elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climbout the Captain noticed a vibration in the control column when banking left. This vibration was also accompanied by a low tone; but loud vibration type noise that was noticed by the Captain and I as well as the Flight Attendant and passengers. Due to the concern with a flight control issue/vibration we contacted Dispatch to let them know of the issue and that we wanted to return back to the airport. The Dispatcher acknowledged our ACARS and we returned back to the departure airport.Possible flight control issue; communication between pilots as well as Flight Attendant; obtaining new clearance and workload management to get the aircraft; passengers and airport operations aware of our air return.The air return was well handled as the Captain took over flying and some radio duties while I communicated with Dispatch; Maintenance and airport Operations. The proper workload management that occurred on the flight deck aided open communication between both pilots as well as the Flight Attendant which also led to there not being a rushed sense in the cockpit but still had a sense of urgency. Keeping it slow; keeping lines of communication and simplified aided in a smooth precise air return. Overall threat and error management techniques learned through recurrent training played a huge role in aiding with a smooth safe air return.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 crew returned to the departure airport after a flight control vibration was felt and a low frequency tone was heard during climbout in left turns.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SVMI.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SVMI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Having flown into SVMI several times I am accustomed to seeing the reported winds different from the wind that we experience. The wind speed reported is consistently less than what we observe. Taxiing for takeoff in December 2013; the wind sock at the end of Runway 10 clearly indicated that the wind was coming strongly from the west. The Tower however reported an east wind of 090 at 9. Being on the ground and seeing that the runway had a tailwind we could make the adjustments needed for a safe operation. However aircraft landing had no idea of the strong tailwind for landing. If there is anyway to improve the reporting of runway winds it would greatly improve safely.

Callback: In the incident cited by the reporter; strongly for the west was probably 15 knots from the west while the Tower was reporting 9 knots from the east. The Tower reports and ATIS rarely reflect the actual winds at this airport for unknown reasons.

Second narrative: I was the First Officer departing out of SVMI. The reported wind from the Tower was from the east; but the windsock indicated the wind was from the west. We adjusted the [automated performance data] to correct for the tailwind and departed without incident. From my experience flying into SVMI; the wind reporting there is frequently in error.  Anything that can be done to improve the wind reporting at SVMI would greatly enhance safety.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports that the wind velocity and direction reported by SVMI Tower is rarely accurate.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At level flight; right engine oil low pressure illuminated; followed by a loss of N1 and subsequent amber lights indicated for GEN failure and hydraulic low. We advised ATC as had lost power from the right engine. We started a decent and went through the appropriate checklists. As we still had N1 & N2 rotation we were able to restart the engine. The engine then indicated normal across all gauges; therefore we continued onto our destination of ZZZ (home base).


Second narrative: At cruise flight flight engine oil low pressure illuminates followed by loss of N1 and amber lights indicating for GEN fail and hydraulic low. We advised ATC as we had loss of power in the right engine. We started to descent and went through the checklist. As we had N1 and N2 rotation we where able to restart the engine. The engine then indicated normal across all gauges. We continued to ZZZ home base.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported engine failure at cruise; followed by a successful restart and continuation to home base.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While operating last flight of the day we received an amended PDC clearance to climb via PITZZ4 except maintain 4;000 ft. We climbed via SID after takeoff with no issues. We leveled at 4;000 ft. When switching to Houston Departure we checked in and the instruction was climb via SID; that's it. The SID clearly states to climb to top altitude of 16;000 ft. so we did. Upon checking in with Houston Center we were inquired at what altitude we were; to which we replied that we were told to climb via SID and therefore we climbed to 16;000 ft. and not our final filed altitude of 14;000 ft. Upon the controller going off frequency and checking with previous controller; he came back and said climb and maintain 16;000 ft. Both Captain and I thought this was a big gotcha as the controllers are supposed to always give an except altitude if other than what's on the SID. We proceeded to [destination] with no further issues but definitely with a lesson to take home.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported altitude deviation and misinterpretation of a climb via clearance.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAS
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was given taxi instructions after crossing Runway 25R; to taxi via Bravo; Bravo 5 and Charlie to the ramp. Aircraft Y was also inbound to the ramp but missed their turn.  The CPC-IT gave instructions to Aircraft Y to taxi via C4; B; and C6 to the ramp.  The CPC-IT then told Aircraft X to give way to Aircraft Y at C6 and contact the ramp (Aircraft X had made a few attempts on our ground frequency to contact the ramp.) Aircraft X acknowledged their instructions and advised us they had been attempting to contact ramp control but nobody answered them and they did not want to enter the ramp without authorization.  Right after that transmission; somebody keyed up on the frequency and stated; 'Aircraft X; you have been calling on ground'.The timing of that transmission as well as the demeanor of the transmission lead me to believe that the ramp controller keyed up on the ground frequency (121.1) and made that transmission. I was performing OJTI at the time. I reported the incident to my FLM (Front Line Manager) and OM (Operations Manager). My recommendation is to not let a ramp controller have the ability to key up an FAA frequency. I would also change the current LOA between the two facilities to have the ground controller issue a ramp entry point and no longer have airlines contact ramp control on the movement area.




Synopsis: LAS Ground Controller reported a communication breakdown between a Ramp Controller and flight crew.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: DC-8 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: At 37;000 FT and .80 mach; we experienced a severe mountain wave and flight upset. We were in an extreme updraft with an associated airspeed deviation between .78 and .88 mach. Elevator control was ineffective and thrust levers were retarded to idle to facilitate an altitude and speed recovery. There was a period of 15 seconds where any attempt to regain control was ineffective. The mountain wave existed for another 45 seconds at a lesser degree. Once we returned to normal flight conditions; we noticed that the #1 engine was indicating 45% N1. Thrust lever positions had no effect and engine would not accelerate. It appeared to be 'hung' due to a compressor stall. The Abnormal Procedure for an in flight engine shutdown was completed; followed by a descent to 31;000 FT to attempt a restart. A restart was attempted but was unsuccessful. ATC; Flight Control and Maintenance Control were all communicated with during and after the course of this event. We did not declare an emergency. All applicable emergency checklists and abnormal procedures were complied with. Since the aircraft was now stabilized and we were at a light weight; I chose to continue a 3-engine cruise at 31;000 FT rather than descend to a lower altitude to attempt another start which; if it failed; would have required a climb back to a cruise altitude on 3 engines with the associated additional fuel burn. The crew concurred with this decision. We arrived at our destination without further incident and were informed that ATC had declared an emergency on our behalf and had dispatched the CFR. We landed and taxied to the gate without further problem(s). In the future; avoid areas of reported CAT or severe mountain wave. In this case; none had been reported for this area. Center said an aircraft had flown our route 10 minutes earlier and had not reported any problems.


Second narrative: [No additional information was provided.]


Synopsis: DC-8 flight crew described encountering a severe mountain wave and flight upset event that resulted in an engine failure and ATC's initiation of an emergency declaration.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I picked up Aircraft X from [Company] after annual inspection. The flight home was uneventful until reaching pattern altitude. Upon putting down the landing gear I noticed that I only had 2 green lights. The light for the right main gear was not illuminated. I informed Tower of the potential problem and asked for assistance is noting the status of the landing gear. Multiple aircraft; along with Tower; indicated that all landing gear were extended. I extended the flaps fully and continued a stabilized approach. The aircraft was allowed to gently touch down on the mains; at which point a felt the right main begin to give way. I began to slow the aircraft while the right wing tip made contact with the pavement. The drag from the wing pulled me to the right; and I eventually ended up coming to a stop in the grass to the right on Runway XX. I then shut the engine down and exited the aircraft. There was no evidence of any fuel leaks or other problems. Initial inspection of the plane revealed a mechanical failure of a pin that connects 2 portions of the landing gear system. The only known damage was to the right wing tip; right flap; and right side rear door step. A recovery company was contacted; and we moved the plane into my hangar for the night.




Synopsis: Bonanza Pilot reported an unsafe gear indication which evolved into a main gear failure on landing.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 690 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I arrived at the [airport] area with about 900Lbs of fuel; 450 per side. As a precaution I asked the controller for priority due to low fuel. I have an old plane with analog gauges and although I've never had a fuel problem I didn't want to test the accuracy of the gauges.The Approach controller was supportive and gave me good vectors for [the airport]. On the handoff to the tower I checked in with the tower and advised the controller on my low fuel situation and he cleared me to land number two following a twin on final.Well within the FAF and doing about 135 kts; I hear the controller tell a Cessna to turn base immediately for his touch and go; the Cessna replied that he was landing. The controller tells me I'm number two. I didn't look exactly; but it seemed I was less than three miles and still fast.I told the controller again of my low fuel and that I would much rather not go around. The controller again told me I was number 2. By that time I'm confident that I was under 2 miles out. I told the controller to have the Cessna go around. He insisted I was number two. I told him I was not going around.  The Cessna went around; and I landed. I was focused on the runway and never saw the Cessna.Upon landing I was greeted by ground safety equipment and I talked to a supervisor about it.I am always appreciative of advice or instruction and I would welcome an evaluation and learning of the actions.




Synopsis: Aero Commander pilot reported requesting priority landing due to low fuel condition; and was unable to go-around when a Cessna was slow to turn final approach.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This flight was my first single pilot IFR/IMC flight; as well as my first night IMC flight in many months. I had slept exceedingly poorly the previous night and was operating with an unfamiliar GPS; but because of the high ceilings I did not believe the flight was risky.The moment I entered IMC I became spatially disoriented and I struggled the entire flight to control the airplane and work the GPS. I requested and planned to shoot the GPS RWY XX circle YY approach; and continued to attempt to control the attitude of the plane while attempting to load and activate the approach. I was +/- 100 ft constantly and banked up to 30 degrees either side each time I looked away from my instruments. I had difficulty locating the airport environment; and during the circle; I struggled with my height; speed; and spatial orientation to the airport; which resulted in a circle that was too close to the runway. That resulted in excess energy and an awful three point landing and I barely slowed the plane enough for the last taxiway turn off. I taxied to the ramp and immediately shut down the plane; exited the aircraft; and attempted to steady myself. My legs were so shaky I ended up sitting on the ground for the next couple of minutes. My family drove up to the ramp; and without saying a word I secured the aircraft and left the airport. 1 hour after landing; I unloaded my car and saw my reminder to close my flight plan. I called the TRACON and was politely informed that the police were called to the airport to look for my airplane. I apologized twice; and it was an excellent reminder of how poorly I had conducted my flight and how rusty and unskilled I had become without hand flying the airplane during my flights as an instructor.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported neglecting to close a flight plan following a stressful instrument flight.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had an FAA jumpseater on our flight.  He was waiting by the aircraft door as we arrived at the airplane.  He said he was part of the aircraft maintenance group.  When he first met the Captain and I; he said words to the effect of 'I hope I don't have to bust you guys today.'  The Captain and I were surprised by this (as we discussed later between the two of us). (The Captain and I remained professional throughout the flight.)  Again; we had just met him.  He followed me during the walk-around.  I told him to ask any questions he wanted.  He had no questions at any point during the entire flight.  While in the jumpseat during our preflight he made another reference about 'not having to get us in trouble'.  The captain and I did not think he was joking.  Also; we both believed we did nothing during any portion of the flight that would have brought upon ourselves a reason for him to talk in such a way. The FAA individual in question said his job is very boring and he sits behind a desk all day.  In my estimation; he thought this is how the FAA acts when around pilots.In retrospect; I think if a similar situation arose I would confront the person to express how inappropriate those type of comments are.  Also; I think those type of comments create a very non-trusting relationship between pilots and the FAA and go against many of the foundations of the Safety program.




Synopsis: An First Officer reported that upon meeting a FAA Maintenance Inspector for the first time at their departure gate he said 'I hope I don't have to bust you guys today.' The Inspector's normal work was at a desk and his comment did not help build a trusting relationship.