elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I landed on Runway 35 following a visual approach. Due to construction on Taxiway K; the usual route to the FBO; I was instructed by the tower controller to taxi via Q; Runway 32; and hold short of Runway 35. I read back the instructions and proceeded to taxi. As I was approaching the end of Runway 32; the tower controller verified that I was to hold short of Runway 35; which I acknowledged. Upon reaching the end of [Runway] 32; and crossing over the threshold line; I realized that there was no hold short line between me and the edge of Runway 35. I stopped and queried the Controller. At the same time a plane that was on short final for Runway 35 was instructed to go-around. I was stopped on Taxiway J; close to the edge of Runway 35. In retrospect I did not notice the hold short markings placed before the Runway 32 threshold markings. I was expecting to find those marking after exiting the runway and crossing the runway threshold; and was looking for them when I realized that I was already on Taxiway J. This is my home airport and am aware that the area is a Hot Spot; but for departing on the wrong runway. I had never taxied back on Runway 32. The construction on Taxiway K and need for alternate taxi routes played a role in this incident. Regardless; I accidentally did not follow the ATC instruction to hold short of Runway 35 and caused a runway incursion that required a go around of a landing aircraft.I spoke with the Tower Controller and discussed the situation. He acknowledged that the taxi instructions were non-standard; and in the future when faced with a similar situation he will route aircraft to taxi via taxiways instead of the runway; due to the proximity of the runway ends and confusion markings.




Synopsis: Pilot reported landing at home airport but due to construction and ATC clearance was confused causing a runway incursion and a go-around.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Ran off runway due to faulty nose wheel on takeoff. Should have aborted takeoff sooner.

Callback: The reporter indicated that the nose wheel tire had appeared to be low on pressure and went flat on takeoff roll.



Synopsis: PA28 flight instructor reported a runway excursion during takeoff due to a failed nose wheel tire.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing [Landing] Gear change on an A320 aircraft per Maintenance Task Card; Bolt Item #240; in Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) 32-12-14; was torqued and in doing so; failed its Torque Limits and threads were stripped. The bolt from the old [removed Landing] Gear Side Stay was taken and put in the place of the new bolt. I; being the Lead of the crew; directed my mechanics to do so. I got this direction from my direct Supervisor. The outcome is that we cannot substitute a used part from the old [removed] gear and install it on the new [Landing] Gear.


Second narrative: During Main Landing Gear (MLG) change; the Left-Hand Lock Stay; Lock Spring bolt was stripped on the replacement gear from Vendor. Installed bolt from removed MLG.  Was notified later that bolt was a Time Limited Part.


Synopsis: A Lead and two Mechanics were informed the Lock Spring bolt they had robbed from a removed A320 left-hand Main Landing Gear (MLG) and used to secure a Lock Spring on the Side Stay assembly on a new MLG was a Time Limited Part and should not have been reused. The Lead Mechanic was directed by his Supervisor to reuse old bolt.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 33S.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 80% overcast.; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF 33S
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Northeast bound over 33S airport.  5 miles from the airport tuned in 122.8 which is 33S frequency.  No traffic announcements; no traffic visible on ground.  Directly over 33S heard; 'Look out; there is a small airplane in the area'. No other communication.  Although I knew it could have come from any number of airports in the area that use 122.8; I started craning my neck around and making turns.  About 2 miles east of 33S heard 'Jumpers away; 5;500 feet; 2 miles northeast Ritzville.  Landing south of the freeway.'  No warning call. I immediately turned northwest and crossed the highway to be on the north side.  A minute or two later I saw about 5 chutes off my right wing on the south side of the freeway. Maybe 2;500 feet horizontal; way too close.  I continued out of the area but continued to listen.  The next two jump calls were much more detailed with sufficient warning.My error was not carefully checking NOTAMs to see that there was jumping in the area. Also I should not have assumed as I did that a low ceiling would preclude jumping. The chart is not marked for jumping.  Jump operator should have provided more warning for the jump; especially if they knew 'a small airplane is in the area.'  It would have been much more helpful if the person that made the 'small airplane' call had identified themselves as being at 33S guarding a jump and at that time made a location for the jump announcement.  I would have been able to give it a much wider berth. Once they were out of the aircraft over my head it was too late to do anything but guess where they were coming from and try to get out of the way.  Better yet the jump operator should have waited 2 minutes for the known traffic to get out of the area before allowing the jumpers out. In too much of a hurry to pick up the next load I'm assuming.




Synopsis: A PA-18 pilot transiting near 33S heard a warning about an aircraft in the area and without knowing the warning's purpose; realized it was his aircraft. Then he heard 'jumpers away' and deviated but the jumpers were still within 2;500 feet.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
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 Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: WFS Supervisor noticed Dangerous Goods that was loaded in an AKE container was not strapped down at all. Instructed personnel to contact cargo both by voice communication and also by email to advise cargo personnel that items needs to be strapped correctly before loading or item will be sent back down to Cargo.




Synopsis: Ramp Supervisor at destination arrival inspection reported Dangerous Goods container not strapped down prior to loading at departure point.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA; TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out of LAX on the ORCKA1 departure we were at 14;000 climbing to 15;000 ATC gave us a climb via SID; but maintain 15;000. New ATC said climb via SID. We level at 15;000 ATC told us climb via SID; climb to 23;000 the top alt on the ORCKA1. We climbed to FL230.Climb via SID wanted us to climb to the top alt on the SID. All ATC in the last 20 years have given us climb to 23;000 or an altitude we need to go to.


Second narrative: To my knowledge no flight deviation occurred on this trip. We were assigned the ORCKA1 departure with a limit alt of 15;000 feet. On departure; we were cleared climb via SID except maintain 15;000 feet. While in level flight we were given a frequency change. The FO checked in and read our previous clearance and the controller read back 'roger climb via SID'. There was no altitude given in the clearance and we thought we were still only cleared to 15000. There were no other restrictions on the SID but the final alt is FL230. At the next fix the controller questioned us about it and we questioned back. He then issued us a clearance to FL230 and the rest of the flight was uneventful. My concern is that we are playing games at the expense of safety. On the way into LAX we were given three descents on the STAR that were 'descend via except' and on the way out it was two. Neither the FO nor I had a clue that our clearance had changed; and we just want to do it right every time. I think if you have been given a restricted clearance by a controller and another controller wants something different the altitude should be in that next clearance.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported being cleared to climb via the ORCKA1 except maintain 15;000 feet. Level at 15;000 feet; the next Controller issued a climb via SID clearance which confused the crew and they remained at 15;000 feet while ATC intended them to the top altitude on the SID.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on a training flight for single engine commercial maneuvers one instructor and one student pilot on board; the crew experienced an alternator failure. Crew proceeded to navigate towards the coded LOA arrival for the Company organization with ZZZ and complete the alternator failure checklist. Upon completion of the checklist; avionics indications showed an intermittent charge from the alternator with a constant alternator failure CAS message. Shortly after on the arrival the alternator charge state went to 0 and remained constant. Instructor contacted ZZZ Tower for the arrival and requested priority handling; and was given priority landing. Landing was without incident and the aircraft was downed for maintenance investigation at the flight training facility. A separate safety report was filed internally for the flight school.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported alternator failure inflight that resulted in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 1) Preflight normal; MCP set-up for departure; MCP Speed set at 170 KTS. 2) Aircraft push back from gate. 3) Engine start as per normal procedure. 4) After engine start; Taxi clearance. 5) Moments after; MCP speed window went from 170 to 150 without any human intervention. 6) None of us touched the MCP speed control knob; or any area on the MCP! 7) I reset the MCP speed to 170 KTS. 8) Flight proceeded normally without any other MCP issue. 9) Landed - speed intervene during approach; no other anomaly noted on MCP. 10) Event written up in logbook.None of us touched the MCP speed control knob; MCP panel; or anything else in any way when this event took place - Speed just flipped from 170 to 150 - Not good. An extensive study should be made of the software that controls the MCP display. This is the second event that I personally know about; and it is reported to me that [other airlines] have had similar events. There is definitely a bug in Block Point 14 as it relates to the speed set in the MCP speed window; and it needs to be fixed before this event happens in flight and becomes a causal factor in a catastrophic event.




Synopsis: B777-200 First Officer reported after a normal preflight; and before takeoff; the MCP speed window went from 170 to 150 uncommanded.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JVW.Airport, MS
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF JVW
Second aircraft: Commander 114/A/B/TC
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The winds were variable; favoring either runway; with clear skies and unrestricted visibility. My student and I were doing touch and goes on runway 12 for approximately 1 hour and making position announcements. As my student and I had touched down on runway 12; I realized an aircraft was crossing the localizer and proceeding to land on the same runway in the opposite direction (runway 30). Aircraft was not making position announcements. We slammed on the brakes to turn on taxiway Foxtrot; because if we did not; we would have ended up in the same place at the same time head on. As my student and I exited the runway and ran checklists; I informed Unicom of the runway incursion. Aircraft made his first announcement saying the winds were favorable for either runway.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported braking abruptly and taking a taxiway turnoff to avoid a ground conflict with an aircraft landing opposite direction at JVW without any announcements on CTAF.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Honda Jet
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were in VFR conditions; we broke off the arrival for the visual XX approach. AWOS was advertising 330@15. There [were] 2 other jets in the pattern; both Citations; 1 ahead and 1 behind. On short final I noticed our crab angle was 30 degrees. Shortly thereafter; 50 feet of altitude; it got better to 20 degrees so I continued the approach. Just before touchdown; I gave it right rudder to correct the crab and had wheels down. As normal in a Honda Jet; as a result of the rudder being connected to the nose wheel; we veered right. I quickly correct with left rudder and start to apply breaking. At that point the plane veers hard left at which time I try to input right rudder. Unfortunately; right rudder was not responding. At that time it was obvious we were headed for the dirt at which time I executed maximum brakes to minimize possible damage. Going around to Runway XY would have been the better decision.




Synopsis: Honda Jet pilot reported departing runway during landing rollout.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While jump seating home on another carrier; the pilots asked me if Company had any Loss Of Thrust Control (LOTC) incidents in our 737-800s. I asked them what that was. They told me the following: Their Company has had several incidents where the engines on their -800s have rolled back toward idle uncommanded. They have told their pilots to disconnect the autopilot; pull the thrust levers back; and it seems to 'reset' the engine and thrust is available again. Apparently other airlines have also encountered this but not as often as another carrier. Their solution to prevent it right now is to fuel to 23;000 LBS minimum. They initially thought it was a winter only problem; but the week following their decision to stop over-fueling; they had another incident. On this particular flight I was on; the pilots showed me the Dispatch Release that had a comment; 'Fueled for L.O.T.C.' They did indeed have over 23;000 LBS of fuel for the 2-1/2 hour flight. They also told me that Boeing Engineers are engaged; but so far they are all collectively scratching their heads. I spoke to Union Safety today and they suggested I submit this report to get the information into our system. It may be something we need to look at and it may not. Regardless; I felt strongly enough about it to kick it up the Chain of Command.




Synopsis: A pilot reported to his Company that while jump seating on another carrier's B737-800 he learned about a loss of thrust control (LOTC) is affecting some of that carriers -800's; but the cause is unknown.