elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was well rested and it was a normal day for me. I was going to go up with a pilot; get acquainted with the aircraft; and work on a few takeoffs and landings. We briefed about the different speeds and systems of the aircraft; reviewed takeoff and approach procedures; and read through the emergency items before starting the aircraft. We then taxied out from the east T hangars to the run-up area at Runway XXR. After completing a run-up and discussing positive exchange of flight controls; we were cleared for takeoff.On takeoff the pilot smoothly applied full power and maintained center-line; I called out positive airspeed and gauges in the green. At around 40 kts we encountered a vibration from the nose that became severe at about 50kts. I called to abort the takeoff and pilot closed the throttle and applied the brakes. At that time we impacted the nose of the aircraft and the prop struck the runway. We quickly came to a full stop. I asked tower for assistance off the runway and then asked the pilot to secure the airplane and exit the aircraft. We exited the aircraft and then met with airport operations on the runway.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot; conducting a training flight in a single engine military aircraft; reported experiencing a severe nose gear vibration during the takeoff role. The takeoff was aborted just as the nose gear collapsed and the propeller struck the runway. No injuries were reported.
Date: 201411
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was working desk X. At XA00 local time this desk takes sector Y. I took the turnover and was completely saturated with flights. I had 20 flights in the air and my dispatch screen had 28 flights at the top. I had to keep my worksheet on the bottom line. Then I had to scroll to the maximum to see all of my flights. My operational control was gone. I had too many flights to manage. There was rain and icing conditions along the east coast. I had a bunch of transcon flights enroute.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reports being unable to maintain operational control of her flights after being assigned another sector on a night shift; due to too many flights.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to LAXBB; and prior to leveling at the assigned altitude restriction of 5000 FT; SoCal Approach cleared us for the RNAV RNP Z Approach to Runway 20R at SNA. With VNAV PATH established and displayed; the Pilot Flying (PF) set an altitude of 1400 FT in the MCP altitude window. ATC then directed us to slow to 170 knots and switch frequencies. While looking down to switch frequencies; I glanced to confirm 170 knots was set in the MCP panel. It was assumed incorrectly that Speed Intervention had been used; when; in fact; Level Change had been selected. The aircraft started to descend through the 5000 FT altitude crossing restriction. At approximately 4700 FT; the deviation was noticed by both pilots. Pilot Monitoring commanded 'climb back up' and the PF reset 5000 FT in the MCP window and climbed using Vertical Speed. The aircraft had descended to 4600 FT before the climb was recovered. After re-established; and properly on speed; and altitude with VNAV re-engaged; the arrival and approach were executed normally. No inquiry; comment or notification was made by ATC. The most significant reason for this occurrence was the lack of verbalization by the PF for the use of MCP Level Change. Verbalization; verifying and monitoring had been used and practiced throughout the trip but the lack of its use at this time proved consequential.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported overshooting a crossing restriction; due in part to the use of Level Change mode.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: In cruise on an airway talking to approach. About 10-12 minutes after our last contact with approach; copilot noticed we were on Center's frequency; and asked if I had switched us over from Approach. I said no; I did not remember being switched. I then called Center and asked if we should be with them; and they responded yes. A minute or two later; they gave us a phone number for Approach and requested that we phone after landing. When I phoned them; they stated that they had lost radio contact with us and had attempted to reach us on our assigned frequency as well as guard and had even asked an air carrier to attempt to contact us to no avail. Neither of us had switched frequency on the Avidyne IFD 540; but I did remember that I had turned on the IFD 100 application on my iPad at about the time that the trouble began. The IFD 100 is not supposed to be able to change the active frequency on the panel mounted IFD; and even at that I had not made frequency inputs on it. After reaching cruise on our next leg; I turned on the IFD 100 application while the copilot watched the frequency boxes on the IFD 540; and sure enough as soon as the IFD 100 came up it changed both the selected and standby freqs on the 540. I found that at least 3 other pilots had encountered this same problem. My big takeaway from this experience is that I should have been monitoring guard frequency as well as my assigned.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported the Avidyne IFD 540 automatically switched frequencies without the flight crew's input or knowledge when he opened up the Avidyne IFD 100 app on his iPad.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear day; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Operator: Other contracted service
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing north and south survey lines about 14 miles north of ZZZ at 4;800 feet. Approach told me traffic Cirrus 5 o'clock NW bound at 4;400 feet and I acknowledged it to ATC. Then; ATC told the Cirrus traffic 12 o'clock at 4;900 feet. The Cirrus pilot said that he was close to me and at almost same altitude; so he said that he's going to make a sharp right turn. After few seconds; he flew right under me at [around] 50-200 feet below me. I didn't see the Cirrus till he passed under me but the Cirrus pilot maneuvered well to avoid me. I think the Cirrus' transponder was little off than it's supposed to be because he was not at 4;400 [feet]. ATC should've informed us little earlier because the whole thing happened within 2 minutes of acknowledgment.




Synopsis: Piper Aztec (PA27) pilot reported a NMAC with previously reported traffic by ATC.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Restraint/Tie Down
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out lost pressurization. Master Warning for cabin altitude illuminated. Performed emergency procedure and notified ATC and began a descent. Descended to 10;000 ft MSL. Received clearance back to [the departure airport]. Upon inspection it was found that cargo floor retaining ring had failed allowing pallet jack to roll back and hit rear bulkhead. The bulkhead appeared to be damaged and be the cause of pressurization loss.


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


Synopsis: DC-9 flight crew reported a loss of cabin pressure during climb out due to a pallet jack becoming unsecured and puncturing the bulkhead.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I conducted a routine pre-flight of the aircraft and no anomalies were noted.  I requested that the aircraft be fueled; and that was done.  I also checked weather and NOTAMs for my solo flight.  I noted some wind indicated in the forecast - clear; unlimited visibility; wind variable 6 G 13; 30.01 altimeter - but well within aircraft and pilot limitations.  Actual weather at take-off was clear VFR and unremarkable.I then had a routine flight for approximately one hour focusing primarily on use of the Garmin avionics system.  I did an approach and landing which was uneventful.I returned to [home airport].  My initial approach was stabilized; but I was alert because of wind guests.  On touchdown; the aircraft became airborne after a wind gust. I executed a balked landing procedure as the aircraft settled on the runway and went around.On my second approach to land; the aircraft was again on a stabilized approach through flare and touchdown.  I was conducting a no-flaps approach because of the wind. After touchdown; there was an exceptional gust of wind which caused the aircraft to veer sharply to the left.  I immediately applied full right rudder and heavy braking to maintain control of the aircraft and avoid exiting the runway.  Despite my best efforts; the aircraft exited the runway.  I immediately released hard braking to avoid flipping the aircraft and focused on maintaining control; which I did.The aircraft came to rest adjacent to the intersecting taxi-way.  I could tell that the left tire was flat so I stopped the engine and exited the aircraft to inspect it and assess the situation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported loss of directional control after landing in gusty winds resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: C172RG nose wheel collapsed during the end of a landing roll out. The student inadvertently reached for the Carb-heat. Instead he grabbed the gear handle. I (CFI) saw the student reaching and tried to intercept/block the action. I was too slow and could not stop my student's hand. The gear handle moved only half-travel before my hand returned the gear lever to 'down.' The nose wheel gave way despite the squat switch. I am reporting this here because as a CFI I did my best to prevent the mistake but wasn't fast enough. My student was able to move from the throttle to the gear handle faster than I could block it.




Synopsis: C172RG flight instructor reported the student pilot inadvertently grabbed the gear handle instead of the carb heat and caused the nose gear to collapse on landing.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft had four (4) flag MEL items including 27-41-02 Stab Trim Primary Center Channel inop; 22-10-01-C Autopilots All inop; 22-3--01 Autothrottle inop; and 28-22-02-A Center Tank Fuel Pumps inop.  Had flown the same aircraft this morning and had no problem except that the Captain's yoke stab trim was slow; but the alternate trim worked fine (this was covered in the MEL as a possibility).  On descent; passing about 12;000 MSL; the stab trim quit working and stopped at about 4.5.  The alternate trim switches did not work; nor did the First Officer trim switches.  With the other MELs [we] had to hand fly the rest of the approach and landing.  Declared an emergency due to the heavy yoke forces from the out of trim condition.  Landed uneventfully and terminated the emergency.The combination of MELs was the primary factor in the problem.  Before the previous flight the First Officer and I had talked to the Dispatcher and Duty Officer and since the weather was VFR; we decided to fly [the scheduled leg].  I was told that [destination] Maintenance would work on the aircraft during the layover.  However; when we landed the Maintenance Technician indicated that he was not qualified to work on the autopilot system.  Nothing was done during the layover.  After having flown the aircraft on the previous flight and the return weather being VFR; we elected to fly back to [departure station]. Suggestions: Not schedule an aircraft with this many flag MEL items.  The combined effect of the MELs must be considered.  If the weather had been IFR; I would not have taken it for the first flight.  I did feel somewhat pressured to take the aircraft; since there were no spares available.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew described operational complications arising from flying the aircraft with multiple MELs.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing Runway 35 had briefed the planned exit taxiway and expected a taxi route. Exited runway at E3. Tower said to contact Ramp at Spot 14. Looking at signage ahead; it appeared we were on Taxiway E2; and there was no Spot 14 visible at our location exiting the runway. Aircraft was turned onto parallel taxiway and ramp was contacted who stated we were on Taxiway E. Gave instructions to continue to Spot 13; and additional instructions which were complied with. Better pavement markings for Spot 14 at the E3 exit; and move the taxiway sign for E2 so it does not create confusion as to the aircraft position during a critical workload time.




Synopsis: First Officer reports exiting Runway 35 at PHL on Taxiway E3 and being instructed to contact Ramp at Spot 14. This Spot cannot be located and the crew ends up taxiing south on E and being redirected to Spot 13. Markings and signage are called into question.
Date: 201510
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I noticed they removed the requirement to put a placard on the logbook of the BP-16 airplanes. The bulletin now states that the pilots will receive 'clear communications' identifying which airplanes have BP-16 installed. That 'clear communications' doesn't exist. Since the BP-16 AIMS started to appear few FO's I've asked knew which BP was installed in the aircraft after they'd done their setup. Few had set the FMC selector according to the Bulletin. In fact; most had only a vague idea about the Bulletin and the consequences of using spaces or slashes on certain FMC pages.




Synopsis: A B777 Captain attempted to comply with his company's policy to determine which aircraft contained AIMS (Airplane Information Management System) BP-16 upgrade; but was unaware of the process to access the data display.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution Relay
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pushed back normally. Our plan was to perform a one engine taxi (right engine) to the runway and do a cross-bleed start of the left engine on the way. After start everything was normal until the APU shut down after its one minute cooldown. At that time we received the L BUS OFF EICAS along with all the other messages that entails. One factor we had to consider was an equipment cooling message. In light of the seriousness of our problem we elected to perform a return to the gate without consulting Dispatch and Maintenance Control. We called the gateway and told them we were taxiing back in. We started the APU again and taxied in using only the right engine. As the APU came online the L Bus was again powered but the equipment cooling problem remained along with several other messages. After block-in we described the problem to Dispatch and Maintenance Control and wrote it up in the logbook. I am concerned that had we started both engines or had we taxied with one engine and left the APU on we would not have known that the right generator would not pick up the left AC bus through the bus tie system. I wonder if other 767's might have the same issue.




Synopsis: Following a single engine taxi out a B767-300 flight crew returned to the gate when the right engine generator failed to pick up the left AC buss when the APU was shut down; indicating a failure of the bus tie breaker.