elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Tower, MN
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a 5.5 mile final for Runway 12R. I instructed Aircraft Y heavy to line up and wait while a previous aircraft exited the runway. At a 2.5 mile final I cleared Aircraft Y heavy for takeoff and told the pilots traffic is at 2.5 mile final. Next; I went back and cleared Aircraft X to land. We are ILS critical so I had to withhold the landing clearance until I cleared Aircraft Y heavy. Aircraft Y heavy was slower to roll than expected and I instructed Aircraft X to go-around; climb and maintain 3000; and turn right heading 140 degrees. I waited for a response and did not receive one. The ceilings and visibility were very low. Aircraft X broke out of the clouds right over the approach end and continued to touchdown on the runway. Aircraft Y heavy was more than 6000 feet down the runway but the aircraft wheels were not all the way off the pavement.What led to the event was Aircraft Y heavy taking longer than normal to roll and Aircraft X not following instructions to go-around.




Synopsis: MSP Tower Controller reported a runway incursion which reporter attributed to a late rolling heavy jet departure and an arrival.
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Good VFR weather and Forecast for destination; enroute; and return.  Morning flight to destination was uneventful.  Afternoon return flight at 6;500 feet; and 80 NM to destination an overcast layer developed.  Obtained weather reports which indicated ceilings of 2;500 feet tapering to 900 feet at destination (forecast for improvement).  Overcast conditions about 2;000 feet thick.  Since it would be getting dark by the time I got to the destination; I elected to stay on top. Temperature at 6;500 feet was 45F (although I was flying North and knew it would decrease); surface temperatures around freezing. Obtained IFR clearance and completed ILS approach.  Entered tops at 4;500 feet MSL and broke out at 2;800 feet MSL (1;400 foot ceiling).  As soon as I entered the clouds the temperature dropped to freezing.  Picked up about 1/8 inch of ice on the horizontal stabilizer; with less on the main wing.  Windshield was warm enough and didn't have any ice.Best option would have been to land and stay overnight--while this is always a hassle; COVID pandemic has made this even less appealing.  Flying underneath a deteriorating ceiling; I believe would have been a bad option; especially at night.  The weather and temperatures of the upper Midwest limit the use of an airplane without deicing equipment for six months of the year.  Anything other than local flights; always plan an option for a rental car; or overnight stays; and utilize those options.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported that; due to deteriorating weather; an overnight at a location other than the destination would have been a better idea than continuing the flight. But the COVID pandemic made the intermediate stop unappealing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the seventh landing of the day a gust of wind pushed the plane to the left side of the runway and was unable to regain control resulting in the plane ground looping.




Synopsis: An Aeronca Champ Instructor reported a wind gust pushed the aircraft toward the Runway's left side causing the aircraft to ground loop.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; as power reduced from TO thrust to climb thrust; there was a loud bang and shudder through the aircraft. EICAS revealed ENG FAILURE 2 and GEN DISC 2. We coordinated with Tower and Radar for a straight out departure and a climb to dump fuel. We secured the #2 engine as per the QRH ENGINE SEVERE DAMAGE checklist. We were cleared to FL140 and vectored for a 50 minute 200K# fuel dump. We communicated with [Company] flight control; the B744 [Chief Pilot] on duty; who concurred that our fuel dump and return to [departure airport] was the right decision. We [advised ATC]; requested CFR and landed uneventfully. We debriefed with a [company] manager and two representatives from the Department of Civil Aviation who cleared us to go. An event report was submitted by the flight crew.




Synopsis: B747-400 Captain reported returning to the departure airport when they experienced an engine failure shortly after takeoff.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 52F.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZFW
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I departed 52F from runway 35 for a straight out VFR climb enroute to ZZZ for pattern work. After departure; and during the initial climb; I visually observed a powered parachute maneuvering at approximately 1;200 feet MSL on the extended straight out departure path from 52F.  I then observed a second powered parachute operating at my current altitude of 1;500 feet MSL directly in my flight path (altitudes later crosschecked from my ForeFlight flight path replay). Since the second powered parachute was head-on I did not see him until the last minute.  I was forced to make an abrupt maneuver to the left (west) to avoid a midair collision.  I have since learned from other pilots based at 52F that this is a frequent occurrence in all areas around 52F; and at times powered parachutes have operated within the lateral and vertical traffic pattern boundaries of 52F; which seems to be contrary to 14 CFR part 103.13(a) and (b).  In addition; this type of operation is prohibited at 52F per the remarks section of the A/FD.  These types of operations are less regulated than drones and drone operators.  I am concerned that if allowed to continue without some type of mitigation or FAA intervention that it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. I would suggest either requiring some kind of formal training/testing/checking for powered parachutes or prohibiting these operations under (not just within) the all Class B airspace.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a NMAC with a powered parachute at 52F airport. Reportedly; this is a common occurrence around this airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Local Control. I had crossed 3 aircraft at an intersecting taxiway; expecting Ground Control to move them along quickly. For some reason; all three lingered on the taxiway for quite a while. I was trying to depart 2 aircraft from the full length of the runway; however the last of the 3 previously crossed aircraft appeared to be close to the runway on the Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE); so I put Aircraft X in position so I could roll him as soon as the traffic moved. It seemed to be taking longer than usual for the Ground Controller to get the traffic on the taxiway moving; so I went over and asked the Ground Controller if they could at least ask the aircraft to move up as close as possible to each other so I could depart. He did; and the third aircraft that I had been worried about moved up and appeared to be well clear on the ASDE (couldn't quite tell out the window because it was dark; so I was relying on the ASDE). I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff; to which he responded that he didn't think the aircraft was clear of the runway. I told him the aircraft appeared to be clear on the ASDE and to let me know when he thought the aircraft had moved far enough away from the runway to depart. I apparently did not say 'cancel takeoff clearance'; however Aircraft X did not start rolling until after he told me the plane was clear enough for him to depart and I re-cleared him for takeoff.Maybe some sort of mark on the ASDE so you know a plane is fully clear of the runway when you can't quite see out the windows. The aircraft that I'd crossed that was supposedly in the way appeared to be at least 1 cm away from the runway on the ASDE when I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff; it's not like the plane was right on the line of light gray/dark gray where the runway meets the taxiway. There was quite a bit of space between the aircraft icon and the runway; so to me; it appeared there was plenty of space for the two to pass.




Synopsis: The Local Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff. The crew of the aircraft told the Controller they would wait because it appeared a taxiing aircraft had not cleared the runway. The Controller's ASDE-X (Ground Radar) indicated the taxiing aircraft was clear of the runway.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The flight proceeded normally; the entire route was with light to moderate turbulence; our flight level was 360; and this level like all had reported light turbulence. Approximately 100 NM before PSX the turbulence increased to moderate. Turbulence levels were requested below; and we asked to descend to FL300.  Center reported that at this level there was occasional light turbulence. We noticed very light icing in the windshield wipers; and turned engine anti-ice on. Minutes later the icing increased and we asked to descend to a lower level. However the frequency was saturated and seconds later we felt vibration accompanied by Engine 1 Vibration of 4.0. The conditions were reported and we requested descent immediately flight to FL260. Severe icing level was encountered during this time and the Engine 2 Vibration reached 4.0. We performed the non-normal checklist as both motors presented icing and vibration which reached levels of 5.0 for no more than 5 seconds. This was during the descent to FL260; then both engines returned to normal vibration values. After our report we heard that several aircraft in the same sector reported severe icing conditions at the same altitudes; and some airplanes reported the same conditions in the Gulf of Mexico area.I want to say that during the preparation for our flight we did not receive information about the icing along of our route by Dispatch. They did not have reports of icing in the area; though our Jeppesen application also had information about icing conditions. The rest of the flight was carried out without a hitch.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported severe icing in cruise in the vicinity of IAH.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was the second trip for me in our new 2000 Easy LX. I have 2;000 hours in the 2000 Classic but the LX has a totally different avionics package and 2;000 LBS more thrust. You can not engage the Flight Director; autopilot; and autothrottles until reaching 400 FT. We departed RW 24 flying the TEB RUUDY 4 departure. At 400 FT I pulled the power levers back and had the Co-Captain engage the 'automation'. For some reason the autopilot and autothrottles did not engage and before I realized it we were close to being 300 FT high at WENTZ. I got the altitude back to 1;500 FT just as we were at crossing WENTZ and then saw the airspeed was at 280 KTS. I pulled the power back; way back; and then got everything back under control. Contributing factors were: Low time in a new airplane; not totally familiar with new avionics package; and not used to having to pull the power levers back so far to accomplish the same speed adjustments as our old airplane.




Synopsis: A DA2000 EASy EX autopilot failed to capture 1;500 FT on the TEB Runway 24 RUUDY 4. Because of unfamiliarity with the aircraft the Captain leveled high; then recovered to 1;500 FT; but exceeded 280 KTS because of increased engine power.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Aero Commander 500 Series
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleveland was on a north flow. An AC50 was 15 miles southwest of the Tower talking to RADAR. RADAR pointed the AC50 out to the Tower requesting to descend into BKL on a Visual Approach. I accepted the point out. When CTL was about 4 miles southwest of Cleveland; I had the AC50 in sight and I cleared a B737 for take off on runway headed. The B737 had a release time that I was trying to meet. It was my intention that the B737 would be airborne well in front of the AC50. The B737 did not begin takeoff roll as quickly as I anticipated. When the B737 rotated I realized that the aircraft was not ahead of the AC50. I turned the B737 northbound to 035 heading but the AC50 also turned northbound in the Visual Approach. I stopped the B737's altitude at 3;000 FT and turned the aircraft farther north to a 360 heading. Once the two aircraft were no longer in conflict; I shipped the B737 to departure. I had both aircraft in sight at all times and I was talking to the B737 until the necessary RADAR separation was achieved. The incident was a poor judgment call that resulted in unsafe proximity. In the future; I will not attempt to beat an airborne aircraft with one that is still on the ground and I will take into account that the pilot will start takeoff roll at their discretion.




Synopsis: CLE Controller described a potential conflict event when he/she departed an air carrier trying to get ahead of airborne traffic landing at an adjacent airport.
Date: 202110
Flight conditions: VMC
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I know the FAA monitors these reports. Hopefully; this is the correct forum to report this issue.People making cute sounds; joking; taunting; and spouting political views on Guard frequency [121.5] are compromising safety. The constant chatter is extremely distracting during normal flight duties and causes some to not monitor the frequency any more.On date; I flew three legs between Florida and northern State. Guard frequency was jammed with non-sense comments and retorts. It was so bad; my FO [First Officer] stopped monitoring the frequency. During that time; our primary ATC frequency was busy; so the controller forgot to send us to the next sector. Luckily; I was still listening because ATC gave us the correct frequency on Guard.The constant chatter on Guard seems much more pronounced east of the Mississippi; but It is still heard across the continent.




Synopsis: Pilot reported people are making cute sounds; joking; taunting; and spouting political views on Guard frequency compromising safety.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
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; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We requested push from [the gate] in ZZZ and were told we were cleared to push by Ramp [Control]; expect XXC. We completed the before start checklist 'below the line' and told the ground crew we were ready to push. We pushed back around XA59Z and a few minutes into the push the ground crew slammed on the brakes; stopped the push; and told us Aircraft Y had taxied behind us very closely. I do not know what instructions the Ramp Controller gave them.Either the Ramp Controller was not paying attention when issuing the clearance to either my aircraft or Aircraft Y taxi clearance or the pilot misunderstood their clearance to taxi from the hard stand to the gate.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported a ground conflict with another aircraft on the ramp during pushback.