate fuel for return trip. Headwinds and density altitude for climbing caused a far greater fuel burn. One tank ran dry so on other tank; rather than continuing and risking engine quitting over populated areas; I made the decision to do a precautionary landing off airport on a dirt open area and had a friend bring me fuel. Takeoff was no problem and successfully completed the trip back to home base. There was no damage; no rules broken.




Synopsis: Piper Cub pilot reports running low on fuel during the return flight from a fly-in due to unforecast headwinds. The decision is made to land off airport; in an open area and obtain fuel before continuing on.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LUK.Tower, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Turbulence
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower LUK
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Descending into LUK on the LNAV 3R we first received a report from tower of a low altitude alert in between the FAF and the intermediate step down fix (ZUGMI at or above 1480). I had the aircraft in LNAV/VS with a commanded vertical speed mode of -700FPM. I glanced at the altimeter and saw 1550. This is above the step down altitude and above the MDA. The copilot and I both quickly agreed we were above MDA. At this point also I looked out and could see the runway. We briefly leveled off and planned to continue visually. At this point we received a too low PULL UP. Aural warning. Immediately we went around. After getting back level and configuring we talked about the approach and decided to do it again with less vertical speed and just stay a bit higher on the glide path. We got down to out MDA without issue and landed.I never saw any altitude any lower than the step down altitude on the approach. LUK airport is sunk in the valleys between some hills and I think I should've maybe thought to have a gentler vertical speed.Not accept a fairly close to minimums LNAV only approach with a lot of turbulence into Lunken when ZZZ is right around the corner. Fly the instrument profile at lowest possible vertical speed and visual only after VDP. Although we never busted any altitudes I could've made it a much gentler descent to MDA at the VDP since the VDP is 2.4 from the runway and there are lots of hills on the approach prior to the runway.IMC until ragged bases around 800 AGL to 1;000 AGL. Some Visual conditions at time of the event. Runway/PAPI were in sight.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft flight crew reported getting a terrain warning while descending to LUK airport through uneven terrain.