elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LVJ.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Sunset haze; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E LVJ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM LVJ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I failed to assess the active runway and landed on the opposite runway. Two other aircraft were in the pattern conducting touch and goes. My actions caused unsafe aircraft operations. I departed when wind conditions were favorable for Runway 32. I flew to to practice navigation and landings. Upon my return I defaulted to Runway 32 although wind conditions were calm and Runway 14 was active. I did not confirm with other pilots the active runway. I also did not over fly the airport to assess aircraft movement. I proceeded to land Runway 32 watching out for other aircraft. I clearly made all the call in the traffic pattern and made one final call while I was on short final. No incident occurred. My assumption is the other two pilots took corrective action to allow for my landing. I learned the dangers that light variable evening winds can have on runway activity. My primary learning experience is that I will always perform airport fly overs at 500 feet above pattern altitude to observe airport operation prior to selecting a landing runway.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported they landed on the opposite runway than what was in use at a non towered airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi to our parking location. Upon turning from a westbound direction on taxiway F to the ramp; a Eurocopter AS350 helicopter flew approximately 20 feet over us (was flying westbound parallel to taxiway F) with no warning from the Ground Controller. Our airplane was blasted with intense rotor wash and we were very surprised when it flew right over us so we stopped abruptly.Upon parking; I went to talk to the pilot of the Eurocopter and he was surprised that ATC had not notified us or told us to give way to the helicopter (or vice versa). Generally; this is the procedure for helicopters landing at this particular location (usually one will give way to the other to avoid rotor wash or any operations being too close to one another).




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported experiencing 'intense' rotor wash from a helicopter flying directly overhead during taxi to parking.
Date: 201308
Location: LUF.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other Part 141
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E LUF
ATC / advisory: TRACON LUF
Second aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On VFR flight plan with student to GBN; talking to Luke Approach on 125.45 (com 1) Flight Service (com 2). On western heading at altitude of 4;500. Luke Approach informed us of possible traffic conflict '12 o'clock; 1 mile; 4;500; eastbound.' At that point IP took controls from student; reduced throttle and turned to right (north). Aircraft Y was observed passing overhead less than 300 feet. Aircraft Y was not communicating with Luke and on an east heading with an altitude of 4;500.




Synopsis: Near LUF; a PA-28 instructor pilot took evasive action from an aircraft which passed less than 300 feet overhead after Approach Control reported possible 4;500 feet traffic with which it was not communicating.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a STAR into ZZZ; both pilots noticed strong burning smell in the cockpit. First indication of smell went away and returned approximately a minute later and much stronger. The smell was distinct. No abnormal indications or messages were presented on the MFD or EICAS. Pilots conferred with Flight Attendant who did not smell any fumes or see smoke. Fearing the smell could worsen and result in large volumes of smoke; both pilots donned oxygen masks and smoke goggles and [requested priority handling] with New York Center. Considered a diversion to ZZZ1 or ZZZ2 but weather at both were not good and decided ZZZ was the best suitable airport with the information we had. We felt the safest course of action was to don masks and goggles and [advise ATC]. We were certain the odor was a burning smell and were considered of the possibility of smoke. We were also concerned the smell could cause us to become ill. We felt it was safest to have 100% oxygen.The source of the odor may be difficult to trace. We had no abnormal indications. No EICAS messages or warnings. The airplane was operation normal with the packs and bleeds set in a normal configuration as well.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported that a strong burning odor during flight caused a precautionary landing.
Date: 201808
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight came in with a used aircraft part; which is identified as being hazardous. There wasn't any paperwork to indicate that it was hazardous. The appropriate personnel to handle such materials are not available [at originating airport] and a number of other stations around the [Company] network. Where needed; management should and must make available the personnel to process such materials and attach the appropriate paperwork with it.




Synopsis: Lead Crew Chief reported HAZMAT transported without required HAZMAT documents.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pushback and engine start were uneventful; the ground crew had returned to the gate and we had completed the Before Taxi Checklist as normal. When we started to taxi; we got an amber 'ENG CONTROL' light on the overhead panel. About 10 seconds later; as the First Officer was reviewing the QRH; a Flight Attendant started hitting the Pilot call button continuously. I stopped what I was doing and answered the call. He said the number one engine was on fire and there were 3-7 foot flames coming out the back of the engine. Although we had no indication of a fire in the cockpit I reached down to shut the engine off and motor it; but it had already auto shut down itself. We had no indications of high EGT. I asked Ground Control to send fire equipment out to inspect the aircraft. The flight attendants then started pounding on the cockpit door nonstop and ringing our call button at the same time. I answered the intercom and he said we were still on fire so I pulled the fire handle and discharged one fire bottle. Ground stated later they saw flames around our engine as we taxied out. I advised the passengers that the fire with number one engine was under control; that the Fire Department was going to check us out before we returned to the gate and to remain seated and buckled up. We had no outside observers during this event. Our information came from the flight attendants and passengers only. We returned to the gate and swapped airplanes. Maintenance came out and looked the engine over. They stated it was some type of fuel leak and not a tail pipe fire since the engine had started and stabilized at idle for three-four minutes before we added power.




Synopsis: As they began their taxi from the gate the flight crew of a B737-700 received frantic alerts from the flight attendants of flames emanating from the exhaust of the left engine. Investigation determined the engine control light had illuminated and the engine had performed an auto shut down. Emergency equipment was dispatched and the flight returned to the gate.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Departing Oakland 4 SID from Runway 30 altitude restriction to not climb above 2;000 until past 4.0 miles on the SID missed during climb. This is depicted in an inset on the chart and not depicted as part of the takeoff path. Just keep in mind for next time advised by tower. It may be helpful if this was in the FMS database as a fix with an altitude as well as part of the depicted path instead of an inset. We usually catch this but obviously it is a potential missed item. Because we did.




Synopsis: Pilot reported missing the OAKLAND FOUR SID restriction due to published procedure design.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was cruising at up the shoreline at 500 ft. above the water; a US Coast Guard helicopter coming from the east with a west heading began to descend. As he was at a higher altitude; the high wing of the C-172 I was on did not allow me to spot him till he was descending and crossing into my path from my right side. Since we were on a close collision course I made a right turn descent to avoid. The Coast Guard helicopter also turned to its right side and then continued its heading and descent to the east until it reached the beaches. I kept flying north.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 Single Pilot reported an NMAC event during cruise over shoreline.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While preparing for our flight; I noticed that the two trash dumpsters between BWI Gate X and Y had doors and lids open; and there was trash/FOD on the ground around the trash dumpsters. This is an ongoing problem with ALL the dumpsters on the BWI ramp. These dumpsters are left open; allowed to overflow; and they are one of the sources of FOD on the BWI Ramp. I called for the BWI [manager]; spoke to him about the issue; he said he understood the issue; and I assumed he would rectify the problem (i.e. retrieve the FOD and secure the trash dumpsters before we started our engines). As we were pushing back; and the jetway was no longer blocking my view of the two trash dumpsters; I noticed that the doors and lids were still open; and the trash/FOD was still laying on the ground near the dumpsters. The [manager] had come and gone; and for whatever reason; did not fix the problem. As we pushed back and before we started our engines; I noticed that some of the FOD had blown out onto the taxiway. I asked the Ramp Agent to retrieve the FOD; and he did. We started our engines and proceeded to the runway. Why do we need to have trash dumpsters on our flight line? The people who dump their trash in the dumpsters are not responsible enough to close the doors/lids; and when the wind picks up; trash/FOD blows onto our flight line. I recommend moving the dumpsters away from the flight line to a secure area where trash/FOD will be contained. Until then; can the ZZZ Airport manage the trash/FOD situation better. Secure the dumpster doors/lids. Empty the dumpsters more often so they are not overflowing onto the flight line. This is an ongoing daily issue that never seems to be resolved. The FOD threat to our engines remains until we fix the problem. Even though the dumpsters are not our (Company) responsibility; if we see something wrong; we need to act appropriately. Ramp Agents; Ramp Supervisors; and [manager]'s need to close the doors/lids; pick up the trash/FOD; and report problems to the ZZZ Airport for resolution in order to minimize the threat of FOD to our engines.




Synopsis: Captain reported overflowing and uncovered trash dumpsters in the gate area; allowing FOD and debris to blow across ramp and taxiways.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing and short roll out aircraft began a turn toward the south edge of Runway XX at ZZZ. Winds were light 180/4. Aircraft was being flown by me as a contract pilot to owner to fly off 40 hour experimental initial operation.As I thought the track of the aircraft was to shortly leave the runway I applied brakes and the aircraft nosed over onto its nose. Prop contacted the runway and engine stopped. Damage to prop spinner; prop and cowling.No injury to pilot or personnel.




Synopsis: Carbon Cub pilot reported losing control on landing roll; which resulted in a nose over causing damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: U90.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C TUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON U90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Center cleared us Direct JOVIM direct TUS; ATIS reported to expect the visual app; cleared to cross JOVIM 14000 feet 280 knots. Just prior to JOVIM approach says expect RNAV GPS to 29R. Then tells us to turn to intercept final app course. I have no idea what he means we are now turning to go direct TUS as previously cleared. We ask what he means and approach repeats; 'turn to intercept final approach'. I had the approach loaded in the box but did not select JOVIM transition. I turned toward ATOGE. Told controller we needs a fix. Still not cleared for the approach or the visual. Approach says go to VEDTU which is after JOVIM. So reloaded the arrival got headed to VEDTU. Finally cleared for the approach landed uneventful. The whole event was nonstandard. Was late to slow below 10k due to total lack of understanding of the clearance.Event was due to nonstandard approach clearance 'turn to intercept final approach course' with no approach clearance given. If he wanted us to fly the RNAV GPS 29R he need to give us clearance before JOVIM or past JOVIM a vector to a fix on the approach.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported receiving an amended approach clearance with nonstandard confusing phraseology.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When exiting Runway 36R in CLT airport; on Romeo exit when turning left onto Charlie Taxiway (about a 135 degree left turn) at walking speed it felt like the left main brakes were dragging. Not wanting to hurt or damage the aircraft we stopped and called maintenance. When he plugged in he said the left main gear was slightly off the taxiway and on the frozen mud and to use enough power to power onto Taxiway Charlie. I applied enough power and the aircraft taxied onto the taxiway with no problems or damage to the aircraft. No taxi lights were run over.What would I do different next time so this does not happen again? If I exited onto Romeo I would turn left on Alfa (45 degree turn) left on Gulf (90 degree turn) right on Charlie (90 degree turn) instead of a 135 degree left turn onto Charlie or I would exit 36R at C9 (90 degree turn) with a (90 degree turn) onto Charlie. I have only been to CLT one other time and I landed 18L with a right turn at C4. I think that [wide body aircraft] exiting on Romeo should not try to make the 135 degree left turn onto Charlie because there is no fillet. I also think this should be added to the 10-10 page.


Second narrative: After landing on 36R at CLT we exited the runway on taxiway Romeo and were told to make another left onto Charlie taxiway and continue taxiing to the ramp and to remain/monitor on tower frequency. During the left turn off of Romeo onto Charlie taxiway; we noticed that the left main gear felt like it was not responding properly and that we might have an issue with a truck; brake or tire so the Captain immediately stopped the taxi. After a brief discussion we called Operations and had them send out the maintenance personnel to further assist and help to assess the situation. Upon arrival to the aircraft; maintenance informed us that the left landing gear was about 3 feet off of the taxiway and on frozen ground. He advised to try and continue forward and taxi back onto the pavement using a little extra power. This was successful and we then continued the taxi to the ramp with no further problems.


Synopsis: Wide body captain experienced a taxiway excursion while attempting to turn from taxiway R to Taxiway C (135 degrees) at CLT. The ground is frozen and the Captain is able to continue taxiing after being checked by Maintenance.