elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BTA.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF BTA
Second aircraft: PA-25 Pawnee
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Had my aircraft started; warmed up and had heard Piper Pawnee on CTAF stating he was taking off on Runway 13 at BTA. What I did not realize was that he said; 'Runway 13 gliderport' at BTA. I started to taxi to the parallel taxiway for Runway 13 and as I passed the southern most hangar on the north side of the ramp the Pawnee and glider passed in front of me and above me at approximately 100 FT AGL. I was surprised to say the least. The 'gliderport' appears to be on extension of the parallel taxiway. It is dirt; it extends to the north of parallel taxiway of 13/31. I had no idea the glider did not use the same runway as powered aircraft. The A/FD mentions glider operations in passing. The drawing of the airport does not indicate a separate runway for glider operations. Being a transient pilot I was not aware of the 'gliderport'. However having a glider and tow plane taking off over the ramp area at low altitude and airspeed does not seem to me to be very safe.




Synopsis: A Transient pilot began taxiing to BTA Runway 13 and was surprised by a near miss with a glider towing PA-25 as it took off from a grass strip adjacent to the north end of the parallel taxiway.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PC-12
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were over the threshold doing 95 knots when a Pilatus began to take the active runway. My lovely passenger and I reported that we were on a very short final!! The pilot then shot on the runway and said: 'Go around!' We thought we were goners!! I nearly dug in a wing tip missing the Pilatus by only a few feet and passed by him and flew alongside the plane during its takeoff roll.




Synopsis: Glasair pilot reported that during final approach prior to touchdown; a Pilatus took the active runway.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
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: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After engines stable and hitting TOGA (Takeoff Go-Around) both power levers came up evenly; then about 2 seconds later at 20 kts or less the tiller pulled hard to the left and I was not able to control it with force or right rudder steering I aborted the takeoff and regained control at low speed. Maintenance examined the tiller.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a nose wheel steering anomaly during takeoff.
Date: 202012
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During passenger boarding there were many people not wearing their face mask. I was also spending time finding room for bags. It was a busy time and I forgot to brief my exit row passengers.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported forgetting to brief the exit row passengers due to distraction from having to remind boarding passengers of the face mask policy.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I asked a passenger multiple times to make sure his mask was covering his nose and mouth not just his chin. I made all the required announcements; so I believe 4 PAs were made referring to masks. The pilots also made an additional mask announcement. Once we got in the air the passenger took his mask off completely. We serve so much food on a two hour flight that he constantly had food in front of him. Every time I asked him to put his mask on he would take a bite of food. Every time I looked at him; he would take a bite. I could not really give him a warning because every time I looked at him; he would take a bite of something. But he did not wear his mask the entire flight until we were cleaning up at 10;000 feet. Do we really need to serve so much food. On a two-hour flight we provide several food services. Tough to enforce the mask policy when people are constantly eating. This passenger knew better; but just refused to wear his mask. Reevaluate the amount of food served on a two hour flight.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that by providing passengers several food services allowed passengers to eat constantly and not have to comply with the face mask policy.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Due to moderate to severe turbulence at higher altitudes; this flight was flown at FL240. We were cleared to descend via the EAGUL5 arrival into PHX; at which time the final altitude of the arrival was dialed into the window of the autopilot. Perhaps because we were starting at a lower altitude than usual for this arrival; the FMGC had eliminated the FL240 restriction at PAYSO. It was initially confusing; because the speed restriction (270) was not eliminated. I have recently had many issues with altitude restrictions not displaying properly in the new FMGC software (no ring displayed; particularly the red ring); and have attributed it to the software upgrade; though there has been no consistency from aircraft to aircraft with this anomaly. At any rate; and prior to PAYSO; the aircraft began a descent out of FL240 when it should not have. Rather than climb back up; I called ATC and got a clearance to FL220 so we could let the FMGC continue (I wanted to see what direction it would follow). Though below the 'dot'; it continued down; passing FL230 when the next fix constraint was FL180-230. The descent dot showed the box to know that it was below profile the entire time. I did not let the box descend below FL220 until passing PAYSO; at which point it did continue to descend below the dot; but remained within the follow on ALT constraint at the next fix. There were no other aircraft in the area; and separation was not a factor. I am going to play with lower altitude STAR intercepts to determine what the FMGC does to handle the intercept constraints which are not below the initial STAR intercept altitude.

Callback: The reporter believes; after thinking back on the event; that a managed descent was initiated prior to reaching PAYSO.



Synopsis: A320 Captain cruising at FL240 and cleared to descend via the EAGLE5 RNAV arrival to PHX reports his aircraft descending of its' own volition prior to PAYSO with a minimum altitude of FL240.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Mission: Local IFR for multiple practice approaches at ZZZ. 2 persons aboard; PIC and safety pilot/instructor CFII. Aircraft went through a comprehensive proper pre-flight inspection. Engine start and checklists were completed and were normal. Engine run-up to include magneto checks and prop governor check were satisfactory. All engine instruments were indicating 'Green'; i.e. normal readings. take-off run was normal and all engine instruments/indications were normal. Full-power take-off was normal. At 700 ft. power was adjusted for climb power setting when engine roughness was noticed. There was no reading of the #2 EGT during climb out. Tower switched to Approach control and Approach Control issued a new heading to 240. As the aircraft turned left from 330 to 240 engine roughness increased and continued to increase violently. [Priority handling was requested] and aircraft was cleared to land on Runway XX. Aircraft landed uneventfully on the Runway. Upon exiting the Runway on the next available Taxiway the engine quit. Speculation; water-ice in the fuel tank. Temps were extremely cold. Aircraft was topped off with fuel 8 days prior. The aircraft was stored in a heated hangar. Possible solution; extraordinary care should be taken to drain adequate fuel from the tanks when weather condition are conducive for moisture/water/ice in fuel tanks.




Synopsis: PA32 Pilot reported engine roughness resulted in successful return to departure airport.  Pilot suspected fuel contamination.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
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: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared by ATC to descend via the TAMMY FOUR RNAV STAR. We complied by crossing TAMMY between 16;000 FT and 10;000 FT; crossing at around 14;000 FT MSL. The next waypoint; ROCAB; has a crossing restriction (for aircraft landing 36L/C/R) 'at 10;000 FT' and 'at 230 KTS.' We failed to realize that ROCAB is only 2 miles from TAMMY; and we thus crossed ROCAB significantly higher than 10;000 FT. I asked for relief; but did not hear a reply. The remainder of the approach and landing was uneventful.Better attention to detail would have served me well here. But; this approach should be modified. At TAMMY Intersection; the plate should read: 'Aircraft Landing North; cross TAMMY at 10;000 FT.'




Synopsis: An MD80 Captain; 'descending via' the TAMMY RNAV STAR into MEM where he planned to land to the North; was surprised to have crossed TAMMY 2;000 FT below the top of its 'Between 16;000 FT and 10;000 FT' window only to find himself just two miles from ROCAB which required crossing 'at 10;000 FT' and 'at 230 KTS'.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During final approach; when we started to lower flaps for landing; the B Hydraulic System failed. We executed a go-around; declared an emergency; completed QRH procedures and then landed uneventfully. ARFF equipment met us on the ground and looked us over. After they gave us the all clear; we taxied to the gate where we were met by Maintenance.


Second narrative: We had the gear down; Flaps 15. We heard and felt a slight buzzing noise. Looked at the over head and the Right Hydraulic engine driven pump low pressure light was on. We looked at the pressure and quantity and System B pressure was low and quantity was decreasing. We did a go around; so we could run the check list and properly configure the aircraft for landing. We declared an emergency; did a box pattern; back to [the runway] and landed uneventfully.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported loss of B Hydraulic System. They executed a go-around; ran the procedure; declared an emergency; and a normal landing ensued.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Basically another pilot and I were flying to ZZZ. We were on flight following which we picked up after departing the ZZZ1 SFR. There was a commotion we overheard on the radio with a possible gear up landing of [some aircraft]. I don't know if this 'excitement' contributed to the workload of the TRACON Controller who was doing a great job handling the issue. Nonetheless; while on flight following we received no call out of a traffic target that we would have at best come within a few feet of.I observed a plane approaching us on a direct collision course. Due to approaching at a roughly 60-degree angle and apparently at the same exact altitude; I did not want to turn us to the right or descend and possibly lose sight of the airplane when in a close proximity; fast closing speed; and similar altitude. We executed a quick climb - nothing directly evasive; as we had probably 15 seconds to take action; to gain as much altitude as possible and [to] keep the aircraft firmly in our sights. We quickly gained approximately 500 ft. They never responded; altered course; nor did they seem to notice us. There was no problem and the plane passed safely underneath. However; it was a concern as we were on flight following and it was a known ADS-B target as were we. Had I not seen them who knows what may have happened.




Synopsis: C-172 Pilot Not Flying reported encountering an NMAC event during cruise while on flight following.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: New lights on MDW terminals are too bright and right in the face of the pilots and cockpit. The high lights are just ok. They too are too bright; but might be usable if low lights were not on. The low lights on the terminal wall are in a terrible position. They shine right into the cockpit; removing any chance of night vision after pushback. Also when the ramp is wet; the low lights prevent the pilots from seeing taxiway lines; ramp personnel; or obstacles in the safety area. Taxi into the gate is a blind maneuver after flying a dark cockpit into MDW then turning on the J line into very; very bright lights shining directly into the cockpit. We will have pilots making taxi errors if the low lights are not turned down 50% or just off. This is a critical problem now.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported new lights on MDW airport terminals are too bright.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two Li-On batteries rated at 18V; 28Wh each was found in the shipment without the necessary labels or proper declaration. Also; the shipper was asked specifically if he had DG in the shipment at the time tender and Air Carrier X cargo was told no.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported finding Lithium Ion batteries in the cargo compartment without proper documentation.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I send a cordial greeting and I take the opportunity to describe a TCAS event that was presented at Aircraft X.  In radar vectors we were instructed to intercept the ILS 28L track to the airport.  Already established we are reported that if we have a traffic 787 to follow it as a number two; we inform that is possible with a visual separation of approximately 6.7 miles.  Subsequently; another B737 traffic is informed in approach to the track ILS 28R.  It should be mentioned that we had already intercepted the localizer 28L approach having at present contact with traffic at all times.  When approaching approximately 7.7 nm in final I disconnected the automatic pilot and adjust manually towards the left slightly to give us more traffic separation.  Since we saw him he approached too much!  We even believe that the airplane overshot a little to us.  Seeing this; the TCAS mentions the first call; vertical monitor speed; a second later the traffic call alert and later the climb call alert.  At that time I follow The TCAS RA to separate of the traffic and following the indications of the TCAS; making a go around. We return to land without any comment of ATC.




Synopsis: A Foreign Air Carrier pilot reported a conflict with traffic on the parallel final approach course.