elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Ramp; Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a push out an accident occurred. Because of the tight turn that has to be made on that gate; the lead on the pushback made a sharp cut to avoid going over the zipper line on the push out. While pulling back; he realized that he was too far over the service road; therefore he pushed it up some more as a means of adjustment. He then proceeded to pull back once more; and I; the wing walker noticed that a cart connected to a tug was in the way. I asked the pushback driver to stop; so that I could move the object out of the way (as a precautionary measure). Once that was done; I gave him the go ahead to recommence the pull back. It was then that I looked up (with the glare of the sun in my eyes); and noticed that we were dangerously close to the wing of the aircraft on [an adjacent gate]. I hastily gave him the signal to stop the pull ASAP; while jumping up and down; screaming at the top of my lungs to regain his attention. But unfortunately it came through about half a second too late; as the damage was done.


Second narrative: I would like to add that wireless headsets are an option on [this gate]; but wired headset also are available. I chose to use wired headset due to the times I had used the wireless headset the communication is real bad (communication breaks up and a lot of static). I had brought up these issues to safety department. Also push outs on [this gate] are dangerous due to many obstacles such as being a zipper line directly behind the gate which minimizes how far back you can push out; aircraft push out is on a slope; push out is also minimized by a short wall directly behind the aircraft as it's turning out. Aircraft push out is also limited when there is an aircraft on [the adjacent gate] minimizing swing out. Also by putting a tail cart behind the aircraft limits even more your swing out of aircraft; make a note during push out I came to a stop and my wing walker had to move tail cart out of the way. Due to all these obstacles it is very hard to concentrate and look at one specific area during a push.


Synopsis: Aircraft tug driver and his wing walker reported they struck another aircraft on an adjacent gate during pushback procedure.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared to descend via the CHSLY2 from an altitude above the BLUEJ FL270 and BURRZ 280 kts and FL270-FL240 restrictions. Prior to initiating the descent the PF and I had individually verified the arrival per SOP and discussed the message regarding the automation not honoring restrictions with this arrival in particular. For some reason on this particular day managed descent was commanding an unusually high rate of descent and at FL260 it became clear to me (PM) it was not going to honor the BURRZ at FL240 bottom window. I immediately communicated this to the PF who in turn immediately selected VERT SPEED ZERO on the FCU (Flight Control Unit). Due in combination to both the high rate of descent and the 1G logic of the autopilot the aircraft leveled below the 24000 restriction. The PF immediately recaptured the path and continued the arrival.This is a known issue with the Airbus on this arrival and it was discussed prior to initiating the descent. Both the PF and PM (myself) were monitoring the path and commented on the high rate of descent. When it became apparent pilot intervention was required the PF intervened immediately and even if uncomfortably high maneuvers with the autopilot off were used to level the aircraft it was not apparent the restriction would have been satisfied. A software fix would be a big help. I have seen numerous occasions were the automation seems satisfied only to attempt to bust a restriction and pilot intervention was required. Also less airspeed changes or changes in energy from ATC to the aircraft as this sets up a 'ripple' effect in regard to later restrictions. And; as always; constant crew vigilance in monitoring the vertical navigation and path.


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


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported overshooting a crossing restriction on the CLT CHSLY2 Arrival. It appeared to be a problem with the Airbus FMS software not honoring the parameters of this STAR.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was training on an afternoon working combined positions; [which] is very unsafe. But my issue is; the trainee told a Cessna to follow the freeway; cleared Visual Approach Runway XXR; and switched them to Tower. Runway XXR and Runway YY intersect. Next; a regional jet was cleared Visual Approach to Runway YY and told to make a straight in. Before the regional jet was switched to Tower; I made the trainee increase spacing and reduce the jet's airspeed because the two planes would have ended up passing side by side at 1.5 miles and weren't even told about each other. The Supervisor in the room said this is an approved operation because a Visual Approach can be conducted to intersecting runways even though the aircraft don't know about one another and IFR separation isn't upheld. I told him that the aircraft have to at least be advised of one another and told that there is an aircraft conducting a simultaneous Visual Approach to another runway. The supervisor told me the requirement is met because we advertise on our ATIS the runways in use and approaches being conducted i.e. GPS; ILS and Visual Approaches. The ATIS says nothing about simultaneous visual approaches and I don't understand how a statement on the ATIS can allow us to use reduced separation; especially when the aircraft are on paralleling courses. One is told to remain over the freeway and the other is told to make a straight in. Making a straight in is not a restriction it is a pattern entry. The IFR aircraft can still maneuver left or right on a Visual Approach therefore reducing separation even more. Recommendation; that we don't allow IFR aircraft to fly side by side with about a mile of separation and justify it by an ATIS.




Synopsis: Tower Controller voiced concern regarding a Supervisor's interpretation of intersecting runway operations and the requirements of traffic advisories and ATIS procedures.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Mentor/Turbo Mentor (T-34)
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on an IFR clearance at 9;000 MSL direct to RMG VOR. We were in the vicinity of 12J (Brewton; AL) when I received a TA alerting traffic 400 feet below me and approximately 1 mile to my 3 o'clock.  I queried ATC about the traffic; but Controller did not respond.  Instead; ATC responded to an aircraft on another frequency.  I tried one more time with no response. The aircraft climbed to 200 feet below me and arrested his climb.  As I was about to disengage the autopilot; I saw him pass beneath us at my 10 o'clock position.  Up until that point; I never saw him visually as we were in a low wing aircraft.  He was in a left turn and appeared to be level or in a descent.  After reporting the near miss to the Controller; the response was; 'Roger.'  We were never given a traffic alert by ATC. The aircraft was a red and white single engine turbo-prop; tandem military trainer.  There was an active MOA (PNS North) that began 1;000 above us (10;000 ft) and extended to FL180.




Synopsis: Columbia 400 pilot reports an NMAC at 8;000 feet with a military trainer near Brewton; Alabama.  ATC did not report the traffic; but TAS provided a warning.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GEG.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 31
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GEG
ATC / advisory: TRACON GEG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working both arrival sectors combined. Aircraft X was on a vector for right downwind descending to 4;300 ft setting up for the ILS Approach. Aircraft X read back 4;300 ft correctly. I observed Aircraft X around 4;100 ft and started to issue an immediate climb to 4;300 ft. The aircraft continued its descent and asked for instructions again. I issued an immediate climb and a turn toward the lower MVA of 4;000 ft. The aircraft did not seem to climb. I issued a low altitude alert and told them the MVA in my area. I issued the altimeter. I did not issue the brasher warning. The aircraft advised they were in VFR conditions and had ground contact but could not see the field. Eventually I cleared them for a Visual Approach. They remained at 4;000 ft for a while before starting their descent. They landed without further incident. I filed a Mandatory Occurrence report.I should continue to scan even during slow periods and issue the Low Altitude alert immediately and altimeter.




Synopsis: GEG TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended below its assigned altitude and below the MVA.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OSA.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: IAI1124/1124A Westwind
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class G OSA
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flaps on this aircraft had been removed for inspection and the aircraft was returned to service. Upon departure; the flight controls were tested for correctness and freedom of motion. The First Officer flew the first leg with no issues. The Captain flew the second leg and again the flight controls were checked; but the flaps were left in the takeoff setting after landing for a quick turnaround. Again; the controls were checked and found fully functional. After takeoff; at 400 FT and flaps retracted; the Captain noticed the ailerons were stiff but functional. A serious of tests were performed on the autopilot system as it was the only thing that the crew could think of that would involve the ailerons. Due to the short duration of flight it was decided to continue. The route of flight was almost direct. The Captain elected to land straight in; even though it was against the traffic flow and slightly downwind. Upon calling for the first flap setting the Captain noticed the controls were normal and no longer stiff. A straight in landing was elected with an almost direct crosswind or even slightly downwind. During the after landing checklist it was noticed the ailerons became jammed and impossible to move. The Maintenance Department was notified and the aircraft grounded. Inspection by Maintenance personnel determined that a flashlight had been left in the flap well and apparently moved enough to interfere with the aileron pushrods. A potentially fatal disaster was avoided by the flight crew's election to continue the flight with no turns and no turbulence encountered rather than returning for landing where winds were gusting to 28.




Synopsis: On the third leg following maintenance activity; the ailerons began to bind after flap retraction on a Westwind 24. During flap extension for landing; the ailerons began to operate normally. A flashlight had inadvertently been left in the flap well during maintenance and worked itself loose during flight.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial

Narrative: The METAR was reporting MVFR conditions. Student who is rated in the airplane and I decided we would go up in the pattern to see if we could make it out to the practice area with being able to maintain basic VFR cloud clearances. We would not have been able to; but we were able to in the pattern; however we had to maneuver away from clouds making for some non standard patterns (a bit wider etc).




Synopsis: A C172 instructor reports flying non standard patterns while avoiding clouds on a MVFR day at IWA.
Date: 201809
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Weather; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Refer to prior [safety] reports. The conclusions of both [reports] were not reviewed as POSSIBLY being related. Both [incidents] were identical except for the airspeed too low and overspeed warnings which were experienced as well as all other items mentioned.  All three AIRSPEED and ALTIMETERS were INOPERATIVE in both cases. The [incidents] occurred in two different airplanes. The most recent occurred in night/IMC conditions with heavy thunderstorms at cruise; descent and approach. Ground based ATC radar was used to readout our altitude and groundspeed. We were unable to fly the GPS approach in use due to loss of VNAV. We used the opposing runway with raw data ILS on standby system with 20-30 knot tailwinds on a wet runway. The onboard [checklist] is in total error regarding the pitch and power settings. The QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) references were accurate using the standby attitude indicator. Also the Captain's iPad froze and the onboard paper QRH was used. First Officer was manually flying the aircraft.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported two possibly related instances in two different aircraft involving loss of altimeters; airspeed; and VNAV.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working LC1/LC2 combined I cleared [the A321] for takeoff Runway XXR RNAV to ZZZZZ. Soon after I then put [the B737-900] in position. I knew since these were split departure gates that I could roll at 6000 ft. and airborne. While using anticipated separation I then cleared [the B737-900] for takeoff RNAV to ZZZZZ1. I estimate [the B737-900] was 1-2 miles off the departure end when he reported he was in wake turbulence from the A321 on the ZZZZZ track. I immediately offered a vector or a stop in his climb to help him get out of the wake. One of the pilots came back on the frequency extremely angry and said that was the worst wake turbulence he had ever experienced in his whole career. I again offered anything to help alleviate the situation. They reported clear of the [wake] and I responded to contact departure.RECAT has a lot of pros but sometimes I do believe safety is put at risk when it comes to the size of B737/A321. When these planes are flying all the way out west like this A321 was they're a lot heavier than flying to [east coast routes]. The B737 and A321 need to be in its own wake class. It gets scary sometimes watching a CRJ200 depart right behind B737NG going to [the west coast]. Although it's legal I don't roll that close but some people do because it says we can. Reevaluate the categories.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported repeated safety concerns regarding RECAT procedures allowing smaller aircraft to take off behind heavier aircraft; leading to wake turbulence events.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After calling out fatigued the prior day due to long flight duty day we were scheduled to take aircraft out of a heavy check. After receiving the release and getting clearance from customs we preflight the aircraft for departure. On climb out we retracted the landing gear and noticed we had a right main gear door amber light still illuminated. The first officer was flying. I told him to maintain 140 knots or less. We consulted the checklist which calls for cycling the gear.After cycling the gear the amber light extinguished. Once passing through 12;000 feet the Cabin Pressure warning light illuminated. I contacted ATC relaying that we were descending to 8;000 feet to consult an issue. They relayed that we must request a new altitude before descent. After donning oxygen and consulting the checklist I noticed that the manual increase knob on the cabin pressure control panel was selected full clockwise position and not in full counterclockwise position or Minimum (MIN).We regained pressurization and I relayed to ATC that we could continue to our filed altitude.  We continued the flight. Once cleared through customs I contacted maintenance and we wrote up the event for the gear door. After getting refueled and deiced we departed. On climbout after gear retraction the right amber door remained illuminated. We once again proceeded with the checklist and cycled the gear. The right main gear door light extinguished and we continued our climb.After reaching our cruising altitude of 16;000 feet the right main gear door light reilluminated. We slowed the aircraft to 140 knots. Since it was a ferry flight and we were without passengers I had the First officer go back into the cabin to visually check the right main gear door. He observed that it was up and closed. I transferred the flight controls to the first officer and contacted maintenance on the SAT phone. We concluded that as a precautionary action we would complete the flight at 140 knots. Upon arrival I made a write up of the event.




Synopsis: A Dash-8 First Officer reported experiencing a main gear door warning light on climbout. Additionally; a cabin pressurization warning light illuminated. The first event was a mechanical issue and the second was crew induced.