elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Aircraft: P180 Avanti
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground APA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A P180 called me on Ground Control from the ramp for taxi out for an IFR departure. He informed me that he needed a run up. The P180 was given our confusing and non .65 taxi phraseology to the north run up area; which is not charted and not clearly marked on the field and not given an expected runway for departure as ordered by our FLMs and ATM. I stated '...Taxi to the north run up area via Alpha;' and he read back the instructions correctly. He pulled into the ramp at A1 outside of the designated box to do his run up. When he was done with his run up; he taxied out of the box to Runway 17L on his own and contacted the Tower he was ready to go. I informed Local Control that he had not been given a runway assignment and the Local Control did not issue a runway. I made it known to Management that an aircraft taxied out of the ramp to a runway without a clearance and was given the cold shoulder and nothing was done. We coordinated his release from D01 and he was eventually cleared for takeoff from Runway 17L without a runway assignment as required by the .65. Recommendation: 1) The procedure is confusing to all itinerant aircraft.2) Aircraft at the very least should be given an 'expect Runway...' assignment.3) The ATIS used to inform aircraft to inform Ground Control when ready for departure for sequence to the runway. It is and has been gone from the ATIS since we have changed to this procedure. If the aircraft calls Local Control; they do not have a runway assignment.4) We should be allowed to use .65 phraseology to do our job to avoid the confusion we are causing to all itinerant aircraft. This stuff happens each and every day and management just shrugs it off.




Synopsis: APA Controller voiced concern regarding the locally mandated taxi phraseology that allegedly is not in compliance with FAA Orders.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We declared an emergency at 41;000 FT due to loss of pressurization. (Dual bleed failure).




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported dual bleed failure leading to loss of pressurization. Flight declared an emergency.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Down Lock
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was instructing a pilot working on his commercial multi-engine rating.  We departed ZZZ1 headed out to a practice area and accomplished multi-engine maneuvers to include: slow flight; stalls; steep turns; climbs; and emergency descent.  We then accomplished 'engine failure' procedures in the practice area at altitude to include a drag demo and how to handle an in-flight engine failure.  Following those maneuvers; which were all uneventful; we proceeded to ZZZ.  We entered the VFR traffic pattern for runway XX; and accomplished 5 'stop-and go's'.  The first 3 stop and go's were normal; 2 engine landings.  The next two were 'single engine' landings; with one engine at idle. All 5 landings were stable approaches; with smooth touchdowns.  On each pattern we ran the before landing checklist on downwind; confirmed gear down and locked by checking for 3 green lights and no red 'gear unsafe' light.  Additionally; we check the gear status and accomplish a GUMPS check on base and final.On the 6th and final pattern; we again ran the before landing checklist at midfield downwind; accomplished a GUMPS check on base and final; each time visually confirming and noting verbally 'gear down; 3 green'.  Upon landing; the student landed at a normal touchdown rate; and after touchdown; as he released back pressure on the yoke; the nose gear collapsed and the nose of the aircraft struck the runway.  The props came to a stop after striking the runway; and I immediately proceeded to secure the engine to prevent any risk of fire or additional damage to the airplane.  I pulled the throttles to idle; mixtures to cut-off; fuel selector to off; mags off; master off; flaps up; and we egressed the aircraft. As mentioned; we had a gear down indication with 3 green gear lights; and no red gear unsafe light.  Both the student and I confirmed gear position 3 times during each VFR pattern.  I believe this to be a mechanical failure of either the nose gear position indicator sensor; and/or failure of the hydraulic pump.




Synopsis: A commercial rated pilot and his flight instructor in a PA-34 Piper Seneca experienced a nose landing gear collapse after landing for unknown reasons.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL390; I noticed on the PFD that the Flight Director vertical bar disappeared and the message 'CWS' was on. Looked around and saw both FMCs data were blank and the MENU page showed ACARS but no FMC. I put my hands on the yolk and noticed that I had control thru the CWS. Lost about 100 feet of Altitude and returned the airplane to level flight manually. The First Officer and I looking around the cockpit to access the situation but kept my main focus on flying the airplane. The First Officer got out the QRH; but there was no procedure for what we had except invalid NAV Data. Tried a couple of things but nothing helped...then out of the blue; everything came back and I reengaged the autopilot; then reselected LNAV and VNAV because it dropped out both modes. A couple of minutes later; it did it again. Same displays; Approach was trying to give us clearance to a fix and I informed them that we were have FMC problems and could not accept the clearance. They gave us a heading to the ILS. Everything came back a second time and then it did it again the third time; this time I just shut everything off and hand flew the airplane to a normal landing and taxi to the gate. Wrote the event in the AML and Maintenance took it from there.




Synopsis: During cruise at FL390; the flight director bars were not displayed anymore and 'CWS' appeared on the PFD. The crew discovered both FMS' were intermittently blank and; with no QRH procedure to address the faults; the crew hand flew to their destination.
Date: 201903
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During cruise flight [over the Rocky Mountains] at FL350 we experienced moderate mountain wave activity (+10/-20 kias). The autothrottles were engaged and actively moving from near idle to max cruise thrust settings in an attempt to maintain airspeed. We reported the mountain wave activity to ATC.We then heard approximately four loud bangs. Initially we believed someone in the cabin was doing something. We then saw the #1 engine was in a compressor stall. The #1 engine was at approx 50-55% N1 and #2 engine was at max cruise thrust. The thrust levers were both at a max cruise thrust position and both EGT's were normal.As the PM (Pilot Monitoring) I accomplished the QRH items and the #1 engine stabilized immediately. With a stable engine we requested and were granted a descent to FL280. At this point we transferred duties and I became the PF (Pilot Flying) so the Captain could accomplish items as the PM.The Captain completed the QRH items. We elected to divert to ZZZ. ATC issued us [routing and approach instructions]. Weather was day VFR. Dispatch was advised of our malfunction; emergency status; and provided weather and overweight landing data. The Captain briefed the FA's (Flight Attendants) who advised hearing 'several loud metallic bangs from the left side of the aircraft'. An announcement was made to the passengers advising them of our situation and that we were diverting to ZZZ out of an abundance of caution. Passenger response was positive throughout the event. PM/PF duties were transferred and the Captain flew the approach and landing. I referenced the diversion [checklist] and completed all normal checklists items. An uneventful landing was completed and we cleared the runway. CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) inspected the #1 engine and advised all was normal. We secured the #1 engine and proceeded to the gate. We requested ramp to advise ground personnel the #2 engine was running as this was non-standard.Once at the gate passengers were deplaned normally via Jet Bridge; maintenance entries were made for the overweight landing and #1 engine stall. A debrief was accomplished with maintenance and Flight Ops personnel at the gate. Dispatch and the [Operations Manager] were briefed via phone. Finally the Captain and I debriefed the event.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported encountering mountain wave activity causing an engine stall.
Date: 201309
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Parked pre-departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Recently the pilots have been made very aware of the issue of missing revised segments to the ATC cleared routes. This was such an issue; that the format of the PDC has been changed to highlight the revised segment section of the clearance.Now there is a new threat to preflighting and programming the FMGCs. The new flight planning system downloads the filed route via data-link directly to the FMGC. The pilots are to insert the departure and arrival runways with the appropriate SID; STAR and transitions; and to then verify the route against the OFP and the PDC. The danger we are now encountering is that the documents (OFP and PDC) we use to verify the proper programming are sources of conflicting data.Our OFP filed route was:PATSS3 PATSS DCT NELIE FLOSI2The PDC filed route was:PATSS3 PATSS NELIE IGN IGN265 FLOSI FLOSI2Examination of the OFP waypoint by waypoint; as if this was a Class II overwater flight; proved that the OFP and PDC were in agreement; however; this is not the normal SOP for verifying FMGC programming.--The ATC filing section of the OFP must be complete; as many times the PDC filed route will be greatly abbreviated by inserting ''''''''' then destination; leaving the pilots with no complete source document to use to verify the programmed route of flight.--These inconsistencies are a source of confusion and will lead to programming errors; loss of aircraft separation in flight; and certificate actions against pilots.




Synopsis: An A319 First Officer expressed concern that it is difficult to reconcile the PDC delivered filed route with company downloaded FMGC route because the formats are different and; even if identical; may require point by point comparisons with airways charts to assure they are the same.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Gust Lock
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Although the Gust Lock had been released; it was not fully forward and unlocked.  I noticed the First Officer checking the flight controls; while I was confirming the final was clear and setting the lights for takeoff.  As I began pushing the thrust levers forward to set thrust; I noticed the Gust Lock had not been fully released.  We decided to abort the takeoff; taxi back; release the Gust Lock to the fully forward - UNLOCKED -  position and 'try again.'  The speed was no higher than 25 KIAS as minimum effort was used to brake to a stop and the spoilers never deployed.  The First Officer did not release the Gust Lock and I did not confirm it was fully forward.




Synopsis: EMB135 Captain reports rejecting a takeoff at low speed when the thrust levers are blocked by an incompletely stowed gust lock.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 20
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ; Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Blade
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During an FAA-sanctioned and coordinated air race; my race partner and I attempted to land after our race flyby. I was in the left seat and PIC. ASOS reported gusting crosswinds; but during the landing we experienced not only gusts but a major wind shift/wind shear and potential microburst. We bounced with increasing intensity 3 times and then initiated a go-around. The airplane attempting to land behind us also did a go-around. When we turned downwind prior to attempting another landing; an isolated rain shower obscured the field.  We circled north of the field and observed lighting flashing several miles further north.  After the rain shower passed; the winds had shifted to favor a different runway; and we landed without additional incident. Over the next few days; we noticed some additional stress on existing cracks that had been stop-drilled; including significant damage to the spinner which we immediately replaced. We thought it extremely plausible that the crack enlargement especially in the spinner was from the normal stresses of the race; which of course are unusual stresses compared to normal flight. As we pushed to finish the race; we found a 3/16' chip in the leading edge of one propeller blade; leading to concern that we had struck a glancing blow to the runway during our hard landing. We dismissed that concern; because the prop had never stopped; we never felt any contact; and the opposite end of the prop showed no damage; the paint was still completely intact.   At the end of the race; we had advice from knowledgeable mechanics that we should ground the airplane for inspection and repairs; and did so; but we are concerned we were unknowingly flying an un-airworthy aircraft. We detected no unusual engine instrument readings; and no roughness or vibration that would have led us to believe there was any internal damage.




Synopsis: C-182 pilot reports a bounced landing and a go-around after completing an air race stage. No damage is found initially but at the end of the race a propeller nick indicates that the propeller may have struck the ground.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X initiated a go-around on Runway 18R due to another aircraft taxiing on taxiway A in the safety area for Runway 18C. No aircraft was over flown. The taxiing aircraft could have been held short of taxiway C until Aircraft X overflew taxiway A.


Second narrative: Aircraft X landing RWY18C due to Runway 18L being closed. Aircraft were taxiing on taxiway A. The rule is not to overfly aircraft on taxiway A. Aircraft X initiated a Go-Around with the reason being he didn't feel safe with aircraft taxiing on taxiway A. I observed an aircraft on A but anticipated it being through the flight path of Aircraft X which it was. There was a second aircraft on taxiway A but it was behind the flight path of Aircraft X. I don't have any recommendations. The procedure is adequate. The only thing that could be changed is the amount of runway and taxiway closures at one time to avoid having to taxi under the arrival corridor.


Synopsis: MEM Controllers and Air Carrier Captain reported a go around due to aircraft on a nearby taxiway.
Date: 201411
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Relay
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I followed the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) as much as I could that day; I went step by step. I personally think that the pictures should point out directly where all the electrical connections go and be a little more in depth with the narrative description. September 2014; I was installing JB5 into the aft Electrical Equipment Bay. I installed one out of the three leads incorrectly causing the JB5 to create a spark; and create a brown burn mark on the part I installed; once I reconnected the APU battery.  I was turned over the job from the previous shift which had everything disconnected; so I had to go by the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) to put everything back together and the visual reference provided to me. In the diagram it shows you the layout of where the wires should be reconnected; and on the [electrical] lead that was damaged; there was two connection points right next to each other; causing me to make a mistake and put the lead in the wrong place.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports he had attached an electrical lead on a CRJ-700 aircraft to an incorrect position during installation of Junction Box (JB-5) in the Aft Electrical Equipment Bay.  The cross-connection caused a spark and burn mark on the part he installed. Limited Shift turnover information and inadequate visual reference diagrams were contributors.