elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CVG.TRACON, KY
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CVG
ATC / advisory: Tower CVG
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On arrival in the CVG terminal area; we were vectored onto the 36R localizer at NUYLI at 3000'MSL and cleared for the ILS 36R approach. Localizer and glideslope were intercepted normally. We were in IMC for the descent and approach. The approach was coupled with the center autopilot in command. Approximately 1.5-2NM outside the Final Approach Fix; the aircraft nose slowly veered to the right. I noticed the LOC had gone to a full scale left deflection and instructed the FO (First Officer) to disconnect the autopilot and attempt to re-intercept the final approach course. Passing the FAF; the localizer still indicated a full scale left deflection; so I initiated a go around. We called CVG Tower to inform him of the missed approach and executed the go around procedure. We were vectored around for a second attempt at the ILS 36R approach. The second approach was uneventful and the flight was terminated without incident.After takeoff; the FO reported a heavy right wing down rolling tendency in the aircraft. It was controllable; however; he used 5.5 units of right rudder trim to maintain straight and level flight. The flight proceeded normally all the way up to just before the FAF on the 36R ILS. I believe that as the aircraft slowed to final approach speed and landing flaps were set; the autopilot could not compensate for the 5.5 units of rudder trim; and the nose veered imperceptibly to the right. This caused the localizer tracking to fail; and we did not have enough time/space to reacquire the LOC before passing the FAF. During the go around; while hand flying the aircraft; the FO removed most of the rudder trim before re-engaging the autopilot. The aircraft flew the second approach; with approximately 2-3 units of rudder trim; just fine; and we landed the aircraft without further incident. I made a maintenance logbook entry regarding the excessive rolling tendency in the aircraft.




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying B767-200 aircraft encountered flight control anomaly requiring excessive trim.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took off from ZZZ1 at XA:46 for a short flight to ZZZ. ZZZ1 asked me to report the airport in sight and I did. I was then asked to contact Unicom. I then [joined] the left base and [stated] my position and intents. I found myself having to do a circle because I was coming up on a C-172 causing me to have to do a circle for spacing but however a C-182 didn't extend their downwind causing us to over lap before I could complete my circle. The same C-182 flew over my aircraft and landed instead of giving us the space we needed to complete the maneuver. After all I was the faster aircraft so why was the C-182 trying to get infront of a C-402? At the end of the day safety is my biggest concern and we all need to work together to accomplish this goal.




Synopsis: C-402 Pilot reported being overflown by a C-182; while trying to give way to a C-172.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JNU.Airport, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna Super Skywagon/Super Skylane
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower JNU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I; as CIC (Controller in Charge); told the Local controller that a pickup truck was on the active runway after he cleared Aircraft X for takeoff Runway 26 at Delta. The local controller was told in the brief when he took the position that a vehicle was approved on the runway full length. The local controller argued with me when I told him to hold Aircraft X short of RWY 26. The controller never fixed the situation and Aircraft X departed. I recommend that the Local controller listen to the CIC and not clear aircraft for takeoff with a vehicle on the runway!




Synopsis: JNU Tower CIC (Controller in Charge) advised Local Control that a vehicle was approved and on the runway. Local Control argued with CIC and the aircraft departed the runway with the vehicle on it.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E M03
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We filed to Memphis via LIT TAMMY 4 arrival. Enroute to LIT at FL350 we requested direct routing to TAMMY Intersection. The Memphis ARTCC Controller cleared us to descend to FL330 and then 'Pilot's discretion to FL240. Upon reaching FL330 cleared direct to TAMMY'. We complied with the clearance. Enroute to TAMMY; we were switched to Memphis Approach Control. The Approach Controller asked us to verify we were descending via the TAMMY 4 arrival; Landing North Transition. We responded with our previously cleared routing (direct TAMMY). (I don't recall if we were already at FL240; descending to FL240 or still at FL330) The Approach Controller then cleared us 'Direct TAMMY; descend via the TAMMY 4 arrival; landing north transition'. We assumed this meant to comply with the altitude restrictions at TAMMY depicted on the arrival (below 16;000 and at or above 10;000 FT). We therefore continued our descent to comply with the altitude restrictions at TAMMY. As an aircrew; we both believed this was the Controller's intent but I'm not sure this was technically correct because we weren't on the arrival until reaching TAMMY. It seems to me the Controller should have given us an altitude to reach at TAMMY and then cleared us to descend via the arrival. [Our confusion was the result of an] ambiguous clearance issued by the Controller [and an] expectation bias on the part of the aircrew.Clear; concise clearance by ATC; as with all ATC clearances involving SIDs and STARs; there is ALWAYS room for misinterpretation by the aircrew when cleared to climb or descend to a new altitude. This could easily be resolved by controllers using the word UNRESTRICTED; as: 'climb/descend UNRESTRICTED to...' We should have queried the Controller for a clearance to cross TAMMY Intersection at a specific altitude rather than continue descent based on our own assumption.




Synopsis: The flight crew of an MD-11 was confused by a clearance to proceed direct to an intermediate fix on and descend via the TAMMY RNAV STAR to MEM that did not include an altitude at which to cross the fix.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While taxiing to our gate a baggage cart driver pulled out in front of us; seemingly unaware that we were entering the alley. We were able to stop the aircraft in time to avoid collision however the driver never acknowledged our presence and continued driving; never looking our direction. The driver displayed very poor situational awareness. He did not look. Train baggage cart drivers to look both ways multiple times and be cautious of aircraft traffic.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a baggage cart driver pulled out in front of the aircraft during taxi.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in cruise flight an EICAS caution message for PAX DR STOW appeared. As the Captain (pilot monitoring) instinctively called the flight attendant to have her sit down; I (pilot flying) reached down and opened up the QRH to what I thought to be the applicable section and handed the book to him. After following the QRH procedure and not clearing the caution message we opted to divert as the QRH advised. After a subsequent diversion...and after speaking to maintenance personnel we determined that we had completed the wrong QRH procedure. We had; in fact; run the PAX DR OUT HNDL checklist instead. Many lessons were learned from this event. First; although well-intentioned; as pilot flying it was not my duty nor was it in our best interest for me to reach for; nor be concerned with the QRH. I should have allowed the Captain to work the issue without leading him down the path of an improper QRH procedure. Secondly; I feel we should have slowed-down to match the correct caution message with the applicable QRH procedure. There are many PAX DR caution messages and I mistakenly opened the QRH to the first mention of PAX DR (phase III or phase IV door determination). Lastly; although the checklist said to divert; there was a part of me that questioned whether this event would justify a diversion. I should have acted on this feeling so as to verify or possibly re-run the QRH procedure. This was a learning opportunity for both the Captain and myself. I feel that although both of us wanted the safest and best outcome; we perhaps rushed the procedure rather than slowing down to assess the big picture.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew made an unnecessary diversion after running the wrong QRH procedure for a PAX DR STOW warning.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; 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: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Planned departure on Runway 22L; winds 220/7. Normal run up for takeoff; First Officer called 'thrust set'. At approximately 85 knots we felt a swerve to the right; it was significant enough that I thought we may have lost an engine. I called 'reject' and brought the throttles to idle. Max brakes engaged and we decelerated quickly. I disconnected autobrakes and slowed the aircraft to taxi speed. There was no ECAM and all engine indications were normal. We didn't suspect that we had a blown tire. The uncommanded swerve was significant enough that I wanted maintenance to look at the aircraft. We taxied back to the gate. We were given another aircraft. We taxied to Runway 22L for departure. We began a normal takeoff roll; winds 220/7 and at almost the same location we had a slight swerve to the right rolled by a swerve to the left. Wasn't nearly as significant as our aborted takeoff but noticeable. After discussing the events we both concluded that there was a possibility that we hit wake turbulence on takeoff from aircraft landing on 28C. I've taken off Runway 22L many times and have never experienced that.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported rejecting the takeoff on ORD Runway 22L at approximately 85 kts after encountering probable wake turbulence from aircraft landing on 28C.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HWO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HWO
ATC / advisory: Tower HWO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received instruction to make straight in Runway 10R at North Perry. Several aircraft in the pattern; multiple on downwind. 2 mile final; ATC instructed multiple aircraft to extend downwind. Aircraft Y; tail number unknown; turned base. Our aircraft was extremely close when they cut in front of us on final. They evaded with quick right turn and we executed a go-around. The student and myself were both on the controls; the lesson was on landings.




Synopsis: Instructor reported an NMAC with another aircraft in the pattern while on final.
Date: 201812
Location: BUF.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival at our departure aircraft; it was discovered that Station Personnel entered flight deck; turned on an electrically dead (terminated) aircraft; then boarded all passengers without proper flight crew [and] flight deck setup in accordance with FOM procedures. As a result; the emergency lights were left in the OFF position during darkness hours. This represents an unacceptable risk to our passengers should power be interrupted or an evacuation be required. I'm not aware of any case were Station Personnel can initiate an FOM flight deck setup from a terminated state appropriate for boarding with no pilots present. Station Personnel should be aware of FAR's and Company procedures regarding boarding passengers.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported discovering passengers had been boarded by Station Personnel with no flight crew on board; and the emergency exit light switch was found in the off position.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climbout we received an ACARS message from Dispatch approximately 15 minutes into the flight. Crew was made aware of hazmat onboard by Dispatch. Ground Ops failed to provide knowledge and paperwork of said hazmat to crew. We never knew it was onboard.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported Dispatch airborne notification of onboard hazmat shipment.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BDN.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E BDN
ATC / advisory: CTAF BDN
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Practicing touch and go's at Bend airport with a student; flying standard left traffic for Runway 16. Skies were clear and visibility was greater than 10SM. Turned about 1 mile final from base. Both base and final radio calls were made. Just as we were passing over the runway numbers about to touchdown; we heard a scream over the radio. After landing and beginning roll for touch and go; helicopter comes over the radio and asks if we saw the helicopter that we just flew under. We said no we had not. Last radio call we heard from a helicopter was 'high left downwind 16; power off 180.' After talking to the instructor in the helicopter; we found out that they missed coming down on top of us by about 10 feet while practicing an auto-rotation. THIS AIRPORT NEEDS A TOWER OR IT IS A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THERE IS A MIDAIR COLLISION!


Second narrative: Apparently a helicopter doing routine flight training had witnessed my and my instructors aircraft fly directly beneath while the helicopter was on short final to Runway 16.Neither myself nor my instructor had a clue that there could have been a helicopter on final approach. We did not hear a radio call announcing a helicopter on final; nor did we see a helicopter along our approach path.BDN has a high volume of flight training activity both helicopter and fixed wing. Though usually the helicopter and airplane traffic communicate intentions very well. This close call happened during a normally scheduled flight block. During that time there were both helicopters and airplanes in the traffic pattern. Helicopters were using the adjoining taxiways; while airplanes were using the runway.


Synopsis: A high wing aircraft and a helicopter had a near miss over Runway 16 at BDN very short final when the fixed wing aircraft flew directly beneath the helicopter as its pilots were practicing an autorotation landing.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on vectors with Approach Control at 5000 feet to ICKEL for Rwy 18R approach. We received a TCAS RA to climb and immediately complied. At the time of the TCAS event we saw a target in red on the Navigation Display (ND) that said -2; at about 1 mile. As we climbed to 5600 feet; the TCAS RA went away and so did the target on the ND. We never saw an aircraft and then reported it to ATC who told us they had no traffic in the area.


Second narrative: On vector to 18R at DFW; we received a TCAS RA to climb. A TCAS target appeared 300 feet below us and climbing. Following the RA guidance we climbed to approximately 5600 feet before the RA cleared.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported a TCAS RA while on vectors to Runway 18R at DFW. Crew stated no aircraft was seen and ATC responded they had no traffic in the area.