elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RHV.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D RHV
ATC / advisory: Tower RHV
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A high-wing single engine landed on Runway 31L and was told to make a 180 back-taxi Runway31L cleared for takeoff. A small twin a minute later was given a takeoff clearance on Runway 31R. The high-wing single engine started takeoff roll before the small twin. The high-wing single engine rotated just before the small twin; the small twin passed the high-wing single engine when both were less than 10 FT off the ground. The distance between the runways is 300 FT. Do not give a 180 back-taxi and takeoff clearance at the same time. The Local Controller did not think twice about this operation since it is a common practice here.




Synopsis: A high-wing single engine; after landing Runway 31L at RHV; was cleared to back-taxi to the approach end and simultaneously cleared for takeoff (Runway 31L has no accessible parallel taxiway; thus the routine use of back taxi clearances practicing full stop landings). After completing the back taxi the high-wing single engine began its takeoff roll simultaneously with a small twin on Runway 31R. When both were airborne their horizontal separation was only about 300 FT; the centerline spacing between the two runways.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the flight preflight; I missed resetting the flap selector to 10 degrees; as is my normal practice.  During taxi out and completing the before takeoff checklist; the challenge question was asked 'Flaps 10;' and due to expectation bias; and monitoring an aircraft back taxiing on the runway; I saw and confirmed 10 degrees of flaps; instead of the 15 degrees actually dialed in. When Tower cleared us for takeoff I advanced the throttles; and the aircraft horn sounded due to the incorrect flap setting; I pulled the throttles to idle at approximately 5 knots applied brakes; then we reset the flaps to 10 degrees; and after confirming the correct configuration continued the takeoff.2nd leg of the day; a day after an oceanic crossing; followed by isolating in the hotel.  This accompanied by the COVID-19 restrictions caused broken sleep periods. While I felt fine; the fact that I was only getting 3 1/2 to 4 hours of sleep in blocks; coupled with the circadian disruptions did not help.Better attention to detail.


Second narrative: On initial power push for takeoff; received the flap warning horn.  The Captain brought throttles back; I reset the flaps to 10 and we continued the takeoff roll.  I failed to check the flap setting when we input the numbers and again when I  we accomplished the before takeoff checklist.  A recheck when I called 'Configuration Checked' may have caught it; however the dark most likely would have prevented this from happening.  Do not assume and be sure to verify settings called.  I failed to do this and allowed myself to get in a hurry.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving a flap setting warning horn during initial power push for takeoff. The Captain cited lack of sleep as a contributing factor.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When taxiing for takeoff; a pilot in an aircraft in line for takeoff behind us broadcast that he was seeing flames coming from our number one engine. I continued to taxi onto the runway and subsequently exited the runway while we shut down the number one engine. We then proceeded through the QRH Engine Tailpipe Fire Checklist.On Tower frequency; I then asked for a better explanation of what had been seen. The pilot repeated that he saw flames but that they had extinguished. Two other aircraft in line also reported the same situation. While we coordinated with the Tower/Ground and Operations; we received a call a Flight Attendant that two passengers had seen flames from the number one engine (this report also was with flames now extinguished).Since all external reports indicated no fire indications and QRH guidance had been completed; we returned to the gate. Operations; Maintenance and Dispatch were notified. The aircraft was taken out of service.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported returning to the gate after a pilot in an aircraft behind them reported a tailpipe fire.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Concerning the Offshore 5 departure out of SFO: The instructions off of Runways 1L/R appear to be fly the 350 radial from SFO and cross 4 DME at or above 1;600 FT. Off Runways 28L/R is similar; but the clearance is followed with 'THEN RESUME SID'. Those words; 'then resume SID'; are NOT printed on the initial instructions off Runways 1L/R; leading one to believe they should continue on the SFO 350 degree radial. There are routing instructions underneath; but only the Runway 28L/R say to resume the SID. Because the visual depiction plan view shows a turn after departing 1L/R contrary to the verbiage; I asked clearance for clarification. He took a few minutes to review the chart and he indicated it was worded poorly. He said to automatically make the turn as depicted. The biggest reason for the confusion is the inconsistency in the verbiage between 1L/R and 28L/R.We cleared up all confusion with SFO clearance delivery prior to take off.




Synopsis: A CE750 First Officer questioned the lack of the statement '...then resume SID' in the INITIAL CLIMB description for Runways 28L&R departures on the OFFSHORE5 SID from SFO since the statement was included for departures off Runways 1L&R. After questioning the procedure with Clearance Delivery they agreed it was 'worded poorly.'
Date: 201503
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
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was pilot flying during the given date and time. While descending into the terminal area we were cleared down to 3;000 feet. Around 10NM away from the airport we were cleared for the visual approach to 36R. At 10NM I realized I was still doing 250 knots and needed to slow down quickly in order to have a stable approach by 1;000 feet AGL. I deployed full spoilers and slowed to 220 knots. The glideslope was captured and in order to keep a fast rate of deceleration going I called for gear down at 220 knots. Once at 200 knots I called for Flaps 8. I intentionally left the spoilers out to continue to help with decelerating. I called for Flaps 20 at around 190 knots and Flaps 30 at 180.  At 160 knots we were approximately 1;300-1;500 feet and called for Flaps 45 and bugged Vref of 139 for the landing. As we slowed to about 145 knots I was just about to put the spoilers back down when all of the sudden the plane automatically disengaged the autopilot and the stick shaker went off for 1 sec. Our speed was never below Vref of 139 and as soon as the spoilers were retracted the shaker stopped and NO INCREASE in power was necessary to remain stable. To my knowledge the continuous ignition did not engage either. Both my First Officer (FO) and I tried to understand why we had momentarily experienced a shaker when; in our opinion and experience; we should not have. The rest of the landing and following leg back was uneventful.After further thought; I believe the shaker went off possibly due to my spoilers intentionally out to slow down; the airspeed trend vector quite possibly had gone too far into the bottom barber pole possibly causing the auto pilot and shaker to go off for a split second... Again my airspeed was never in danger of falling below Vref or into the barber pole... I should have definitely retracted my spoilers much sooner in order to avoid the situation. But at no time to did I not realize the spoilers were out and again at no time did my speed fall below Vref.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 stick shaker activated momentarily and the autopilot self-disconnected while descending for landing near 1;000 feet; with the speed brakes extended; flaps 45; and at 145kts.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight arrived into gate with its APU off and engine 1 remained running at the gate for a few minutes. Management has notified us to report when this happens as it is not SOP.




Synopsis: A ramp person reported a flight arriving at the gate with the APU off and the number one engine running; which is not the SOP at his company.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing to the gate after landing on taxiway Juliet just past Spot 10 headed to Spot 11 our airplane was cut off by a fuel truck. The crew was required to come to an abrupt stop to avoid an accident. The FO then advised the ramp controller of the incident; gave them the truck number and advised them the crew would be filling an ASAP report.Communications with fuel trucks and ramp should be required.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported an abrupt stop was required to avoid a collision with a fuel truck on the ramp at PHL.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System Indicating & Warning
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The event occurred due to the anti-ice system having something wrong with it and not performing properly. During our approach into ZZZ to Runway XXR we were in freezing drizzle and fog conditions and were being vectored onto final. I was pilot flying and we were asked to keep the speed up for a little bit which we did. I believe it was 210 kts. Then we got a wing anti-ice fail message and we followed the QRH and turned the system to all. Shortly thereafter; we got a RED warning and bells for ANTI-ICE INOP in icing conditions. We quickly assessed the situation and neither I nor my FO (First Officer) could determine if we were accumulating ice on our critical surfaces; but we did have about 1 inch or more ice already on our windshield wipers. The QRH states to 'Exit and avoid Icing conditions'. The best; safest and only option we had in that moment was to get on the ground as quickly and as safely as possible. Simultaneously; ATC asked me slow down as they usually do at this point in the approach. My FO and I both agreed that we could not comply. I asked him to [Request Priority Handling] as we were in a moderate icing condition with possible anti-ice failure. We were already configured with flaps 9 at this point; so I kept our speed above 190 kts. to the final approach fix and then configured gear down & flaps 22 for our final setting according to the QRH. Due to our time constraints and being in such a critical phase of flight; I did not ask for my FO to 'rebug my new speeds' of Vref 45 +30kts per the QRH. We kept the speeds that were there in order to avoid a distraction and we flew the new speeds manually. We made a normal landing without any issues or need for any further assistance and taxied safely to our gate. This was simply an equipment issue that resulted in the emergency. I can only suggest continued good maintenance practices to ensure all systems are operating properly.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a complete failure of the anti-ice system during approach in icing conditions.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Near conclusion of landing rollout aircraft rolled into the grass parallel to the runway and then back onto the runway before exiting the runway and taxiing to the ramp. No damage to property or aircraft occurred.While slowing in the rollout the aircraft became uncontrollable with use of differential braking and power lever position settings in which the levers were even/parallel to each other. The aircraft began a turn to the left.After initial application of increased right engine reverse thrust; in an effort to further slow us down; failed to pull the plane back to the right I didn't think there was enough time for application of increased thrust on the left engine to prevent us from hitting the runway edge light we were aiming toward so in order to avoid damage to the aircraft; airport; and any person the plane continued to the left away from the light and into the grass where I thought the aircraft would be handled more safely and returned to the runway in a controllable manner.A series of events caused this event some of which were mechanical failures; mechanical disparities; leading to aircraft lack of control. Thank God that went pretty well; it could have been much worse. Happy I made a choice I thought was the safest and it had a safe conclusion. And disappointment that the airplane was unable to stay on the runway.Each pilot briefed the QRH individually and then again together before executing the operating procedures. I was proud of our preparation for a possible situation however we could have done better. Because I never felt like an emergency was occurring or was going to occur; I did not declare an emergency. In retrospect I should have advised tower of the aircraft's condition. Not having a mechanical malfunction of this sort would prevent this from happening. Better differential thrust control would help prevent this from occurring again.




Synopsis: SA-227 Captain reported a runway excursion when he lost directional control during the landing roll.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IWA.Tower, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in Aircraft X. I was cleared to land 30L whilst in the downwind. (There was another aircraft instructed to follow us from the south west gap arrival) We had turned Final and the controller asked us to land 30C - I checked and there was another aircraft at our altitude on the parallel runway - I queried the controller - he stated he wanted us to land 30C - so I called a Go-around as this would have ended in a collision. The controller asked me to Ident - he also called the go-around and then cleared Aircraft Y to change and land 30C. The airspace was getting saturated and I believe that he controller due to task saturation mixed us and Aircraft Y. As a result of good communication on both parts we reentered the pattern safely and landed.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported Tower Controller cleared two aircraft to land on the same runway; resulting in a go-around.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AHN.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D AHN
ATC / advisory: Tower AHN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon the initial contact with KAHN tower I was told to expect a right down wind for runway 27.From 20 miles to 15 miles to over flying the airport from the west to the east I never saw the rotating beacon. Not having flown into KAHN very often at night I was trying to locate the beacon visually; while transitioning from the GPS system to outside of the cockpit; and as I trying to locate the beacon I lost sight of the airport as depicted on the GPS. At the moment the controller called to ask if I knew where I was; it was at that moment I realized what I had done and where I was in relationship to the airport and the runway as depicted on the GPS. As I readjusted my focus to the GPS I saw that I had flown south of the runway and was now about 1.5-2 miles south east of the airfield; runway 27. I made a turn to the airfield and made a landing without incident. I have spoken to two other pilots and a flight instructor who regularity fly into KAHN at night and they confirmed and affirmed the trouble I had finding the beacon let alone the airport. They also confirmed that it is extremely difficult to see the rotating beacon at night even in ideal conditions because of the light pollution around the airport and the physical location of the rotating beacon. In addition I realize I could have asked for or controlled the brightness of the runway lights sooner and should have asked the controller for help sooner. But I have always been able to pick out the rotating beacon with little or no problem; but not last night coming into KAHN from the west.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small airplane reported over-flying the intended destination airport due to the inability to identify the rotating beacon and the airport environment at night.