elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: We were flying into GUC in a non RNP aircraft. Winds were 250/11; SKC; elected to fly [Runway] 06 approach per ops pages; then enter downwind via Plato to GU24D. Used RNAV for SA (Situational Awareness); but did not Nav due to UNABLE RNAV RNP. When level at 9200 feet in valley on down wind; received 3 separate GPWS 'terrain; terrain' erroneous indications. There was no terrain and we were not descending. Additionally; there was no red GPWS indications on ND; just the aural cue one time with red warning light. I was the PF (Pilot Flying); and we both were perplexed by the indication. We continued the approach; as there was no reason to react to this partial warning. This event did make us question our flight path; but we also agreed that all was performed correctly. We didn't see any warnings about erroneous GPWS; and the Aircraft appeared to have no issues. We both also agreed that flying a Basic airplane that is not RNP capable into Gunnison was unsatisfactory. Are we to land with a 10 kt. tailwind to avoid indications such as this when performing the pattern as prescribed by the company?Flying a Basic; non-RNP AC into a challenging mountainous terrain airportOur original aircraft was swapped out for some reason. Non RNP airplanes should go to basic destinations.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Pilot reported 3 false terrain warnings on approach in a non-RNP aircraft.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing through approximately FL280 to the altitude we were cleared to; FL300; we received a TCAS RA. TCAS said 'descend; descend;' so I disengaged the autopilot and initiated descent into green band on V/S. Almost immediately; TCAS changed command to 'climb; climb' so I reversed direction and climbed into the green band until we were clear of traffic. We were IMC. ATC seemed busy and presumably didn't realize they had cleared us to climb through someone else's altitude.


Second narrative: During climbout of DFW on the Harper 3 departure and passing through FL280; we spotted an aircraft on TCAS that was at our altitude coming towards us. We were assigned an altitude of FL300. We shortly thereafter received an RA to descend and a few seconds later to climb. We executed the RA procedure per SOP and then continued to climb to our assigned altitude of FL300. During the RA maneuver; the Controller then told us to turn right 20 degrees. The Air Traffic Controller never warned us about the approaching aircraft. He seemed to be very busy at the time. He never even made a comment about the event after it happened.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving an RA after ATC cleared them to climb to another aircrafts altitude.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were cruising at FL360; in cirrus type clouds; experiencing continuous light chop.  Seat belt sign was on; and no returns were depicted on the weather radar display.  We had heard no PIREPs or advisories concerning turbulence or convective activity.  Suddenly; the turbulence increased to moderate; and we heard rain hitting the airplane.  This lasted 5-10 sec; then we experienced a rapid; almost instant 1;500 fpm climb to an altitude about 400 feet above the assigned altitude.  Immediately thereafter; we felt a drop as we exited the clouds.  The Captain was Pilot Flying and returned the airplane to the assigned altitude....By the time we coordinated with flight attendants as to passenger and/or crew injuries; made a plan as to how best to address the situation; and checked in with Center; we were very near our top of descent.  We were still getting information as to passenger injuries and we needed to prepare for our approach.  We requested a straight-in; expedited approach.  During the descent; we were still coordinating with the cabin crew; answering questions from Center; and setting up for the approach and landing.   I (pilot not flying) called ahead to Operations to advise them that we were in-range and needed medical personnel to meet the flight. I'm not sure how we could have avoided this event. The Captain did have the seat belt sign on; and made a predeparture PA telling the passengers to leave seat belts fastened while seated.  He also made a PA 'Flight attendants be seated immediately'; as the event began; which according to the number 1; allowed him to avoid injury.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Crew experienced turbulence in cirrus clouds at FL360 which caused abrupt altitude gain and resulted in passenger injury.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landing gear collapse on roll-out; approximatley 900 feet after initial landing.Not considered substantial damage according to 49 CFR Part 830.




Synopsis: BE-55 pilot reported the landing gear collapsed on roll-out.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Taxiing Light
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Logbook Entry; Aircraft
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: On DATE; Company Maintenance Technicians had replaced the existing OEM Taxi Light Installation with Whelen Aerospace Technologies Boom Beam Taxi light System IAW STC# ST02893AT on G-550 X. I was intermittently involved in the installation and had inspected the completed installation by request of the installing technician. I was notified on DATE1 of the intent to fly the aircraft in the evening so the pilots could observe the performance of the new lights. On the day of the flight I had been working on other projects and was preparing to depart for the day when the pilots arrived and asked if we had completed our maintenance pre-flight inspection. I discovered that the preflight had not been completed and proceeded to perform the preflight with the installing technician. Part of our preflight includes a review of the maintenance records and after reviewing the documents in Gulfstream's Computerized Maintenance Program (CMP) determined that there were no outstanding maintenance items. I asked the installing technician if the 337 had been completed and he responded with 'It's on Mechanic's (the Certifying IA) Desk' which I assumed to mean that it was complete.I signed the maintenance release and preflight form and departed for the day. The aircraft flew under part 91 rules that evening without incident.On DATE2 I spoke with Mechanic and discovered that although he had completed the inspection and all other associated paperwork before the flight; he had not signed the IA block of the 337 until the evening of the DATE3.Overall there were no unsafe conditions; only an oversight in paperwork. Upon discovery of the documentation error I self reported to my Supervisor and filed this report. An internal investigation has been initiated by my supervisor.




Synopsis: Technician reported an aircraft operation in Part 91 flight without all documents signed and the log book update correctly.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were approximately 25 NM from BAM VOR at 33;000 FT. The ATC Controller told us of traffic ahead; 12 o'clock descending to 34;000 FT and after passing you he will continue to descend. At about 7-8 NM (approximately 20 seconds from the event) we noticed on our TCAS that the aircraft directly ahead of us was at 33;800 and still descending; arrow still next to it indicating more than 500 FPM; I inquired to the ATC Controller; is he going to level off; to which I'm not sure what he responded since things happened very quickly at this moment due to our closure rate. Next thing we see is 500 FT on the TCAS; at that moment the other aircraft breaks out of the clouds the TCAS goes to TA for a fraction of a second; then immediately to RA; descend; and the Controller is saying turn left now. The First Officer disconnected the autopilot; started turning and descending at that moment the traffic was over and behind us at approximately 300 FT according to the TCAS. From the time the TCAS sounded to the event being over a maximum time of 6-8 seconds elapsed! The other aircraft was a B-737 (military) according to ATC and we never heard any communication between the ATC controller and the aircraft in question.Having military aircraft transmit on MHZ frequencies when operating in commercial RVSM airspace could have provided us with some situational awareness since we would have heard what was being said between them and ATC. Also; checking into why the TCAS didn't provide the normal sequence from TA to RA at the proper time would be worth investigating!


Second narrative: I disconnected the autopilot; turned left; and began a descent. I noted the target symbol showed +300 FT and still descending as it passed over us. The other aircraft was a military 737.A contributing factor was the cloud layer that prevented us from seeing the 737 until they were directly in front of us. We also never heard any communication between ATC and the 737.


Synopsis: TCAS TA and RA warnings were instrumental in separating the reporter's A320 and a military B737 which descended below its cleared altitude. Situational awareness was cited as a result of ATC and the B737 not communicating on the same frequency as civil operators.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landing on Runway XXR at approximately 1-2 mile final approach; I heard an aircraft call ready for takeoff. Tower replied 'Callsign; hold short of Runway XXR'. In very broken English the aircraft replied; 'Authorized into position.' This grabbed my undivided attention due to the fact that we were very close to landing on the same runway that apparently someone else was going to enter. The Tower replied with; 'Negative! Hold short of Runway XXR.' I visually scanned for traffic on the runway or entering the runway. I saw a small Cessna aircraft on Taxiway B moving towards Runway XXR. I was far enough away that I couldn't see where the hold short line was. Unable to distinguish if a runway incursion had occurred but clearly aware that there was some radio confusion about whether or not this airplane was going to hold short and the Cessna was definitely moving towards the runway; I verbalized that the airplane was moving. I continued to watch the Cessna move towards the runway getting ready to call for a go-around. About 15-20 FT prior to where the taxiway blacktop turned into the runway concrete; the Cessna stopped moving and made a radio call stating 'Hold short of XXR.' I continued to watch the aircraft to make sure it did indeed stop; and it appeared it had stopped moving. At this point of our approach I could see that the Cessna was a full aircraft length past the runway hold short line. I again debated calling for a go-around or for the Tower to call for the go-around; and ultimately decided to continue to land. I came to this decision in part due to our very low altitude; the fact that the Tower had not made any radio comments about the runway incursion; and the Cessna had seemed to grasp the fact that we were on short final and was not moving anymore. Another factor in my decision was the fact that the runway hold short line on Runway XXR is abnormally far from the runway. Even though the Cessna was completely past the line it was still only about 1/2 the way to the runway from the hold short line; about 15-20 FT away. I decided it would be safer to land the plane. After rethinking the events I now wish I would have executed the go-around.




Synopsis: EMB-145 continued approach to landing after observing a Cessna aircraft come to a stop past the hold-short line of an intersecting taxiway on the same runway.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival at the aircraft we did all of our preflight duties. After checking the log and looking at MELs we boarded the flight and departed. The flight was uneventful and we returned to base. After handing the aircraft off to the next crew we later found out that a maintenance inspection had been overlooked by maintenance control and the aircraft had been taken out of service. This was a surprise to my first officer and myself as we had no way of knowing that an inspection was due.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain was informed after flying a round trip that the aircraft he was assigned required a maintenance inspection prior to his first departure.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Coastal fog; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I conducted Weather Check and checked for TFR's on FAA website as part of my preflight planning. Departed the heliport for our daily local security patrol. After establishing 2 way radio communication with BUR ATC; I was advised of a possible pilot deviation and given a phone number for ATC. Upon completion of my assigned flight; I contacted ATC via telephone. I passed on my contact information and certificate number. A possible TFR violation was mentioned and is being investigated.I was aware of a TFR in the area North of SMO. This TFR was extended by 45 minutes while I was flying. At the time I checked TFR status; [the FDC] had dropped off the FAA website. Maybe it was in the process of being updated; I do not know. I have been using Flight Vector in the past; but I would suggest to use at least 2 or 3 sources when inquiring about TFR status to avoid problems of this nature.




Synopsis: Bell 206 pilot reported a TFR incursion when the TFR was extended beyond the planned time frame.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Hard Landing in crab; prop strike; bounce; wingtip strike.Crosswind gust coupled with possible wind shear from right during flare at approximately 5 ft. AGL; insufficient correction / control authority resulted in hard landing in 10-15 degree crab; resulting in bounce with nose high; right wing low; applied left rudder and lowered nose to prevent stall; right wingtip struck runway prior to main gear; aircraft directional control recovered; regained full control; tracked down runway; exited runway at taxiway and taxied to ramp.Caught by surprise by gust/wind shear just prior to / during touchdown after a normal visual approach. Due to hardness of landing and how quickly control was regained I opted to continue the landing rather than execute balked landing / go around. Considering damage to prop discovered after shutdown; I believe not applying power and going around was the right decision.




Synopsis: AA5B Tiger Single Pilot reported momentary loss of control during landing resulting in a prop and wing strike.