elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Tower, NJ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS RWY 19 approach by NY TRACON (MUGZY). He was changed to my frequency (TEB Tower; 119.5). Upon initial contact; the Collision Alert alarm alerted me of a VFR target approximately 2 miles south of Aircraft X's position; transitioning in block of airspace that cuts directly through the final for the ILS to Rwy 19. Traffic was issued to the only aircraft I had on frequency (Aircraft X) and he was instructed to 'descend if necessary' to avoid a collision. Aircraft X picked up the traffic at approximately one half mile of horizontal separation with only 100 feet of vertical separation. Aircraft X was instructed to descend immediately to avoid traffic. At the same time; the unidentified VFR target (later identified as Aircraft Y by the Aircraft X pilot) also began to descend; putting both aircraft at the same altitudes as targets merged at 6 mile final for runway 19. Aircraft X passed behind Aircraft Y and landed without incident. Aircraft Y later picked up flight following with N90 (HAARP/LGA sector) and his tailnumber was identified as Aircraft Y. As the pilot technically didn't violate any airspace; his tailnumber and type were only recorded for the purpose of this safety report.The airspace to the north of Teterboro is an uncontrolled VFR corridor that allows aircraft and helicopters to transition 5 miles north of the airport without any radio communication with Teterboro Tower or NY Tracon (N90). This incident is one of many that clearly illustrate the need for that airspace to be controlled by either facility; as it is a busy transition area for aircraft and helicopters enroute to the Hudson River. Teterboro very easily could be granted a radar assist position and given the airspace to the north of the airport to properly control the VFR traffic altitudes as it passes through the final approach course for runway 19. Continuing to let this area of airspace be uncontrolled is dangerous.




Synopsis: TEB Tower Controller reported of a NMAC between an aircraft under ATC control and a VFR aircraft. Reporter stated this is in the vicinity of an uncontrolled VFR corridor and is a very busy transition area. Reporter would like someone to control this area to help avoid conflicts.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Engine
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On downwind approach; ATC said they would call my base turn. As I extended ATC started another aircraft on approach to the opposite runway. I was told to do a left 360. During the turn I heard notify when established (I thought base turn). When I communicated with ATC I was told they meant downwind; then they cleared me to land [on the] runway. Then I heard ATC tell [another] aircraft cleared to land opposite direction. At this point I called ATC and said I am not comfortable with situation and will depart west. As I applied throttle engine performance dropped and I could not maintain altitude. I announced I had engine trouble and needed to land immediately. I tried to go right downwind and had to make [a] short approach and safely landed. The Tower asked for a phone call.




Synopsis: A General Aviation pilot reported they initiated a go around due to opposite direction landing traffic but then had engine trouble and made an immediate landing.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: SFO FMS visual 28R.  ATC asked that we slow down and maintain visual with a heavy aircraft on 28L.  Our aircraft and the 777 are paired up for the approach.  The winds were approximately 250/10 kts; a quartering headwind.  Below 1;000 feet; I started to encounter the wake vortices's from the 777.  I decided to adjust my approach angle and fly a dot high to avoid these vortices's.  That helped.  I continued the approach relying on the VASI for guidance.  To land in the touchdown zone; my descent rate felt higher than normal and may have exceeded 1;200 FPM.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported an unstabilized approach resulted from a higher than normal approach in an effort to avoid wake turbulence.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In preparation for landing began to perform the before landing checklist. Fuel pump and Ignition was turned to manual per the checklist. Copilot made all radio calls. Entered a left downwind at approximately 1;600 feet - lowered gear at approximately 155 kts. in the downwind and put in the 1st notch of flaps. Started my base at approximately 6 miles from the airport and put in second notch of flaps at approximately 106-108 kts. Approach angle was good and speed was good. Turbulence was negligible and winds were light. Brought the plane down on centerline; pulled the power to idle and flared at the numbers. Touched down the mains approximately couple hundred feet past that point. The plane was centered and everything appeared to be functioning properly.Once the nosewheel touched down the plane made an immediate hard right turn and headed off the runway. At that point I took corrective action and began to apply left rudder to steer the plane back to the centerline. Nose wheel steering was unresponsive. At that point I applied more left rudder to try and keep the plane from exiting the runway. The plane exited the runway into the grass. The plane began to slow rapidly - after approximately 100-200 feet the nose wheel collapsed and the plane came to an immediate stop.During landing the nose wheel steering did not respond to pilot inputs. According to the airport supervisor's inspection of tire markings on the runway once the nose wheel touched down it immediately pointed the aircraft into a right turn and never changed course. I believe that this was a mechanical failure of the nose wheel steering in the Piper M600.




Synopsis: Piper M600 pilot reported loss of directional control after landing due to the apparent failure of the nose wheel steering.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On vectors to the RNAV approach; Controller gave us direct the initial waypoint as a base leg; [and] then before we got to it he turned us inside of it. The non flying pilot accidentally put the initial approach waypoint over top of final approach waypoint; thereby removing it from the approach. I saw this; he said he was going to fix it but he did not have time to put it back in between ATC calls and configuring aircraft to land and turbulence. Inside of initial waypoint we descended to 2;200 FT MSL; waited for the vertical path indicator (VPI) to come down. Aircraft was in LNAV/VNAV autopilot ON; set minimums 1;100 FT MSL in MCP panel. VPI started to come down aircraft followed VPI we saw it was going below the VASI disconnected autopilot started climb. About same time Tower gave us a low altitude alert. Climbed up intercepted the VASI continued visually. About 300-500 FT AGL experienced windshear; did a go-around. Came back around [and] landed. Way to prevent this: Better CRM; confirm all FMC changes before executing change. Also for ATC not to give a direct when on vectors so close to the fix and or then turn you inside of it. ATC could have just as easily could have given us a vector instead of the direct; it would have decreased are work load and minimized FMC changes.




Synopsis: A B747-400 was vectored inside a RNAV initial approach waypoint which the non-flying pilot then put on top the final approach waypoint thus removing it from the approach. At the same time the autopilot VNAV started a descent which generated an ATC low altitude alert followed by a windshear escape maneuver.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Weather
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Upon check on of Aircraft X; the pilot said that he did not have weather RADAR on board and that any vectors would be appreciated. I explained the area of precipitation to him at his 12 o'clock and that it was indicating moderate to heavy precipitation. Pilot acknowledged and asked if I had any recommendations; which I stated that I haven't had anybody in his area but I was worried about weather around Greensboro which I issued a new route to help avoid. When the aircraft was within 5 miles of the issued ban of weather; my NEXRAD updated to indicate an extreme precipitation area on the western side of previously issued cell; and I told Aircraft X to fly a heading of 360 to avoid. Pilot said that he immediately encountered and updraft of 300 feet. I released altitude to his discretion as it was available. Upon exit of cell; pilot said he encountered severe turbulence; +300 feet and +/- 20kts. An urgent PIREP was filed. I know it's impossible at this stage; but a continuously updating weather RADAR would be extremely beneficial in this situation and many others where we need to provide service to airplanes without weather RADAR on board. Until that happens; I will vector these airplanes into areas of no depicted precipitation in order to avoid the previous situation.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described a severe weather encounter and unsafe situation by a General Aviation aircraft being vectored. The reporter indicated that improved weather information for ATC is critical.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Dangerous goods stacked on top of dangerous goods; causing cardboard boxes to be pressed down and go out of shape. Dangerous goods stacked on top of dangerous goods should be avoided; if there is a possibility of goods can press underlying boxes to be pressed out of shape and causing holes. Build-up and loading personnel not paying proper attention to correct dangerous goods build-up procedures.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported Dangerous Goods incorrectly loaded/stacked resulting in container damage en route.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing at ZZZ; taxi into Gate XX (using SafeDock with GO at the switch) progressed normally to a stop. Using normal Captain's flow; I checked accumulator pressure; set the parking brake (I don't recall if I saw hydraulic pressure on the triple indicator); turned OFF the seat belt sign and switched Engine Master 2 to OFF. The First Officer noted 'I think we're moving; we're moving!'. At this time I noticed movement as well and applied immediate braking to the rudder pedals and stopped the aircraft. We maintained pressure on the rudder pedals to keep the aircraft from moving. I verified that the parking brake handle was ON; but there was no accumulator pressure or Parking Brake memo. I cycled the parking brake handle three times with no change. I coordinated with Maintenance Control and Ground Operations. This is when I learned that the #1 engine pylon had struck the bottom of the jet bridge. GO (Ground Operations) chocked the nose wheels. I started the APU; turned the Yellow Hydraulic Pump ON (to assure hydraulic pressure) and then shut down Engine #1. After engine shut down; we noted the Parking Brake memo was now present and with with pressure showing on the accumulator; we turned off the Yellow Electric Pump. This made me doubt my belief that I saw Yellow Accumulator pressure when I did my flow before setting the Parking Brake. We went outside to see any aircraft damage and noted a dent on the top of the #1 Engine pylon where it contacted the jet bridge. I made two write-ups in the logbook for parking brake failure and damage to the pylon.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a parking brake failure when taxiing into the gate. The aircraft rolled forward under thrust and the left engine impacted the jet bridge.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EKO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed VFR off EKO Airport and requested an IFR clearance. I was busy with bad rides; complex military holding; frequency congestion and gave the clearance to climb to 12;000 FT which was above the MIA aircraft at the time. About 5 minutes later; the MSAW alerted me to a 12;600 FT MIA polygon and I climbed the aircraft to 13;000 FT. The aircraft read back the clearance and climbed without incident. The aircraft had entered the 12;600 FT polygon before I gave the clearance to climb. A more thorough scan of my MIA polygons when I pulled them up to check for the clearance; would have alerted me to the problem.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller described a probable MIA infraction involving an EKO VFR departure requesting IFR. The reporter acknowledged that a more thorough scan of the MIA minimums on his part may have prevented the event.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PTPN.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: We made a visual approach to Runway 27 in good VFR conditions backed up by a 5 mile extension from Runway 27 in the database and a 3 degree path. The 600 feet runway extension at PTPN has been completed for months and the touchdown zone markings are properly painted on the runway approximately 1;000 feet from the threshold of Runway 27. The Runway 27 PAPI is still located at the original position which is now approximately 1;600 feet from the new threshold. The aircraft database appears to coincide with the Runway 27 PAPI with a 3 degree path intersecting the runway approximately 1;600 feet from the threshold. [Chart website] has an info page for PTPN stating that the longest runway is 6;600 feet. The Jan. 2013 [chart] still shows runway length to be 6;001 feet. The Mar. 2012 [chart] still has construction notes stating that the extension is not usable including the turnaround.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported that the PTPN Runway is now 6;600 feet long but all current airport charts indicate it is 6;001 feet.
Date: 201602
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 80 knots 'hot brakes' with associated master caution illuminated. I rejected the takeoff at approximately 85 knots. After clearing the runway we accomplished the rejected takeoff checklist and associated hot brakes checklist. We contacted Dispatch and talked to local maintenance on the radio. We described the situation on the radio; told them the peak brake temp and our location; holding in the pad by the runway. They told us no inspection was required unless the temp exceeded 900.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff at approximately 85 kts when he received a master caution for hot brakes.