elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [I] released 50 flights in an 8 hour period. From the moment I sat down; the X area was experiencing moderate turbulence from FL280 and above. As a result; it became necessary to file the majority of my flights in this range; resulting in numerous phone calls from inquiring crews. The turbulence persisted until the time I was relieved at Xpm. Along with the numerous releases; ZZZ amended their TAF twice; leaving me to amend the release of 7 airborne flights in order to remain legal. I had one rolling maintenance generating numerous phone calls from just the one crew. In my opinion; this workload is excessive. Cause - Managements inability to properly staff the office.Re-evaluate the workload and [I] suggest adding more dispatchers to alleviate excessive workload.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported excessive workload due to staffing issues.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing for departure; the aircraft was brought to a quick stop because of a potential conflict with another taxiing aircraft. We were leaving the ramp on the C line and an aircraft taxied from Taxiway B; A9 intersection and then into the ramp on the B line. We were stopped; then given taxi instructions of B-A9-etc to Runway 28. I cleared to the left and the FO (First Officer) cleared to the right. As I began taxiing; I looked to the right. I then looked again to the left and saw the other aircraft coming at us. I thought we were in conflict and I stopped the aircraft quickly. F/A (Flight Attendant) was in the forward lavatory and went forward; hitting his chest on the mirror/towel dispenser.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported conflicting aircraft ground traffic led to a minor Flight Attendant injury.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Our flight had no problems; but we can see a real possiblity of issues with new Climb Via SID's relating to the Houston RNAV departures. I had heard from another pilot that they had an issue; so we were ready for the inconsistency. Called him after our flight and found out he had not filed an event report or ASRS.  We had a 'climb via' on the GUMBY1 Departure from IAH. It has a 5;000 foot level off and then says to maintain 4;000. (My First Officer missed this on his departure preparation; but I had heard about it previously.) On the 'Climb Via' departures the crews are not supposed to give the altitude they are climbing to... Quite a chance for confusion and altitude busts in a congested terminal airspace!No event; but very high chance of confusion and possibly a major incident/accident.  The problem is the confusing RNAV departure plates for Houston - which includes the GUMBY1; but also the MMALT1; the MMUGS1; and the RITAA1 from what I could see. Rewrite the RNAV departures out of IAH to get rid of the cleared altitude inconsistencies.  And rethink the 'Climb Via' changes; especially in these terminal areas where they don't really save any time and can be confusing.  When the crews just say 'climbing via the XXX SID' we are giving up a valuable barrier to miscommunication on altitude assignments. And the average pilot (and many controllers) seem to be finding the ensueing modifications on altitudes and speeds confusing.




Synopsis: EMB-190 Captain believes the new RNAV departures out of IAH are an accident waiting to happen; due to the 4;000 foot altitude restriction hidden in the routing box.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground TEB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was cleared to taxi to RWY 24 for departure from the FBO via TWY P to TWY L and then to hold short of RWY 19. Prior to reaching RWY 19 I was cleared to cross RWY 19 at TWY L. Upon reaching TWY B I turned right on TWY B and then realized that I had turned on the wrong taxiway. I found the signage at that point to be unclear; and I suspect this problem had occurred before; because the ground controller told me to taxi across 19 at its threshold. That was difficult to determine. In any event; prior to entering RWY 19 I realized my error; and queried the controller; who then told me to turn left on RWY 19 and then right on TWY A. I then completed my run up and received my IFR release.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported that turning onto incorrect taxiway due to confusing signage at TEB.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A checklist design issue arose on a ferry flight I flew tonight. When looking at the A320 Ferry Checklist on the iPad the First Officer initially thought no doors were supposed to be armed. The first bullet on that page is 'All cabin...doors...Arm.' He thought that this was bullet #6 under the header: 'If cabin will be occupied' which is on the previous page. Since our cabin was not occupied he thought this bullet did not apply. When you look at this on the iPad; it's not hard to see how this can be misinterpreted. I pulled out the QRH and on that it was readily apparent that the 'All cabin...doors...Arm' bullet had a different indentation than the proceeding five bullets under the 'If cabin will be occupied' header. This indentation is not readily apparent on the iPad though. I'm not trying to open a can of worms here; but just point out this issue. If the combination of only viewing one page at a time on the iPad; along with the indentation formatting issue lead to confusion with one person tonight (with a mundane checklist being read with brakes set); I'm sure it could happen again with other checklists.




Synopsis: The formatting of a ferry flight preflight checklist on their iPad EFB led to confusion regarding the arming of cabin doors.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was giving multiengine dual instruction in reference airplane. We departed and flew to the training area. We did steep turns and slow flight with gear and flaps down. We noticed a squeal noise in the headsets. When we tried to contact Approach we lost radio contact. At that time we decided to return to [departure airport]; and again we were unable to contact the Tower. We set the transponder to 7600; and called the Tower using my cell phone and relay we had no radios.Then; when we tried to lower the landing gear we didn't get a green light and the nose gear looked that it was partially down. We turned off all electrical equipment; leaving the battery on and tried to recycle the gear; but the nose gear remained partially down.I called the Tower again on my cell phone and relayed my situation; and told the controller we were going to extend the gear manually. We refer to the checklist and follow the instructions printed on the reverse side of the landing gear operating motor access cover. After several attempts at lowering the gear manually; we made a low pass for the Tower to check our gear; but they couldn't tell because it was already night time.At that time we decided to land; even though we did not know the status of the gear. Upon touchdown; the airplane skidded on its belly and came to stop near the center of the runway. We deplaned without any further difficulty without sustaining any injuries to ourselves or doing any damage to other property.In retrospect; I could had been paying closer attention to any indication of loss of the electrical system. If there were any; I could have turn off all the electrical systems and save battery power for extending the gear. I've had electrical failures before so probably I missed them this time. Also I could have been more familiar with the emergency landing gear extension system. I think I followed the instructions printed on the cover of the access panel to the emergency extension handle. But I get the feeling that I could have done more to get the gear down and locked.




Synopsis: PA-30 Twin Comanche flight instructor reported an electrical failure that led to a landing gear extension problem and gear collapse on landing.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During take-off; headwind shifted to tailwind resulting in insufficient climb rate for obstacle clearance. Rather than hit taller obstructions at high speed; slowed and landed beyond the end of runway; resulting in prop strike upon hitting a tree stump on ground during roll out. Contributing factors included density altitude; variable winds; slow climb rate; new situation. Utilize obstruction free runway during calm or variable winds. Should have stopped take-off earlier or used alternate runway.




Synopsis: C150 pilot elects to land off airport just after takeoff when performance appears unlikely to allow the aircraft to clear obstacles ahead.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach and landing seemed uneventful to me but after mains compressed on landing the nose pitched up and I failed to aggressively arrest this nose up resulting in a 'light scraping' of the tail skid. A scraping sound was heard by some passengers and the skid was inspected by my FO (First Officer); as I stayed in cockpit to call Maintenance to inspect. I wrote it up and broke the [Maintenance Release] then met the maintenance personnel at the tail to inspect. Inspection revealed the tail skid shoe was scraped but the indicator was in the green and had not compressed. Maintenance indicated that this was no damage and released the aircraft safe for flight. Pitch report at the gate indicated a pitch on landing of 7.7 deg with limit of 8.3 deg.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain reported failing to arrest the pitching up of the nose on landing resulting in a tail strike.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Traffic was heavy during our arrival; and we were vectored across the final to fly a downwind entry to a visual approach to [Runway] 19R. We were following an RJ by about 4 miles; and were fully configured at minimum speed on a 15-mile final; and gaining on the aircraft ahead. When we checked in with Tower over LEMON; they advised to 'continue... traffic will be holding in position.' When the RJ landed; a B737 was told to line up and wait; be ready for an immediate takeoff. We received our landing clearance at about 500 FT on final. The 737 got off the ground as we were at about 300 FT on final; and when we got over the runway threshold; we encountered lots of jet wash from the plane. The approach was stable and I continued the landing; just very rough right at the most critical time of landing. This spacing was too close. I think the 737 flight crew could have waited another minute or two until after we had landed-there was a lot of space between us and the next landing airplane. This has been happening for a while now at SNA; but it seems to be happening more often; and getting closer. This was the closest I've ever seen.




Synopsis: During closely spaced arrivals and departures to SNA the flight crew of a B737-800 encountered wake turbulence from a departing B737.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During scheduled maintenance at ZZZ; the 1st class seat row 1FD was found to be unsecured with the forward attachment point sitting on the carpet forward of the seat track. Maintenance personnel at ZZZ while performing scheduled maintenance noticed that the forward attachment point was unsecured.  This was my first time installing passenger seats in the cabin and I believe that the other technician was equally inexperienced on this task. We were reinstalling the seating after a cleaning had been performed due to an overflowing lavatory event. I can only speak for myself; but I thought that the attach points were seated into the floor tracks properly and secured. Technicians should consult a lead or other experienced personal when performing a task that they are unfamiliar with. This is especially true for tasks such as passenger seating where the safety of the flying public is at stake. A computer based training course on passenger seats or asking for a second set of eyes on the work that had been performed could have mitigated this mishap from occurring. In the future I will ask for assistance with unfamiliar tasks.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Maintenance Technician incorrectly installs a passenger cabin seat row.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Fatigue
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] arrived in ORD terminal area. [We] briefed ILS 27L and ILS28; with emphasis on 27L due to North arrival; ILS 27L in the box. [We got a] short notice hold at KRENA due to runway closure. [We] came out of hold direct to ORD and given visual 28. I briefed the highlights for 28 (flap setting; turn off; target speed; etc.). ILS Runway 27L remained in the box and none of the other three pilots caught the oversight. We then received a descending series of left turn vectors from Approach Control who eventually asked if we had the runway in sight? Turning into the sun with visibility reduced by haze; I could not see the airport but the First officer reported the runway in sight. I armed the localizer and assumed we would intercept the final course. Four things happened in very rapid succession. 1. Runway 28 came into view with suitable forward visibility. 2. I stated; 'Why didn't the localizer capture?' 3. The Tower Controller asked us to check our runway. 4. We received a TCAS RA with an aircraft on final to 27L. I immediately turned off autopilot; continued left turn and with minor adjustments; rolled out on 28 final. After landing I spoke to ATC who advised 'no harm no foul' and thanked me for the call.I had not received my usual amount of rest prior to this flight; nor was I able to get any sleep during my rest break during the flight. I thought I was fine; but in hindsight I was fatigued; due to lack of sleep. In my opinion; fatigue was the main cause of this event. My normal SOP adherence did not occur due to a lack of mental sharpness.


Second narrative: ...approach asked if [we had the] runway in sight. Crew said yes. We were cleared visual approach. Captain waited for localizer capture to help verify runway.


Synopsis: Distracted by unanticipated holding and suffering from duty time related fatigue the flight crew of a very long range B777 failed to reset their FMS/ILS for their reassigned runway and flew through its extended centerline at ORD. An alert from ATC and a TCAS RA with respect to an aircraft on final to an adjacent parallel runway prevented more serious repercussions.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B OKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [Inbound to] OKC approximately 30 miles to the northeast I had a TCAS alert that turned into a RA. I was descending from 6;000 feet to 4;000 feet communicating with OKC approach. I clicked off the auto pilot and pushed the nose down following the guidence of the RA. I notified approach what I was doing and asked if he had any traffic on his radar. He told me he had traffic at my 11 o'clock at 5;500 feet. While I was descending I found the traffic; a V-Tail Bonanza. The traffic was also descending toward us causing me to continue descending and I initiated a slight turn to the North. With the low wing of the Beech aircraft I doubt the pilot ever saw us. I think we passed within approximately 200 feet. I leveled off at at four thousand feet; was handed off to OKC and landed without any further incident. The above event happened because ATC did not notify me of conflicting aircraft.Communicate when general VFR aircraft are close.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported NMAC with a Bonanza on approach to OKC.