elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OMA.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: There is a group of towers on right downwind/base to 14R and 14L that are a potential hazard when visual approaches are in use. As shown on the approach plates; at least one of these towers is 148 feet higher than the glide slope intercept altitude for these runways. Although the VFR traffic pattern for both runways is left; the PAWNEE CITY 1 and HOWRY 2 arrivals set IFR traffic up for a righthand pattern with the towers situated between them and final. Unlike the approaches; these towers are not charted on either arrival.When flying a righthand traffic pattern; such as from PAWNEE CITY 1; HOWRY 2; or on a visual missed approach; pilots are susceptible to colliding with the 2;548 feet towers while attaining the glide slope intercept altitude of 2;400 feet.1) Add a page in Jeppesen for OMA which calls attention to the towers. 2) Provide easier access to traffic pattern altitudes and directions in Jepp in the event of a visual missed approach. As of right now; this information is buried in a 4;000 plus page document. 3) Obstacles and terrain that are considered significant to approaches should also be charted on arrivals. 4) Pilots should thoroughly review significant obstacles and terrain depicted on procedures and enable ownship on Approach in Jeppesen for increased situational awareness. 5) ATC should ensure pilots see these particular towers; not just the airport; when clearing pilots for the visual from the west. Alternatively; pilots should be vectored well clear of the towers before being issued a visual.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported collision hazards on visual approach from STAR and indicated need to highlight them on Jeppesen approach chart to OMA airport.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DAL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final approach into Dallas 13L; I saw a dark object pass the right side of the aircraft. I asked the First Officer if we passed a bird or a balloon; and he said it looked like a drone. He passed onto Tower what he saw; and we landed without incident. It did not affect the approach or landing. The observer in the jumpseat confirmed what the First Officer saw.


Second narrative: On final approach into DAL for 13L at about 1000 feet AGL; a quadcopter was spotted just ahead and to the right of the airplane about 40 to 50 yards off to the right. The quadcopter appeared to be stationary. We flew past the quadcopter without any maneuvering. Once past the quadcopter; I told Love Field Tower about the quadcopter and they took it from there. We landed and taxied to the gate without incident.


Synopsis: Airline flight crew reports sighting a drone at 1;000 feet during approach to DAL Runway 13L.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: HNL ATIS [is] so long no one actually listens to it. For the last several years I have listened to HNL ATIS thousands of times. It is the worst and longest ATIS I have ever heard and the ultra-long; droning voice with redundant; useless information creates conditions under which a pilot can't listen to and understand the whole thing even if he tried. I have timed the ATIS broadcast several times and it's always over 2 minutes in length. This represents about 5 NM traveled in a small aircraft; and probably double that in an airliner. Additionally; most of the information is useless or suffers from poor quality control.Examples:-Listing all lighting inoperative for a runway that is closed; in the middle of the day.-Way too much time spent on taxiways out of service.-Duplication of information like 'LAHSO in effect' spoken twice.-'taxiway Relative Humidity out of service' referring to taxiway RH.-'men and equipment working all taxiways and runways' has always been on the ATIS.-'increased bird strike hazard all runways' has always been on the ATIS.Nobody listens to this. I have tried to pay attention to the whole thing and it's damn difficult even on the ground. Last year when there were more runway closures there were events where aircraft overran closed sections of runway and I believe ATIS was primarily to blame.Ideas to make this better:-Get a faster talking robot; or make a human record it (that will eliminate some errors).-Move information that's always on there (like the bird strike thing) to the chart supplement.-Consolidate groups of information; like 'Taxiways closed: B; D; F; RH; RB'.-Maybe make a separate frequency with a 'long ATIS' for out of towners who want to hear about how bad the bird strike hazard is getting.We have a 20 min leg from ZZZ. This ensures that 10% of the flight will be spent listening to HNL's ATIS. Please make the FAA fix this.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the HNL ATIS as very lengthy; repetitive; outdated; and of poor quality.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N68.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF N68
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landing gear collapsed on rollout; 1;500 FT after touch down. I did not use the manual handle to extend the gear but looking at it; it probably would not have helped.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Beech King Air reported that the landing gear collapsed during rollout.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MHR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D MHR
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Small UAS (DJI Mavic 2 Pro) was flown in a residential neighborhood at approximately 40 ft AGL as part of a family function. The flight was a non-commercial operation (Part 91) but by a Part 107 licensed RPIC at the controls and with a craft registered under Part 107. The following day; upon further review of the local airspace; I realized that the flight had been conducted within MHR's Class D airspace. At no point during flight was any air traffic visible. I have now submitted a DroneZone airspace authorization request to perform such flights in the future and will wait to fly in this area again until I have such an authorization granted.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported unknowingly entering class D airspace.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After completion of maintenance; flight check to determine if ELT would activate erroneously during flight. ZZZ Tower operating under COVID-19 with restricted staffing closed the Tower at XA:00 and advised that airspace was reverting to Class E.Traditional Squawk for pattern operations is XXXX without ATC approval. Very confusing as to use without tower operating. Did one circuit with Squawk of XXXX and determined no ELT issues.  After discussion determined that may have not followed proper guidelines that were established for COVID-19 restricted operations by not contacting ATC for another squawk code after Tower closure. Have reviewed and implemented process to assure compliance until normal Tower operations resume.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the Tower closed due to COVID-19 staffing; and was not sure as to what they should be squawking.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CHO
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: During our approach into CHO; we got a terrain alert. We approached the CHO airport and were set up for a visual approach backed up with the ILS to RWY 3. ATC gave us vectors toward the airport and then a vector on the downwind. At about a midfield vectored downwind at 3;000 feet; we called the airport in sight. Knowing that there was terrain in the area; we then agreed that we would stay on that vector at 3;000 feet and would not descend till we were on our base turn over the city and that we would descend to 2;600 feet over SIPME the final approach fix on the ILS. We briefed the highest obstacles in that area which was 1;795 feet and 1;785 feet. While on the downwind; flying on the same heading as we were last vectored and level at 3;000 feet; we got a 'terrain pull up warning'. We immediately did our EGPWS escape maneuver. Once clear of any conflict and talking to ATC we continued the approach as normal and the rest of the flight continued without incident. We detected the situation through the aircraft EGWPS warning.Not exactly sure what set off the EGPWS system. My guess is that the aircraft was pointed right at the top of the highest point and maybe that triggered the system. Checking the approach plate and sectional charts; I'm not sure why the system would go off in level flight at 3;000 feet. Looking in the AOM 2 EGPWS system; I'm not sure how we could have received that message while above all terrain with a vertical speed of 0ft/min. There was no initial 'terrain' warning only a 'terrain pull up' which seems weird also. Performed the EGPWS escape maneuver.Next time; avoid this situation. When flying in there at night I am going to request a full ILS approach. Even though it was a perfectly clear night; doing the whole approach would have help us avoid the situation.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported an EGPWS 'Terrain pull up' warning while on approach to CHO.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My intention was to stop for refueling. On approach to [my fuel stop] I dialed in the frequency for [the wrong airport] instead; which lead to the confusion. [The wrong Tower] cleared me to Runway 23; when my intended place of landing is ZZZ. I realized something was not right when I was approaching the airport and Runway 20 was in front of me. I departed the Class D without incident; corrected the frequency and landed without incident.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot put in the wrong Tower frequency and after receiving clearance to land on a runway which was not at the intended airport; realized the error; departed; entered the correct frequency and returned to land.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UNV.Tower, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D UNV
ATC / advisory: Tower UNV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Cleared for the Visual Approach [Runway] 24 in UNV. We had briefed the high terrain that we would fly over prior to intercepting the final approach course in the initial arrival briefing. We were proceeding directly to WOREX descending from 4;100 ft. to 3;100 ft. At approximately 3;800 ft. we got a terrain warning over the mountain. The Captain was the PF (Pilot Flying) and he added power and climbed to 4;000 ft. and the warning went away. We advised ATC and circled back around and completed the approach visually. GPWS warning. High terrain you fly over prior to intercepting the final approach course. Responded to GPWS. Climbed to a safe altitude. Stay higher over the mountain or if in doubt request the ILS to [Runway] 24 instead of visual.




Synopsis: First Officer reported responding to a GPWS while on a visual approach.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: STL NATCA 2 SID (Runway 30L/R) requires a climb gradient of '500 feet per NM to WOLTR.' The Performance Chart ALL ENG data does not show fixes such as WOLTR. This situation requires the Pilot to notice the 'Direct distance from Lambert to St Louis International (Runway 30L/R) to: WOLTR 5 NM' in the fine print to the left of the SID ground track. And then the Pilot must do a lot of mental math.Minimum crossing altitude at WOLTR is 2500 feet. The field is approximately 600 feet MSL. Difference about 1900 feet. The track distance to WOLTR is slightly more than 5 NM since the chart says the 'direct distance' is 5 NM; but there is no way to actually calculate this difference. 1900 feet divided by 5 NM is about 380 feet per NM. Then the Pilot can check the Performance Chart ALL ENG data for 380 feet per NM up to 2500 feet.This process unnecessarily increases RISK. There are many opportunities to make a mistake in the above thought process. Further; many Pilots may fail to realize how to figure it out; or blow it off.Please try to have all SID required climb gradients expressed in simple feet per NM to a final ALTITUDE; and eliminate those that require feet per NM to a waypoint.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer discussed the complexity some aeronautical charts present when pilots are required to mentally calculate the required climb gradient in feet per mile on SIDs. For example; the STL NATCA2 RNAV did not have the calculation charted but did have a required departure waypoint minimum crossing altitude.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While climbing up to FL360; we were in light to moderate turbulence for the majority of the climb. At some point; the Captain who was also flying pilot selected Airspeed Intervention of 270 to slow for the turbulence and expedite our climb. At approximately FL340; I noticed a 'buffet alert' message in the scratch pad of my FMC. As I noticed the airspeed at the top of the yellow arc; the Captain disconnected the autopilot; lowered the nose; and advanced the throttles. At the same time we encountered more turbulence and the airspeed continued to decrease to the point where we got a momentary stick shaker. The airspeed then accelerated rapidly and we resumed our climb to FL360. We estimate that the recovery process resulted in a loss of 200-300 FT. Should not have used Airspeed Intervention; should have used 280/.76 in the climb page and VNAV.




Synopsis: A B737-800 Captain selected MCP SPD during climb in moderate turbulence and later a FMC 'BUFFETT ALERT' was noticed; followed by airspeed in the yellow arc. The autopilot was disconnect and a stall recovery completed with a 200-300 FT altitude loss.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: ATR 42
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was assigned to perform a pushback for Flight XXX. Once the CA and FO completed their preflight checklist; they asked to have ground air removed from the aircraft; then we continued with running engine #2; followed by removing GPU; releasing brakes and pursuing the pushback. As a new hire mechanic for this was my third attempt at a pushback with a tug in tow. At this time in the morning; we had a mist followed by a period of light rain and calm winds. Inexperienced; I proceeded to pushback with my fellow A&P mechanic on my right hand side guiding me and giving me hand signals to guide the tug. I was instructed by him to let go of the brake from the tug and let the tug push without using any acceleration and use the accelerator if need be. At this point I approached an unmarked portion of the ramp providing the place where I should be turning the plane for taxiing. As I am proceeding to turn; I noticed and was instructed that there is no indication on the NLG (Nose Landing Gear) door to where the 91 degree mark is (beyond or exceeding the turning radius). At this point; once I turned I notice that I turned too hard going beyond the point taking into consideration that there is no indication anywhere specifying turning radius. Once I came to a complete stop; I notified the CA and FO to set the brakes; once the brakes were set; the rampers released the tow bar from the plane and I backed up about 3 feet and then the tow bar was placed on the tug; removed the safety pin; verified that the pin was removed with CA and FO; rampers removed the phone jack and closed the GPU panel. I then drove off to the gate and noticed that the shear pin was sheared off and the tow bar was bent. I then notified my supervisor. I inspected the NLG and found that the bobbins on both sides were fractured. The plane was then grounded.




Synopsis: Technician reported that while pushing back an aircraft; the maximum turning radius for the Nose Landing Gear was exceeded; causing damage to the aircraft.