elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDPP.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MDPP
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Conditions at MDPP were VFR with SCT-BKN clouds along the approach path. I briefed the RNAV (GNSS) RWY 08 Approach. The Captain added to my briefing that in addition to being aware of the nuisance warning described in our airport information pages; that he had previously gotten a nuisance warning once established on final. I slowed and configured early; hoping to avoid GPWS callouts. On final; descending in VNAV path; about 180 KTS and flaps 15 we got a single 'Terrain-Terrain; Pull up' alert. Since we had briefed this and I could see the terrain; I continued the approach. It was interesting to me that the EGPWS gave no visual cautions at all.


Second narrative: My reaction was to level of the airplane; momentarily with vertical speed; as the First Officer was flying; and since the warning stopped; got him back on path with vertical speed and reengaged VNAV.


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew in VMC flying the Runway 08 RNAV [GNSS] approach to MDPP received a single EGPWS Terrain warning which they determined to be inappropriate. Their airport briefing page noted a history of such warnings.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On landing configuration when going from flaps 20 to flaps 25 received [a] Trailing Edge flaps disagree EICAS and amber Trailing edge discreet light ON. Performed a Go Around and kept speed below 165kias. performed Trailing Edge Flap disagree QRH and and received vectors back to [the runway]. Ensure priority handling [from ATC] then ran all appropriate checklists [for] landing. Crew switched from First Officer (FO) Pilot Flying (PF) to Captain Pilot Flying (PF) on downwind. On final approach when gear was extended EICAS reset with no faults. Taxied to gate with flaps extended for mechanical precaution. I am not sure of the mechanical nature that caused this event. I am assuming some sensor problem or computer error.


Second narrative: On Approach; we had been slowed to 170 Knots and Cleared for the ILS. We had been assigned 170 Knots until ZZZZZ Intersection. Configuration was Gear Up; Flaps 20; descending on the Glide Slope. About a half mile prior to ZZZZZ Intersection I called for Gear Down; and started to slow to Flaps 20 Bug of 160 Knots; once the gear was down I called for Flaps 25. Shortly after that we got a Trailing Edge Flap Disagree EICAS message with an associated Trailing Edge Discrete Light. We executed a Go Around; leaving the flaps in the extended position and remained slowed to 165 knots. The Flaps Handle was selected to Flaps 25; however the indicator showed the flaps just past the 20 Degrees. Staying at 165 Knots assured we would not over speed the flaps. Ran the QRH; and while on approach to [the runway] for the second approach; once the gear lowered again; the flaps moved to the original commanded position of Flaps 25. All Flap Message/Discrete lights extinguished. We landed; wrote up the event and debriefed with Maintenance.Received Trailing Edge Flap Disagree.This was a maintenance issue with the airplane. Felt like we were safe and complied with FOM and QRH and proceeded in the safest; most conservative way.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported a trailing edge flap disagree message that resulted in a go-around.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At the start of our flight there were thru passengers; one of which was a family of 4. Their small child was not wearing her mask correctly; so I ask that they use the child mask that the previous crew left for them. They were compliant and not a problem. During boarding; another family of 4 boarded with a child that had his own seat and was clearly not under 2. He had no mask at all; I told the Mom that he needed to have a mask on before boarding the plane. She said she told the Gate Agent that he was under 2. I let her board and called down the agent who said that even though he had a purchased seat there was no way other than to take her word for it. During the flight his sister came up and spoke to us about her vacation and told us that she had a baby brother who is 3. This being the same kid that was questioned. My problem with us not having a policy to check for birth dates is that it essentially creates a problem with compliance. How can I be expected to enforce the mask policy to the family that was honest about their child's age while the family that lies does not have to comply. If this was done when the ticket was purchased; then it makes it fair for everyone.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a child was not wearing a face mask on the flight and questioned how flight attendants could enforce a child to wear a mask.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Second reporter function: Single Pilot
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Observer; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My student was involved in an [incident] during the landing phases of flight. My student was the sole occupant of the aircraft at the time. The aircraft was a Cessna 152 in its flare for landing. The aircraft was making its second landing; to a full stop; after a local solo flight and completing one touch and go and a lap around the traffic pattern immediately before. The aircraft bounced several times before the nose gear collapsed beneath it and slid to a stop shortly after; resting on its nose with its tail in the air. This likely occurred due to incorrect actions being taken to correct for the effects of the initial bounce while attempting to land.  This could have been mitigated by executing a go-around after recognizing the significance of the 'balloon' after the first bounce and deciding to make another pass.


Second narrative: The last time I looked at my airspeed was approximately a mile away from the runway and it read 60 knots. It did seem like I was a little too high up when I got closer to the runway. When my main landing gear touched the runway; the plane bounced then bounced again on the main gear. Immediately after; the nose gear began hitting the pavement first; followed by the main gear. That happened approximately twice; making 4 bounces total. I initially had my left hand on the yoke and my right on the throttle; until the first bounce. After that; both of my hands remained on the yoke until the plane stopped moving. The plane came to rest essentially on its nose at an angle; while being supported by the left wingtip and the nose landing gear.


Synopsis: CFI reported that he observed his solo student failed to execute a go-around after a bounced landing resulting in the aircraft coming to a stop on a collapsed nose gear.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RUE.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Our aircraft is LPV approved so we decided to shoot the RNAV Runway 07 at RUE in VMC conditions to familiarize ourselves with the approach in the event we do need to shoot it IMC; as it's a small airport with much terrain around it. Glad we did. On final; around VGP intercept; our EGPWS gave us a 'Terrain; terrain; pull up' warning. As we were VMC (CLR; Visibility +10) we could see the terrain and were well clear and established on altitude and on course so we continued. We could see the mountain below us; which rises rapidly before dropping off rapidly. I assume that due to our airspeed (at 190 KIAS) the rapidly rising terrain set off the software. However; had we been IMC; we would have gone around. Due to the nature of the approach; we surmise that we would have again received the warning on subsequent approaches; which pretty much renders this approach useless. The airport operator mentions this has been a complaint of other aircraft; but the FAA flight check people say it's within limits. This approach as it is now has a potential to cause disorientation to pilots; and worse; make pilots think it's OK to continue an approach with an EGPWS caution/warning.




Synopsis: A BAe 125-800 flight crew flying the RNAV (GPS) Runway 7 approach to RUE in daylight VMC received an EGPWS terrain warning as they intercepted the VGP near NACBI. They believe the 1;800 FT range of hills as you approach NACBI at 2;800 MSL combined with a moderately high glide slope results in a closure rate that triggers the warning.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Tower, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: MEM RNAV SIDs were changed to a combination of Climb Via and Maintain clearances. This change not only increases our workload; it causes the workforce to have to decide which clearance to issue and for the pilots to be extra attentive in their actions. It is very easy to issue an incorrect clearance based on the aircraft anticipated vs actual departure runway or by changing the departure runway for user convenience or airport efficiency. This can cause confusion among controllers; as well as stakeholders during critical phases of flight; specifically take off and climb out. This change has caused; what I believe to be undue risk to the National Airspace System.The ELVIS SID was modified to reflect a magnetic variation change. This initial heading change was adjusted 2 degrees without any consideration for other procedures that are in effect in locally. Make all RNAV SIDs at MEM the same; Climb Via or Maintain. Change ELVIS departure back to the headings on the ELVIS3 departure procedure.




Synopsis: MEM Tower Supervisor reported problems associated with climb via and maintain clearances off of Memphis especially the ELVIS3 SID
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Fuel IMBAL light after takeoff; the 1;200 LB imbalance was corrected by the QRH procedure. This was entered in the logbook.We had an extended ground delay where we need to run the APU for cooling and per procedure for extended APU operation we positioned an AC pump on. And per procedure; because we were not in the cockpit for this delay; we could not run a center pump; the manual does not address how to avoid an imbalance in this particular situation. But most importantly; I will be more diligent about checking the distribution of the fuel before starting the engines and responding; 'checked' to 'Fuel Quantity and Distribution.' Note: The QRH procedure was followed; but it makes no mention of what to do if there is fuel in the center tank. This differs from the operating manual's Fuel Balancing procedure that has you turn off the center pumps.




Synopsis: During an extended ground delay with the APU running from a wing tank fuel pump; an imbalance developed below the IMBAL alert threshold. After takeoff IMBAL alerted and the crew then realized the Before Start Checklist was incorrectly completed and no procedure covered the ground APU fuel configuration.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MCI.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
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; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am filing this report due to improper and potentially unsafe procedures used during pushback in Kansas City. I have 2 issues of concern.Issue Number 1: The ground crew plugged in and told me they were ready to push. I said 'brakes released; cleared to push'. The ground crew then told me to standby. After a few minutes they came back and said they were ready for push. I asked them what the delay was about and they said the tow bar wasn't hooked up correctly. My concern is exactly that - if the tow bar wasn't hooked up correctly why did they tell me they were ready to push in the first place?Issue Number 2. After pushback; when told to set the brakes; I said 'brakes set'. The next thing I observed was the ground crew holding up the pin and giving me a salute. At no point subsequent to me telling him the brakes were set did he say 'tow bar disconnected; bypass pin removed'.The ramp procedures in MCI are EXTREMELY sloppy. I believe they are sloppy to the point of potentially causing an incident/accident in the future. I conveyed this sentiment to operations prior to taxi and the response I got was something to the effect of 'yeah; we've been trying to get them to change for a while to no avail'. That tells me that this incident is not a one off item but a continuing problem.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain believed that the ground crew at MCI was extremely sloppy and did not follow company SOPs for verbal commands during push back and disconnect from the tug.
Date: 201401
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While closing the rear pit of the aircraft in preparation for departure; the crew released the aircraft brakes. There was no one on the headset yet and no communication had occurred between the ramp employees and the cockpit. The aircraft lurched backwards because of the pressure of the wheels against the chocks. The side of the pit opening pushed me off balance and I nearly fell off of the end of the belt loader.




Synopsis: A ramp employee was startled by movement of the aircraft while closing the cargo door; causing him to fall from the belt loader.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft flew from ZZZ to ZZZ1 without any event. Lineup and wait was a right turn on to runway at ZZZ. Gate departure and taxi to runway were uneventful at ZZZ and ZZZ1. Cleared to lineup and wait at ZZZ1 on Runway XXL. The turn was to the left. Movement of steering was uneventful until straightening wheel for lineup on Runway XXL. Steering did not want to proceed no more than an inch from full left turn. The tiller was loose with no noted hydraulic feedback and freely moved one inch to a stop toward center. Aircraft came to a full stop on Runway XXL centerline and brakes set. Immediately notified tower; ops; maintenance; dispatch; flight attendants and passengers. I asked the assigned mechanic deadheading with us to come up to the flight deck. We reviewed the situation and possible solutions. I asked the FO to call ops and plan for passengers to deplane in the event we were unable to move the plane. They concurred and waited for further updates. Once maintenance arrived; the engines were shut down and normal checklists completed.Maintenance arrived and asked for the gear pins. A towbarless tractor was planned but later determined it could not be connected to the wheel because of the landing gear door. It was then that I learned the wheel was at a 90-degree angle with the oleo strut completely compressed. A tow-bar was used and an attempt was made to move the plane forward. The tractor was perpendicular to the bar. I informed maintenance that the brakes were still set and that I would remain clear of the tiller and rudder pedals and keep the hydraulics as is. The wheel did not move under tractor pressure. The bar and tractor were then repositioned in line with the wheel. Brakes were released and towing commenced. At that point the wheel turned. There were no abnormalities observed once the wheel was released from the failed position. We were then towed to the gate. No further incidents.Two items in the logbook: (1) entry for the nose wheel; (2) gear pins installed with the plane's pins.No information given to me by maintenance.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported the nose gear steering failed while taxiing onto the runway.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ROA.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ROA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach into ROA; we were at 4;000 feet. and cleared for the visual approach just south of PROSE but before HIBAN; minimum altitude was 3;700 feet. The FO (First Officer) was PF (Pilot Flying) and began a turn towards the runway but due to the radar altimeter registering rising terrain during the bank; we got a momentary EGPWS caution. We knew our position on approach was above the minimum altitude for that sector and could verify visually we were not in conflict with any of the terrain so we continued with the approach while paying attention to our position; FPA (Flight Path Angle); and the PAPIs. Conditions during event were day VFR.[The] bank over terrain triggered EGPWS. Continued visually. We had discussed the terrain as a threat numerous times before attempting the approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a momentary EGPWS warning on visual approach to ROA airport over terrain.