elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had the Grease [Lube] Work Cards for the Left-hand (L/H) Main Landing Gear (MLG) and the L/H and R/H Pivot Pins.  I accomplished the L/H MLG completely and started the R/H [MLG].  It was very hot; so I took a break. When I came back from lunch I signed the Work Card before finishing the task. Being tired and hot; I became distracted and forgot to finish the Pivot Pins on the R/H gear.  I should take note to follow my task [Work Card] step by step from now on; with all work being accomplished; no matter what it is; [or] how many times I have done a job; and not to sign any work that has not been completed.  Memory lapse.




Synopsis: A Mechanic signed-off a Lubrication (grease) Work Card for the Left-hand (L/H) and Right-Hand (R/H) Main Landing Gears (MLG) and Truck Bogie Pivot Pins on a B767-300 aircraft; after returning from a break for heat and fatigue; without completing the job.
Date: 202102
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Confusion
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Ramp
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the wing walker. As we were pushing back we noticed two aircraft coming on to the taxiway from another gate area. We got clearance and were already into the push. We passed the vehicle service road and the taxiing aircraft were getting closer. I told our driver to stop. We had wireless headsets; luckily. I tried to get the taxiing aircraft to stop by giving the stop signal with my lighted wands. I walked to the back of our aircraft to see if it would be too close and possibly hit our tail. I told our driver to start pulling back toward the gate. About 20 feet. when we got back to the gate after push was completed we found out the tower had made a mistake.


Second narrative: We got clearance from the tower to push. We were just passed the vehicle service road when there were two aircraft taxiing around the corner. Our wing walker gave the aircraft the stop signal and he did not slow. Luckily; we had wireless headsets and the pushback driver was told to stop. As the taxiing aircraft got closer the wing walker told the pushback driver to then start backing up or the taxiing aircraft could clip our tail. I called to inform them and they said the tower admitted it was their fault.


Synopsis: A Ramp Wing Walker reported one of the wing walkers noticed two aircraft taxiing toward the same spot they were pushing back an aircraft to and instructed the tug driver to pull the aircraft back into the gate area.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Tower, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
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 C MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ILS Runway 4R approach in use. C90 TRACON running approaches. SIA [Systems Information Area] showing IFR 500 broken. No check mark in the visual separation box on the SIA. C90 running aircraft tight on final. 70 to 80 knot over takes. After the first aircraft went below 2.5 miles we advised C90 that we were IFR and 500 ceilings. At that moment I saw his lights and provided visual separation with those two.  Within minutes they did the same thing; we pulled that aircraft out. 70 knots faster; 2.6 miles just outside the marker; we tried to slow the air carrier but as soon as it approached 2.5 we had to send that aircraft around. This is ongoing.Have C90 pay attention to the SIA. When we say no on visual separation they should abide by that. When we tell them we are IFR they should do their job and not hand us deals. 23 million passengers last year do not deserve nonprofessional service.




Synopsis: MDW Tower Controller reports of IFR conditions at the airport with 70 to 80 knot overtakes on final.  Controller reported that C90 continually ran this operation and should be providing or thinking the Tower will be able to provide visual separation to save the overtakes.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Notified by Tower that nose wheel had separated from airplane on takeoff. Recovered on runway. Minor damage to aircraft; no injuries. All seemed normal on preflight and takeoff.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported being notified by ATC that the nose wheel separated on take-off.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival to BWI we were cleared to descend via the ANTHM 3 RNAV arrival; landing east. As the PF I selected 4;000 (the bottom altitude at STARZ) and managed descent. Prior to EAGLL we were given a revised clearance to descend to 11;000 feet for traffic. EAGLL has a crossing restriction of below 13;000 and above 12;000. As the PF I selected 11;000 and selected open descent. Several minutes later; but still prior to EAGLL; ATC gave us yet another revised vertical clearance; to descend to 11;000; then descend VIA the ANTHM 3 RNAV arrival; landing east. So as the PF I again selected 4;000 (the bottom altitude at STARZ) and managed descent. The plane slowed its descent to 1;000 FPM as we were now below the planned descent path. The PM who was distracted with other tasks looked up and queried whether we should still be descending at a faster rate to 11;000; and suggested we do so. The clearance was a bit confusing - we were not told 'best rate' (or anything like that) to 11;000; but it seemed plausible since it was 'for traffic' so I went back out of managed descent to increase the rate of descent; planning to again switch to managed at 11;000 for the further crossing restrictions after EAGLL. At 11;000 I selected managed descent again. Between 11;000 and 10;000 (as the plane was slowing its descent rate in the transition back managed) ATC queried us if we were descending on the ANTHM 3. At that point both the PM and I noticed that there was a crossing restriction of 11;000 at ROKTT; two fixes after EAGLL. Unsure if we should climb back up to 11;000; ATC gave us a new clearance to maintain 10;000; then descend via the ANTHM 3. Personally; next time there is a confusion about a clearance I will stop all other tasks so I am not distracted. If necessary I will query ATC. Externally; ATC should not give confusing altitude clearances in a terminal environment with a high volume of traffic.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported being confused by ATC and not knowing what altitude they should be going to While on the ANTHM 3 RNAV arrival to BWI airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKK.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in cruise; I was able to pick up the visual on the MKK airport. The First Officer called HCF and told them we have the airport in sight. I remember the controller asking if we had the preceding King Air 12 miles in front of us in sight. We did not have the aircraft in sight; but I thought at the time that we had been cleared for the visual anyways. I even confirmed it with the First Officer because the instructions were not very clear. I started a descent and a turn to the left about 20 degrees to approach the airport from the north. Upon reaching 4;300 ft MSL; the controller asked what our assigned altitude was. He informed us that we had not been cleared for the visual approach and to climb back to 5;000 ft MSL. He then vectored us to the MKK VOR; at which time we were able to see the King Air nearing the airport. We called the aircraft in sight; at which time we were cleared for the visual into MKK. The First Officer and I discussed the situation and concluded that the controller's instructions were not clear; leading to our confusion on whether or not we were cleared for the visual approach. Another factor that may have lead to this mistake was that I was spending most of my time during the flight explaining the airspace and aircraft features to the new First Officer. This distraction may have played a roll in my misunderstanding of our clearance.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they descended before being cleared by ATC for a visual approach to MKK.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 150
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were departing EFD on the MMALT1.LLA SID and were climbing out of FL290 for FL410 when ATC re-cleared us to level at FL350. We leveled at FL350 approximately 40 NM before LLA. Within a few minutes of level off we noticed a B737 pass to our right (left to right) at FL360 (west bound) and approximately 5 NM horizontally. Shortly there after we had a violent wing rock that lasted about 1 second and instantaneously banked and leveled the aircraft twice (approximately 15-20 degrees of bank). It was smooth before and smooth after the event. We reported the event to Houston Center who informed us a B737 had just passed above us at FL360.




Synopsis: Falcon 50 Captain reported wake vortex encounter at FL350 from a B737 crossing his course at FL360 that resulted in a 'violent wing rock'.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HTS.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HTS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Unfamiliar airport operations; turned out of the gate for deicing crossed the movement area from a non-movement area. Airport has terrible lights; markings; no flood lights operational.There is no way to identify the movement area unless you cross it and get deviated. Charts do not say where the non-movement area [is]. The whole airport is one taxiway; hard to tell if all ramp area is non-movement[We] did not establish two-way communication with Ground Control.


Second narrative: Possible pilot deviation for violating a movement area without taxi clearance. [We were] repositioning from hard stand to de-ice pad; and crossed into a movement area without taxi clearance.Suggestions: 1. Make markings more visible. 2. De-ice at gate. 3. Make sure flood lights work. 4. Make a note in company charts and pages of this to make unfamiliar crews aware of potential deviation threat.1. First time FO (First Officer) has been to airport; unfamiliar with layout. 2. Night time winter operations. 3. Dimly lit hard stand and ramp area; hard to see and navigate. We were advised prior to boarding the airplane by Ground Personnel that ramp flood lights were not working when they usually work. 4. Turn out gate with small ramp; it seems that by the time the Captain had turned the aircraft fully around to reposition to the de-ice pad; we may have already crossed the taxi hold short line. 5. Ramp just transitions to taxiway with no other distinguishing signs; lights; barriers; markings other than the movement/non movement line that we noticed after crossing it already. 6. After clearing the area to the right of the aircraft; FO was heads-down configuring aircraft for de-ice; reducing situational awareness.

Second callback: Reporter stated incident location was HTS airport.

Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported entering a non-movement area while taxiing at HTS airport; citing poor airport lighting and markings as contributing factors to the incident.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Smelled of dirty feet and vomit pretty bad and the pilots were like 'Oh that's just the APU.' Obviously air quality issues that need to be taken more seriously by the flight attendants would be great instead of letting us fly two legs on a plane like that.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported noxious odor in passenger cabin.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
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; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I flew a normal pattern; performed the before landing checklist; and crossed the runway threshold at 65-70 KIAS and correctly positioned on both the glide slope and the runway centerline. I performed a normal landing and touched down 3-5 FT left of centerline in a slightly nose-high attitude; since I was slow to correct for a slight right crosswind. After the nose wheel came down and the airplane had rolled straight down the runway for 2-3 seconds; I intended to apply gentle right rudder pressure to correct back to centerline. While doing so; I must have caught the right brake with my toe. The airplane veered sharply to the right; and the right main gear lifted 1-2 FT off the ground. By the time I got the right main gear back on the ground; I did not have enough room to execute a left turn to keep the airplane on the runway and did not want the right main gear to go off the side of the runway while in a left turn. So; I departed the runway over the right edge with the yoke back as far as it would go. I secured the engine; and the airplane stopped in the grass several seconds later. The airplane was undamaged. To prevent this from happening; I could have landed directly on the centerline; waited for the airplane to slow down more before beginning even a gentle turn; or not contacted the brake pedal during the turn. Finally; if I had kept the yoke farther back after touchdown to keep weight off the nose wheel I may have had better directional control.




Synopsis: A C-182 departed a CTAF runway after the pilot mistakenly touched a brake as he was intending to push rudder in order to correct a crosswind drift during landing roll out.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on final approach for runway 24R at LAX following a 'Heavy' Boeing 777 with a light quarterly tailwind. The approach was stable until approximately 50ft when we believe we encountered the preceding 777's wake turbulence. The wake turbulence caused the left wing to suddenly raise; banking us to the right. At this time the EGPWS warning for 'Bank Angle' sounded. Captain called for the controls and I relinquished them. He corrected and landed in the touchdown zone.A suggestion that could have prevented this situation would be to touchdown beyond the preceding aircraft's touchdown point. In the future I will take caution whenever following a large aircraft with a tailwind and I will make a more immediate action to correct the situation or initiate an immediate go-around.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of a B777 on short final to LAX.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZBAA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were assigned 200 KTS early in the arrival sequence. The pilot flying believed that ATC would slow him and that the marker displayed on the map was the FAF. Both assumptions were in error; so at glide slope intercept; speed was 200 KTS with flaps 1. Airspeed criteria at FAF and 1;500 FT was not met. Crew went into the 'rapidly correcting' mode. Inside 1;000 FT; calls of 'airspeed' and 'airspeed correcting' were made. At 500 FT; still on lateral and vertical profile; and stabilized approach parameters satisfied; a go around was not required. Landing was on speed in touch down zone.This was a good lesson in CRM skills. Once the error was identified; the entire crew quickly went into the repair and recover mode. There was a post flight debrief in the cockpit; parked at the gate; that continued onto evening hours. Lessons were learned by an experienced; high time crew. I believe fatigue was a major player in this event.




Synopsis: A tired flight crew was kept at too high an airspeed by ZBAA Approach Control until near the FAF. Flight crew had to scramble and work together to achieve stabilized approach criteria to avoid having to execute a go around.