elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was being trained in an aircraft L-5/OY-2. First landing went perfectly and taxi back for takeoff went perfectly. There was a wind from the east going mostly down the runway. Upon second attempt to land we lined up with the runway on approach and glide path were normal. I first heard the landing gear right tire squeak; the instructor said that the right gear had settled; then I attempted to get the left gear to settle on the runway. As I removed my crosswind correction; the right wing came up from a wind gust and I tried to get the gear on the ground while getting the right wing level. The left gear didn't settle instead of locking down or settling we rolled into the brush on the left side of the runway. If it had not been for a small ditch we would have rolled back onto the runway; instead with the power at idle the tires/landing gear settled into a small ditch which lowered the front of the airplane enough to stop the propeller and break one tip of the wooden propeller.I believe this unique aircraft has some peculiar landing gear qualities that need special attention for training on landings especially. This landing gear has individual hydraulic shocks that allow it to move more than a typical landing gear. They move more than a regular landing gear. I will seek additional training in this aircraft with someone who is specifically trained and authorized to provide such training.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reported a training flight in gusty wind conditions that resulted in a runway excursion upon landing.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climbout on the all-nighter to the East Coast; we were given a clearance direct to PEVEE. As the pilot flying I brought PEVEE to the top of the legs page and somehow dumped the box. I tried typing in PEVEE to proceed direct but must have miss-spelled the waypoint. ATC called and asked if we were proceeding direct to PEVEE; we responded that we were working on it. ATC gave us a vector to PEVEE. We were able to load PEVEE; proceed direct; and re-load the entire route. I am not sure how I dumped the box; but I should have been slower with the box work; Insured the pilot flying verified the proposed change and then executed. I also should have asked for a vector earlier when I dumped the box; instead of trying to type in the waypoint at night.




Synopsis: A B767-300 flight crew suffered a momentary track deviation when their attempts to program a 'direct to a fix clearance' on their FMC; their active route was lost. ATC provided a vector while they reprogrammed the route.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: wake turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending on the BDEGA 3 RNAV arrival in the vicinity of BDEGA. We were given a descend via clearance except to maintain 11;000 ft. As we were descending below 13;000 ft. we simultaneously encountered wake turbulence from an A380 as ATC amended our altitude to 12;000 ft. and cautioned us for wake turbulence. We reported that we experienced the wake turbulence and were then given a further descent which we denied and remained level at 12;800 ft. to allow for more separation. We were then issued a pilots discretion descent. I called back to check on crew and passengers. No injuries reported; however [a] Flight Attendant mentioned to the First Officer as she was leaving the aircraft that she may have re-injured her tail bone.This is a constant problem going into SFO. There are certain airports we operate into (SFO; LAX) where wake turbulence is a constant problem and an ongoing threat. Our air traffic controllers do an excellent job with the resources given and the volume of traffic they have to manage; however I would like to see some additional arrival spacing from heavies when flying into these airports. As a side note; I think the FAA needs to re-evaluate the categorization of the 757 and solicit feedback from pilots that deal with it on a daily basis.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival into SFO in trail of an A380. Reporter stated would like to see more separation from heavy aircraft; and further recommended re-evaluating the B757.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I filed IFR direct to AVP at 9;000 FT and was cruising at that altitude. In contact with Columbia Approach I was advised by the Columbia Controller that I could stay at 9;000 and be routed around Charlotte airspace or descend to 7;000 where 'they can handle you.' I descended to 7;000 and was handed off to the Charlotte Approach Controller. This Controller then issued me a radar vector almost 60 degrees off course to take me back the way I had come and around Charlotte airspace to the west; and he made me hold off-course radar vectors for the better part of half an hour. When I asked when I could expect a more direct routing; another voice came on frequency and told me that I had to go around the Charlotte airspace to accommodate arrivals and departures from CLT. When I told him of the Columbia Controller's instructions to go to 7;000 for better handling by Charlotte; this new voice (Supervisor?) said something to the effect of 'yeah; we get that from those guys.'This circuitous routing added significant time to my flight; inconvenienced my passenger; and cut into my fuel reserves enough that; if it had persisted or had we not had decent weather at destination; it might well have compromised the safety of my flight.Of additional note; this is not the only time I have been steered totally around Charlotte airspace while IFR. It has happened repeatedly. I have also been denied transit when calling in VFR; on one occasion being made so late by the deviation that my destination field had closed for the air show I had planned to attend. I cannot fathom what Charlotte's issue is with handling legitimate flights that don't happen to be landing at CLT or within the Charlotte Class B veil; but if Charlotte controllers intend to essentially close their airspace to transient GA aircraft; pilot education to that effect would be useful. Education to controllers in neighboring airspace sectors would also be very helpful.




Synopsis: An M20 pilot filed IFR to AVP expressed his displeasure when he was denied direct routing through the CLT Class B due to arrivals and departures.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We were] taxiing out with East; then West Ramp Control. We received three taxi routing changes and three runway assignment changes. The last clearance we received was WB to WD to NR to NB to Runway 15R. When reaching what we thought was WD the Captain started the slight right turn. Ground called us and told us that we couldn't taxi there and to stop. The Captain brought the aircraft to a smooth stop. We then asked Ground what the issue was and they told us that we were on Taxiway NR and there was a wingspan restriction. We then rechecked the taxi charts and realized where we were and also saw the note that stated no aircraft with a wingspan greater than 125 FT were allowed to use this taxiway.I asked Ground what the plan was and they said airport operations personnel were on their way with a tug to push us back so we could continue on taxiway WB up to WD. The airport operations personnel arrived approximately 10 minutes later and were able to provide wingwalkers and ensure no vehicle traffic would be near our aircraft while we moved along NR. Building; fence and light pole clearances were not a factor; so it seems like the restriction is in place for vehicle traffic.Once we moved North on Taxiway NR and were clear; Ground cleared us to Runway 15R. During that conversation the Ground Controller stated that this happens quite frequently and understands that the taxiways aren't marked very well at that intersection. While approaching this taxiway; the Captain and I were very comfortable with the taxiway as there seemed no way obstacles were a factor for wingtip or engine clearance. I believe this spaghetti bowl of taxiways should have a 'hot spot' circle highlighting the multiple clearances that are possible and the associated taxiway restrictions.




Synopsis: Following multiple revised taxi clearances at IAH the flight crew of a B767-300 found themselves on NR which is restricted for use by aircraft with wingspans greater than 125 FT.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FMY.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower FMY
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Flight Instructor/Pilot in Command; working with a light sport student on a refresher flight in anticipation of endorsing the student for another 90 day solo endorsement.  After performing a series of climbs; turns; descents; slow flight; power on and off stalls in our practice area; we returned to the airport for some take offs and landings.  There were numerous aircraft in the pattern which required us to do a left 360 turn to  enter the right downwind leg at the Tower's request.  We entered the pattern normally; ran the landing checklist; and configured the aircraft for landing with flaps 15; at an airspeed of 65 knots.  On turning to final; the Student was about 100 feet to high so I aided him in a forward slip to get the aircraft into a better landing position.  There was a variable crosswind from the left as observed from the windsock; estimated to be about 7 knots and approximately 20 degrees off of the nose of the aircraft.  I decided to stay on the controls with the Student to aid him in the landing.  We executed a normal crosswind landing setting the left wheel down followed by the right wheel and finally the nosewheel.  On setting the nosewheel down there was a loud noise to which I immediately pulled the nosewheel back off the ground in anticipation of a flat nose tire.  I slowed the aircraft as much as possible while keeping longitudinal control and gently set the nosewheel down onto the runway.  The nosewheel collapsed causing the propeller to strike the ground and the aircraft to skid and come to a stop on the runway.  There were no injuries to us so we performed the shut down checklist; reported to the Tower we were ok; and departed the aircraft.  I feel there was a mechanical failure of the nose gear which was not seen on the pre-flight inspection due to the nosewheel fairing covering the entire nose gear assembly.




Synopsis: LSA instructor pilot with student experiences a nose gear collapse after a normal landing.  The aircraft was not equipped with retractable landing gear.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We were trying to back away from the gate to get the engines started. We used 4 start carts to try and get it started. After none of them were working we pulled back into the gate and the Captain made an announcement for the passengers to get their things and deplane the aircraft. After we started deplaning the aircraft the Captain made an announcement to move quickly; if you look out the right side of the aircraft you will see why. We looked out the window and one of the start carts under the wing was on fire. We tried to quickly get the passengers off the aircraft. We could smell the smoke coming in the cabin. We did not deploy any slides; we just got the passengers off through the boarding door.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported passengers were evacuated to the terminal via aircraft entry doors after a start cart caught fire on the ramp next to them.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: ACARS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During our preflight check we verified the [Maintenance Release]; the ETOPS check and verified the time; date and station. We also verified the [Maintenance Release] via the ACARS. We pushed back at XA50 and took off at XB04. During climb we received an ACARS message at XB21 stating do not take off; new [Maintenance Release] needed. [Maintenance Release] ZZZ 01 / XB21 needs to be replaced prior to push back or take off; if already pushed contact [Technical Support Maintenance Control] for new [Maintenance Release]. We contacted [Technical Support Maintenance Control]. [Technical Support Maintenance Control] said there was an electronic logbook software glitch that has been creating these messages. He said we are okay to continue. I just wanted to report the problem to ensure it is addressed.




Synopsis: B787 Captain reported receiving spurious ACARS report stating not to takeoff during climb.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Gate arrival
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During out loading of cargo in ZZZ; ramp crew added 24 pounds of cargo too the aft compartment. We were only carrying 7 bags total up front. We asked the ground crew via the intercom to confirm that the cargo was in the aft compartment and not in the front and they confirmed. We however never inquired on what the cargo was. Cargo load report via acars did not mention any HAZMAT was being carried. When we arrived into Boston; I conducted the walk around. The ground personal had already removed the cargo out of the aft compartment and left it on the ground. Seeing the boxes I went over to inspect too see what it was. 1 box was 'dash'. I know dash cargo we can put in either cargo compartment. Hazmat 1 can be carried but only in the forward compartment for the dry ice. Hazmat 2 is not permitted to be carried at all on our aircraft. Had we received a NOTAC in the CLR we would of catches this HAZMAT in ZZZ and had it removed.




Synopsis: E-175 Captain reported undocumented Hazmat cargo was transported without flight crew notification.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
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: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Today operating flight [to] ABQ descending through FL230 multiple EICAS messages presented and we lost both pilot MFDs (Multi-Functional Displays); and the Captain side FMS; along with multiple other systems including the autopilot; trim; and auto throttle. We leveled off and [advised ATC] and then ran the root QRH checklists: AC Bus 1 Off; DC Bus 1 Off; Avionics MAU 1B Fail. We briefed the flight attendants and the passengers and we asked ATC to call the company. We continued to ABQ as we were on arrival and we landed without incident. The crash fire rescue monitored our brake temperature until the tug arrived and they accompanied us to the gate where we parked and deplaned without incident.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported an electrical malfunction during descent.