elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Local; Supervisor / CIC
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Staffing; Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X called from the northeast inbound and was instructed to enter left base Runway 16L. Aircraft X read back the entry and runway correctly. Aircraft X entered the left downwind for Runway 16L and was then cleared to land Runway 16L. Aircraft X was a traffic conflict for a departure and was told to turn northbound into the downwind for that traffic. Aircraft X did not respond and was just told turn northbound. Aircraft X responded turning northbound and was again cleared to land Runway 16L and read back the clearance correctly. Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff Runway 16L. Meanwhile; an aircraft on ground was calling for taxiing which was on speaker over the local frequency. I responded to the ground aircraft. While talking on the Ground frequency; Aircraft Y exited the runway on his own. When asked reason for the abort; Aircraft Y stated; it was for an aircraft landing on the opposite runway. At that time Aircraft X was on short final for Runway 34R and landed. I was working Local; Ground and Controller in Charge all combined. There were only 3 controllers after XA:00 pm on a busy VFR day and no one was on break. We combined the positions. While the pilot turned the wrong direction on the downwind; I was working Ground frequency and did not see the error in time.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller working Local Control; Ground Control and Controller in Charge combined positions cleared an aircraft for takeoff but did not notice an aircraft landing opposite direction to their assigned runway.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This is no violation but a concern on the TCAS MEL. A while back; I was on final approach in LGA and had an aircraft with the TCAS MEL'd. At about 1;000 feet the Controller told us to level off immediately and look for traffic. We didn't see any traffic because we were IMC. Once we landed; the Tower Controller asked if we got a N number on the traffic. Both my copilot and I were wishing that we had TCAS operating and not MEL'd. Last week we were getting ready to takeoff. Again I had the TCAS MEL on this aircraft. Thank goodness we were given a ground stop. It was later discovered that our destination airport TRACON had smoke or fire in there building and they had to evacuate. This got me thinking that if we took off and were airborne; I could have been in the same boat with NO ATC; NO RADAR; and NO TCAS; and potentially in IMC conditions. Then just a couple days ago on the news I hear 2 757's coming out of ZZZ1 were both assigned same altitude and got TCAS warnings. I'll bet the crews and passengers were happy that the TCAS was not MEL'd. So with that in mind the TCAS MEL is currently a CAT B 3 days or 72 hours. I feel this is way to long and has a serious effect on safety. I'm wondering how many other crews that have the TCAS MEL are getting situations were they wish they had a working TCAS. I'm hoping that the FAA can take another look at the TCAS MEL and review its CAT B status.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain describes an IMC airborne conflict with an unknown; unseen aircraft on approach to LGA. The reporter believes the 72 hours CAT B repair allowance is too long without an operable TCAS.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CO12.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: CTAF CO12
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure from CO12 and initial climb; Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) on number 1 engine went to the redline and oil pressure increased rapidly. The floor of the Class B is 6;000 feet in this area. Due to divided attention troubleshooting the problem; the aircraft momentarily climbed to 6;400 feet. This was corrected within a few seconds and I descended the aircraft below 6;000 feet. The low floor in the sector places the aircraft 800 feet AGL. In addition; a section of the class B is cut out; but not aligned with CO12. This makes landing on Runway 12 too tight due to the base to final turn. In the event of an issue such as the engine issue I experienced; it places the aircraft in an uncomfortably low altitude to deal with inflight emergencies. The airspace cutout around CO12 should be reviewed and aligned with the airport traffic pattern.




Synopsis: Light twin pilot experiences high Cylinder Head Temperature (CHT) and high oil pressure on departure from CO12 and enters Class B airspace inadvertently while trouble shooting. He believes the DEN Class B should be redesigned to accommodate pilots of light twins operating from CO12.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
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: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During final approach to ILS PRM 10C in ORD; constant taxi instructions were being given to preceding aircraft upon landing. The monitor frequency is supposed to be a SAFETY FREQUENCY for transgressions or proximity of aircraft; not a supplementary taxi frequency because the south tower is short staffed and the Monitor is the ad hoc taxi controller.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported Tower was giving taxi instructions on the PRM Monitor frequency.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On taxi out from Spot 80; Ground gave taxi instructions 'taxi to Runway 30 via Z; Y11.' However at that same time [a company] aircraft was exiting the runway head on with us at taxi way delta. I was not sure what directions they were given by Tower because they were on a different frequency. They had the taxi light on and directed at us so I gave pause looking to give way to the head on traffic. At the same time a third RJ was south bound on Y with his taxi light on. I gave pause to watch the situation and keep from getting stuck head to head with no way out.  When the other aircraft signaled by turning off its taxi light we proceeded with a south turn on 'Y' and I knew I had passed 'Z.' Factors and recommendations.1. An XA:15 report east coast time; with a non Part 117 legal rest period. 2. Change [in departure concourse] caused my eyes to want to look at spot 82 vs. 80 due to the fact we parked at a different location.3. The RJ that exited the runway facing us at D had taxi lights on; [which was a] 'distraction;' I was expecting him to move toward us and the RJ on Y turned off his taxi lights to signal he was giving way. 4. The Airport Diagram has an E in the middle of Taxiway Z. [This] 'needs to be changed.'   5. On the Airport Diagram a dash line box [Comm. boundary] runs down the center of Taxiway 'Y.' It needs to be moved like it is on the east side of the airport so as not to run down a taxiway. 6. On the Airport Diagram add a Z south of D to indicate the taxiway.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports a taxiway incursion at IAD due to distractions and deficiencies in the Airport Diagram.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 337 Super Skymaster
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff the Tower cleared me on course. I immediately had a loss of power in the rear engine; busy negotiating with ATC for an immediate return to the airport. [I] landed safely.




Synopsis: C337 pilot experiences a loss of power in the rear engine shortly after takeoff and returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MTPP.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower MTPP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The FO was the flying pilot and I was pilot monitoring. Descent into MTPP was normal on the arrival for the RNAV approach. We briefed the approach and noted good weather conditions at MTPP. The approach was stable and on speed and the aircraft was fully configured at approximately 1400 feet MSL. There was only minor turbulence and shear typical of MTPP during periods east-southeast winds. The roundout and flare were at the proper height and on speed.At approximately 30 feet the aircraft experienced a strong downdraft and sank quickly despite the FO's attempts to arrest the descent. The aircraft touched down firmly; but not hard and bounced. I brought my hand from behind the throttles to block them from coming back or adding too much power and put my hand on the yoke to prevent any inadvertent additional pull by the FO (he did not pull back on the yoke). We touched down firmly and not excessively nose-high. In my judgment there was neither the time or the energy for a go-around; the event occurred incredibly quickly and we had little to no time to react. I brought the aircraft to taxi speed. We cleared the runway and taxied to the gate. Upon visual inspection it became obvious that a tail strike had occurred. We informed maintenance control and I made the relevant logbook entry.I believe the event occurred due to a strong and unexpected downdraft very close to the ground in the landing flare combined with the accompanying loss of energy and performance. Recommend possibly a change in procedure to carry extra airspeed at this particular airport on this particular runway as long as landing performance allows. Continued vigilance on wind shear close to the ground and/or tail strike avoidance.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a tail strike due to a strong downdraft during landing.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure there was an excessive amount of vibration from 110 KTS through cleanup. As we were climbing through 16;000 FT; Departure advised us that there was a significant amount of tire debris on our departure runway and suspected it was from us. All system indications were normal. I decided to continue to [destination]. We declared an emergency with Approach. Emergency equipment was requested. The QRH 'Landing on a Flat Tire' procedure was reviewed. Maintenance was consulted while airborne. Their advice was that it is acceptable to taxi the aircraft with a single damaged tire. At 5;000 FT on approach we began to have hydraulic system 'A' low pressure alerts. The Hydraulic Pump Low pressure QRH checklist was performed. Hydraulic system 'A' failed at 500 FT on approach. Landing was normal. The Loss of System 'A' QRH checklist was completed on the ground.As we slowly taxied; ARFF advised us that the right main inboard tire was damaged and flat. I elected to taxi to the gate. After parking; hydraulic system 'B' was low. Post flight inspection revealed damage to the inboard underside of the right wing; a tire scuff mark on the fuselage and damage to the right horizontal stabilizer. The QRH 'Loss of System A' procedure is not clear. I had read the 'After Landing' note in 'Deferred Items' as pertaining to a manual gear extension only. Since we did not manually extend the gear; I did not think that this note applied to us.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported they were advised by ATC that a main gear tire failed on takeoff. They continued to destination and; during the approach; the 'A' hydraulic system failed.
Date: 201702
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were planning a Flaps 5; Bleeds On; and Reduced Power take-off at [an] intersection. As we approached [the intersection]; Tower told us to proceed down to the end for a full length departure. I elected to keep the same take-off performance data for the shorter intersection departure as we were number one to go. We were cleared into position and given take-off clearance shortly after. The initial take-off roll was normal. As the pilot monitoring; I called 100 kts. and scanned the gauges for any abnormalities. As my eyes came back to check our speed I heard and felt a dull thump and the aircraft began to shake and vibrate very heavily. I estimated our speed to be about 120 kts. Our V1 speed was calculated at 153 kts. The vibrations and shaking were getting worse so I announced 'reject' and initiated the Rejected Takeoff (RTO) procedure because I felt that the aircraft would be unsafe to fly. The First Officer told the tower we were rejecting and requested emergency assistance. We came to a stop and ran the RTO checklist. We confirmed that there was no fire outside the aircraft and that there was no smoke or fumes in the cabin so I elected to keep everybody on board. There were no injuries or medical emergencies. It was impossible to taxi the aircraft due to failure of both left main tires. All passengers and crew deplaned via air stairs and put on buses back to the terminal.


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


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported rejecting takeoff at approximately 120 kts after experiencing heavy vibrations related to tire failure.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower FLL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After landing at night in FLL in VMC conditions on Runway 28L; we cleared the runway at J5 and then we contacted ground control. We were issued taxi instructions to the ramp for Terminal via taxiway J; Q; S and B. The FO (First Officer) read back the instructions to the Controller and I repeated back the instructions to the FO. While on taxiway S; we encountered a fast moving B737 traveling east on taxiway C; approaching S. Both of us stopped abruptly; avoiding an accident. Upon questioning ATC; we discovered neither ourselves; nor [the other aircraft] were in error. ATC had issued taxi instructions to both of us; not indicating either of us to hold short for the other. The event ended safely without incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported making an abrupt stop to avoid a ground collision with another B737 while taxiing.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Premier 1
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working two satellite positions combined due to low volume caused by adverse weather in the area. Aircraft X was inbound to ZZZ from the east through my sector. I vectored Aircraft X for his descent and assigned lower altitudes commensurate with the high terrain MVA's northeast of ZZZ. I also pointed the aircraft out to the departure sectors so I could work the aircraft into their areas. As I was doing this for Aircraft X; I was also releasing and vectoring two IFR departures from ZZZ1; one arriving at ZZZ2; and the other arriving at ZZZ3. All three of these aircraft required extra coordination with other positions; especially the ZZZ4 arrival for which I needed to coordinate with the Arrival Coordinator Position and then vector for in-trail spacing behind an air carrier. The YYY arrival needed precise vectoring through a narrow channel of airspace over ZZZ4 to get to the next sector; this required a lot of focus to not encroach the finals airspace. I was also getting an updated visibility report from the ZZZ Controller to ensure that Aircraft X would be able to execute a visual approach from the east. It was during this time that I assigned Aircraft X 6;300 FT and didn't hear his read back of 6;000 FT. When I noticed his altitude reaching 6;000 FT he was well clear of the terrain and depicted obstruction but inside the 6;300 FT MVA. Based on my knowledge of the area as a pilot; the aircraft was never in danger and was well clear of the obstruction. I simply missed a read back doing something I rarely do which is assigning an unusual altitude based on an MVA. Due to the rain and clouds in the area; I felt the need to get the pilot below the weather to help him find the airport. I would recommend that Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs) use altitude assignments of thousands of feet and refrain from assigning an unusual altitude based on an MVA unless absolutely necessary. This will reduce the chance of a pilot reading back an altitude incorrectly and the CPCs chance of missing it.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a below MVA event when missing an incorrect read back by the pilot; the Controller suggesting his issuance of 6;300 FT was the confusing factor.