elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CAK.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E CAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON CAK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor; Check Pilot
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was conducting an annual 121 Line Check on the Captain from the observer's seat. During the initial descent; the Captain and First Officer were discussing how Akron Canton Approach Control always leaves them high and 'Slam Dunks' them for the approach. When given a descent from 7;000 to 3;000 (ILS 1); the required rate of descent was about 2;500 FT per minute to get down to the glide slope intercept altitude at the final approach fix. They were also slowed to 170 KTS by ATC (I'm assuming for traffic on the ILS 5); further hindering their descent to capture the glide slope (at this point we were cleared for the ILS 1). The crew was then told to reduce to final approach speed. The Captain was able to comply with ATC's instructions; as well as capture the glide slope prior to the final approach fix. The crew was then switched to Tower. Upon checking in with the Tower; ATC again told our flight to reduce to final approach speed. The Captain had already been at approach speed; and was now descending through 1;000 FT AFE; on glide slope and on a stabilized approach. The crew advised ATC they were at their final approach speed. ATC instructed our flight to perform 'S' turns. The crew advised they were unable. ATC then instructed them to execute a right 360 and re-join the localizer. The crew advised they were unable and executed a missed approach. The flight later landed without incident. The cause was ATC's poor planning. I'm not sure why ATC has to leave us high when approaching from the south; but this is obviously a common problem here. Also; poor traffic separation to intersecting runways. This was one of the worst ATC experiences I've seen in a long time.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier on approach to CAK Runway 1 exectuted a go around when unable to comply with ATC's requests to maneuver and reduce speed. The reporter noted poor planning/separation on the part of ATC with regard to intersecting runway traffic.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Panel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Logbook Entry; MEL; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: We were assigned to work CDL L/P XXXXXXX for lav service door. Once we arrived at the aircraft inside hangar we noticed damage fwd of the lav service area. After further research we found a carry item L/P XXXYYYYY that appears to have addressed this damage and item was placed on EXT. The damage was never repaired per SRM XX-XX-XX as stated in L/P . After we addressed the damage we also found the shear tie common to this area was damaged the aircraft is now out of service for a permanent repair to be performed to the area.Aircraft should have never flown with the damage that it had. Proper evaluations need to be done when ground damage like this occurs.




Synopsis: Technician reported an aircraft he was assigned to work was previously not evaluated properly for ground damage and subsequently flew in revenue service in a non airworthy condition.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A-1 Husky
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing at ZZZ on Runway XX and after touchdown a gust of wind from the left side turned the aircraft to left and dipped right wing. I did not think contact with the ground was made and back taxied to takeoff on XX and return to ZZZ1. Upon inspection I noticed a scrape on the right wingtip after landing.




Synopsis: A-1 Husky pilot flying reported damaging wingtip during landing roll out.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDT.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MDT
ATC / advisory: Tower MDT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on approach to land at MDT. We had been cleared for the visual approach to RWY 31. The Captain was flying and had the radar page up on his screen due to the weather we had been encountering and I had the terrain page up on my side and we had briefed that the airport was considered mountainous. We were past the FAF on the downwind and the captain elected to spin the altitude knob to 2;200 which was the FAF altitude. We began our descent; as we began to level off I noticed two antennas in the distance and brought it to the Captain's attention. Immediately after having told the Captain we got the 'caution obstacle' aural alert. The Captain immediately turned off the autopilot and made a left base turn away from the obstacles. We landed without any further issues.In retrospect it probably would have been wise to ask for vectors onto the final approach course. We also could have been even more vigilant regarding the terrain page and the obstacles detailed on the approach plate.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer encountered obstacles during descent to Final Approach Fix.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [We were] cleared to takeoff Runway 28L following a B777 takeoff. Waited two minutes for roll and passing 600 FT we got a windshear warning. Did not have any speed deviations and warning went away after approximately 3 seconds. [We] initiated windshear memory items. ATIS winds were 290/18. We realized the cause of the warning came from B777 jetwash. Cause: Inadequate separation between B777 takeoff and our takeoff clearance.




Synopsis: B737-400 First Officer reported encountering wake vortex after takeoff in trail of a B777 that resulted in a windshear warning. Reporter stated 'inadequate separation' was the cause of the event.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: calm wind
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Observer
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just before XA:00; student pilot met with me to discuss the tasks for the solo flight. Student pilot has more than 30 hours of training (dual and solo). This was not the student's first local area solo flight. I had checked the weather METAR; TAF; Altitude Winds; RADAR; and the ZZZ ASOS. The weather was clear with light winds.We discussed going to the southeast Practice Area at 2;500-3;500 feet. MSL since the weather was clear with light winds. We discussed the maneuvers she was to practice. We talked about slow flight at no less than 60 MPH; maneuvering through two 90 degree turns using 10 degree bank angle. We talked about the relationship of true airspeed and angle of bank for a standard rate turn. I reminded student pilot that she should recover from her practice stalls at the first indication (stall light). I reminded her to practice steep turns using a visual landmark with a heading for orientation; not just a heading. We discussed practicing the short-field takeoffs and landings/soft-field takeoffs and landings that we had worked on during the previous day's lesson; I gave her the aircraft bag containing the fuel tester; blue book; checklist binder; and keys. She went out to the aircraft; did her preflight; engine start; and taxied out.After XB:30; While sitting in the [FBO] office; I heard the airport siren sound. I went out to the ramp and saw the aircraft on its nose on the runway and student pilot walking away from the aircraft. To begin the notification process; I texted [FBO] CEO; that Aircraft X had crashed on the Runway at ZZZ and no injuries. I caught a ride to the aircraft to pick up [student pilot] and talk to the Fire Department Commander. I provided him with information for which he asked and then rode back to the office. I had [student pilot] sit down and document the mishap while the events were still fresh. When [FBO] Chief Pilot; arrived at the office; I briefed him on what I knew.Student pilot is an excellent and responsible student pilot. This mishap was unintentional; inadvertent; and not deliberate.




Synopsis: PA28 flight instructor reported a student working on solo flight had a ground strike on the return to airport landing.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An IFR light of two requested vectors over the bridge for a tour. They were over the ocean level at 3;000 feet. I had my MVA map displayed as well as the new ZZZ Class Bravo airspace map along with my usual airspace map. The aircraft wanted to be as low as possible and I looked at what appeared to be Aircraft X in a 2;300 foot MVA; so I descended him to 2;300 feet. The Low Altitude alarm went off; but after I saw it and figured out my mistake; Aircraft X was northbound exiting the 2;600 foot MVA and flying into the 2;300 foot MVA. I was busy working airspace that I do not often work and I simply misread my MVA map. A possible solution would be to make the MVA map lines a different color than all the other lines.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported they vectored an aircraft into an area below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLE.Tower, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were on final approach to CLE; behind Flight ABCD (third digit is the only difference; and a 5 is pretty similar looking to a 2 besides that). The last few ATC sectors had warned us of the similar call signs; including the Tower Controller. By the time Tower told us I quipped with him that this was pretty normal for us by now; it has been going on for so long. I have to admit to getting used to it and it may even help me pay more attention to ATC. After Flight ABCD landed ahead of us the Tower Controller; whom we had already had the conversation about the call signs; said 'Flight ABGD turn left and cross Runway 24L and contact ground on the other side.' I informed him that we were unable to comply as we were still on final. The Controller made the correction and re-issued the instruction to the other flight. As I admitted above; I've gotten quite used to the similar call signs in CLE. I estimate 75%-90% of my flights in and out of there have at least one other flight number with only one digit difference to my own. I feel that each one is a safety concern; even the ones where nothing happens. However it is simply unreasonable for me to write a report for all of them. This event stands out to me because it highlights the safety risk from a Controller error perspective. In this case it was slightly humorous as we were given taxi instructions in flight; but the fact is all of these similar call signs convene in congested terminal airspace; where an incorrectly addressed heading or altitude instruction could have serious consequences. I know that ATC has to deal with similar call signs all the time and not just from us; and getting all of their transmissions right is part of their job; and paying attention and questioning any perceived errors is part of ours; but to increase the risk of errors by introducing so many threats into our collective workload seems a little foolish to me.




Synopsis: Air Carrier operating at CLE voiced concern regarding his company's frequent use of four digit similar sounding flight numbers; all operating in the same time frame.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were number three for takeoff on schedule.  Third day of a three day trip.  Assigned Runway XXR.  Aircraft ahead was cleared for takeoff; and in a moment of complacency; I taxied across the first hold short line.  First indication that I had done it was from the tower controller asking; 'Flight ABC; where're ya goin'.'  We stopped short of the Runway XXR second hold short line and we're cleared for takeoff shortly thereafter.Cause - Simple complacency; loss of situational awareness; and a false sense of comfort.  I have flown in and out of ZZZ on XXR many times.  I know the hold short lines and their significance at XXR/YY.I should have (and will in the future) emphasized the XXR/YY hotspot more in the departure briefing and should have cultivated more self-awareness during the taxi.  I simply followed the aircraft in front of me in a momentary loss of situational awareness.


Second narrative: At Hotspot number X; taxiing up to hold short of Runway XXR at ZZZ; we inadvertently crossed the first 'hold short' line at the entrance to both runways XXR and YY; but held short of the second 'hold short' line for XXR.  The Tower Controller advised us and cleared a landing aircraft to sidestep to Runway XXL.  We continued the takeoff and remainder of the flight normally.Distraction over my last day of flying before taking a leave of absence.Paying better attention to surroundings and making an extra effort to fight complacency.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing a runway incursion.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORK.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-38 Tomahawk
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E LIT
ATC / advisory: CTAF ORK
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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: Approximately 10 nm from ORK while monitoring CTAF on a heading of 125 I began to make a controlled descent. While making visual scans I observed a high wing Cessna type aircraft passing in front and below my position. I immediately took evasive action by maneuvering my aircraft to the right. The high wing Cessna did not appear to take any evasive action. Contributing factors included the slightly hazy conditions along with my aircraft being low wing and the other aircraft being high wing.




Synopsis: PA38 pilot reported an airborne conflict with a high wing Cessna in the vicinity of ORK.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class C CMH
ATC / advisory: Tower CMH
Second aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had an airport vehicle on Runway 28L and forgot to tell the next controller about him in my relief briefing and the Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff; but the vehicle keyed up and said he was still on the runway which stopped an incident from happening. But the driver called the Manager at CMH to tell him about what happened.It was my fault and I take full responsibility.  I should have used the memory joggers and I didn't.




Synopsis: CMH Tower Controller approved a vehicle to be on the runway.  Controller gives relief briefing and doesn't advise the relieving Controller about the vehicle.  New Controller issues takeoff clearance to aircraft.  Vehicle calls on Tower frequency advising he is still on the runway.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Passenger in 18A had an Emotional Support Animal that left her lap ran up the isle to row 7 took a crap before continuing up the aisle. I grabbed the dog to stop him from coming forward; at that time the owner came and picked up the dog. [The passenger] then cleaned up the mess. The odor was so bad I asked if anyone wanted to move to the 3 empty seats I had up front since they were in economy comfort. The captain then announced we were 16 out; and everyone said; they were ok. We put down paper and sprayed with air freshener; after I made sure nobody had allergies. We called Captain and requested cleaners when we landed.[This was caused by] no control of Emotional Support Animals. I did notice the dog was panting when I picked up her garbage.[Emotional support] animals should be in kennels. I think this is a huge issue. I later found out the dog was on the other passenger that was seated in 18B. I was told later that the dog defecated on that passenger.


Second narrative: [Passenger in seat] 18A Emotional Support Animal (dog) had accident defecating on passenger in 18B; then got away from passenger and ran up the aisle to row 7 to defecate and on the way up the aisle; [Flight Attendant A] was picking up trash and responding to the call light when she met the dog in the aisle. She came to the galley to get supplies to help with clean up and moved passengers away from the scene. I called the captain to request cleaners upon arrival.[This was caused by] no control of emotional support animal; he was panting heavily. Passenger stated he was nervous and had been flying for 4 years and never had a problem. Cabin temperature was warm during service and we had captain adjust temperature twice. Passenger was going to take him to the vet as this behavior was out of character.[I suggest] more control over emotional support animals; [they] should not be able to get lose in the cabin.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight attendants reported that a passenger's Emotional Support Animal defecated on a passenger and in another row during flight.