elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Location: BZN.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E BZN
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I am submitting this report in response to our terrain warning and subsequent escape maneuver while descending into BZN. Prior to the top of descent; the Captain fully briefed the arrival; approach (with emphasis on the MSA quadrants and terrain threats); in addition to go-around and special missed procedures. We retrieved landing data for runway 12 and it showed us legal to land on that runway given the current airport conditions. On descent we got a 2500 feet call out at around 17000 feet. We verified our position; current altimeter setting and continued our descent.On the arrival into BZN in night IMC; we were handed over to Big Sky Approach. Upon contact we were given a clearance to the KICDO fix and descent clearance to 11000 feet. The Captain continued our descent using full automation. At approximately 11500 feet we got a 'Terrain; Terrain' followed by a 'Terrain...Pull Up'. The Captain immediately initiated the CFIT escape maneuver and confirming our positive recovery state of the aircraft; I notified ATC of our condition. At around 11800 feet the warnings stopped and we leveled at 12000 feet. We checked our position and confirmed that we were where we should be. In addition; we both observed that no indication on either terrain map and briefed a possible reliability problem. We were issued further descent clearances in accordance with the published approach and continued to BZN safely.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a night IMC approach into BZN; even though they appeared to be at a proper altitude for their position.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the climb out from 500 AGL at a MAP following an IAP over ZZZ on a NE heading at about 900 AGL; I noticed an unusual vibration which started to worsen by the second. ATC was informed and the decision to return to the nearby airfield was made immediately as the severity of the vibration increased rapidly. A landing clearance was obtained and altitude maintained until landing was assured. During the descent from pattern altitude; CHT #6 indication spiked into the caution range but did not hit red line as the power had already been reduced for final approach to landing.




Synopsis: SR20 flight instructor reported an engine vibration during climb led to a precautionary landing at departure airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Uneventful approach and landing. After touchdown; spoilers deployed; aircraft settled onto the runway. As I was manipulating the throttles to engage reverse thrust; the pitch attitude started to increase. I countered the increase with forward pressure on the control column; unfortunately the counter action was not enough; and the tail skid contacted the runway. Pitch attitude at touchdown was approximately 6.6 degrees.


Second narrative: While landing the tail of [our] 737-900ER scraped the tail. The approach and landing where normal and stable. After touchdown the nose rose and the tail lightly scraped the runway.


Synopsis: B737-900ER flight crew reported experiencing a tail strike on landing after a normal; stable approach.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/General
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During preflight; I noticed that the oxygen valve on the lower oxygen tank was 'pointing' opposite the top tank indicator. In order to be sure of the valve position one has to bend down close to the lower window (upper tank is more easily read); otherwise valve indication can be ambiguous. The top cylinder valve selector was toward the green tick mark; while lower tank valve selector was pointing toward the red mark. Maintenance was notified and the cover over the tank valves was removed. Both valves on the tanks were in the correct position; open; and safety wired as such. It was the red/green markings on the lower cylinder window that were incorrectly painted on the tank valve cover; which was remedied by Maintenance. Apparently there are only a few aircraft with this oxygen setup with two cylinders; most of our aircraft have only one. The cylinder valves have ON/OFF markings on them clearly marked when the cover is removed. However; those placards cannot be read through the sight window during preflight with the cover on. Pilots have to rely on painted markings on the cylinder covers to determine valve status. Maintenance should make a point in confirming the correct markings on the covers. On this aircraft they are opposite: Top bottle pointing to the aft of the aircraft is open; bottom bottle valve pointing forward is open. The arrangement on the other dual bottle aircraft should also be confirmed as they may not be consistent across the fleet.




Synopsis: A G200 pilot noted that the two oxygen bottle valves on his aircraft could not be easily viewed and because the top and bottom valve indicators pointed in opposite directions; determining the valves position and the availability of oxygen was difficult.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
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
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were departing from [the] gate. We contacted Ramp Control for push clearance telling them; Aircraft X; ready to push gate X.Ramp responded Aircraft X; cleared to push gate X tail north; call me after push. We replied Aircraft X; cleared to push gate X tail north call after push.In the past sometimes [Ramp] tells us to call Ground for push clearance after first contacting Ramp for push clearance. In this case Ramp did not and so it appeared Ramp was controlling the area around our gate today. We pushed back tail north from [gate] X; without event or any nearby traffic on the ground. After engine start and control check; we called ramp back telling them we were ready for taxi. The Ramp Controller responded in a grumpy tone claiming that we called for push from gate X; and gate Y we needed to contact ground for push clearance. He told us to contact Ground. We responded that we did call Ramp for push back from gate X. We contacted Ground for taxi. Ground gave us taxi instructions to RWY XXL for departure. We read back our taxi instructions and asked the Ground Controller about what Ramp had said about our push back after we pushed. I indicated that we called and were cleared for push from X; but Ramp later seemed confused and thought it was Y. Ground said that normally that gate needs us to call ground for push; but not to worry about it. The rest of the flight continued without incident.Factors: I believe that since our flight number was XXXX perhaps the ramp controller thought we were at gate Y; even though we called X and he responded cleared to push X.Suggestions: There is no note on the company 10-7 page about gate X at the terminal needing push clearance from both Ramp and Ground Control. If there was a note for the departure briefing that mentions Ground needs to be called as well as Ramp for push clearance from [gate] X; this would help avoid this in the future.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain reported a communications breakdown between flight crew and Ramp Control regarding pushback clearance.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Safety Instrumentation & Information
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We had a 3-hour sit in ZZZ. Upon powering up the aircraft the crew received a TAWS system fail aural warning; an amber TAWS message on the PFD and a CAS field that was filled with an amber 'X.' We contacted Maintenance Control and were told that this was normal and occurred due to a database update error and we needed to power down the aircraft and power it back up. If we wanted further information then we would need to contact the Chief Pilot. We contacted the Chief Pilot and he said it was a known Garmin issue and that in order to update the databases it could take as many as 3 aircraft resets. He said they had a 'Garmin Technical Disposition' that described this and he would have the Maintenance Controller send it to us. I contacted the dispatcher and he said since they have a letter from Garmin that once I have this letter then I should follow it. After waiting and not receiving the letter in my email I called the Maintenance Controller and asked for this letter again. He flat out refused to provide it and once again directed me to the ACP. I called Chief Pilot again and he forwarded me the email that controller had sent to him. After being told by Maintenance and the Chief Pilot that it was ok to cycle the batteries since this was a supposed known issue we did so. The issue cleared and we continued.I was under the impression that the FAA has said that we are not allowed to reset systems to clear nuisance messages. Now we have Maintenance Control - whom I don't trust - as well as the Chief Pilot telling us that we can reset these systems to clear these nuisance messages. Can we or can we not follow manufacturer letters outside of AFM procedures to clear nuisance warnings? These letters include Embraer Flight Operations Letters (FOLs); Garmin Technical Dispositions; etc. Are these legal procedures? Can we just reset nuisance warnings and continue on? In this instance we were told yes. Several months ago we were told no. Which one is correct?




Synopsis: Upon aircraft power up at the start of preflight; crew experienced TAWS fail warnings. Maintenance Control and Dispatch provided the crew with a manufacturer bulletin that cleared the problem.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LNK.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E R90
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action

Narrative: Flying in an area known as the west practice area; south of I-80 as requested by ATC at 5500 feet. One military T-38 descended from 10 o'clock position descending through my altitude at a very high rate of speed 2500 feet in front of me. Second military T-38 from my 9 o'clock crossing in front of me very close at a very high rate of speed. Approximately 5 seconds later Omaha TRACON called a traffic alert at my 3 o'clock at 5700 feet. Omaha TRACON radioed that the Omaha radar was down and they had switched to Center radar.




Synopsis: Pilot of CE-310; while operating in a VFR practice area; experienced a NMAC with two T-38 aircraft. After; Omaha TRACON issued a traffic alert.
Date: 201712
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During my entire break in the crew rest seat I listened to several children including an infant crying and communicating extremely loud right behind the crew rest seat and adjacent to the flight attendant crew rest area. After an hour and a half of crying babies and loud fussy young children I gave up on sleeping and watched the video monitor. This was the perfect storm of kids versus flight crew rest. Both of my first officers also experienced the same issue as well as did the entire flight attendant crew. I contacted the [Customer Service] team for passenger compensation because there were many complaints from most of the [Premium Class] passengers. This flight was 8:40 in length and basically no flight crew member experienced a comfortable rest break at any time during the flight.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported inadequate rest for a long flight due to loud passengers seated near the crew rest area.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; 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 Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was acting as the instructor for a student pilot training flight. Myself and my student were in the traffic pattern for multiple touch and go's. There were several airplanes in the pattern; and as one aircraft was on the upwind; we had just turned final. About 400 feet following a standard 3 degree VASI (Visual Approach Slope Indicator); I noticed a truck moving from the ramp area toward our landing runway. I kept an eye on the truck and continued to work with my student. We made all standard radio calls on the CTAF; and all other traffic in the pattern were making consistent radio calls.As we continued our descent to land; the truck crossed the runway hold short line and entered the active runway. At this point; we were roughly 100 feet on short final. I instructed my student to go-around; as he was the pilot flying. My student made a timely go-around to avoid the truck that had entered the runway. I recognized the truck as being a hangar tenant for a private hangar located across the airport. The private hangars are not owned or rented by the airport's operator; and crossing the runway is one of two ways to access the hangars. The other access point does not involving crossing runways. The truck never made a call to cross via a handheld radio; and I don't believe the occupant of the truck was using any sort of radio to actively monitor the airport traffic before crossing the runway.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot on short final at a non towered airport reported they ordered a go around when they observed a truck entering the runway
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cowling/Nacelle Fasteners; Latches
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Emergency landing using dry lake bed inside a Wilderness Area. Hinge pin on left side engine cowling became distended toward propeller. Re-set pin and continued to destination.




Synopsis: A pilot landed his Experimental Bearhawk off airport to reset a left side engine cowling hinge pin which was working it was toward the propeller then departed for his destination.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBBS.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SBBS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On UZ38 near PABAV intersection given immediate left turn hold PPOS. All communications with ATC are in Portuguese. Communications with our aircraft are in English but all other aircraft on frequency are in Portuguese. Our grasp on what the big picture is was limited when you only understand a small fraction of what is being said.I made an aggressive turn to the left to avoid traffic; the words from ATC suggested to move your aircraft now. No easy task at FL410. We did not receive an EFC time until we asked for it. ATC asked what our position was relative to the landing airport SBGR suggesting radar failure or perhaps primary radar failure. ATC overwhelmed at this point not a good time to ask questions.After 15 minutes we left our PPOS holding pattern and joined the arrival when were asked about our ETA to a fix about 4 minutes away and then taken off the arrival before being cleared direct to a down line fix.ICAO language standards need to be maintained to have a safe operation worldwide.We do not know why these events occurred but I will ask our airline ATC liaison if he might be able to correspond with his counterpart in Brazil.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of a foreign language being used primarily on frequency and not really understanding what was going on. Pilot reports of aggressively turning to avoid traffic at FL410; then being taken off the approach later and possibly that they were not under radar contact.