elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D MFR
ATC / advisory: Tower MFR
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 CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR downwind landing RWY 14 at an altitude of 3;200 feet received terrain warning. Responded with warning procedures. Following landing uneventful.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported receiving a terrain warning on downwind to runway 14 at MFR at night; and responded with escape procedures then a normal landing.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other On Rest
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was the 0700 short call and adjusted my sleep schedule accordingly expecting to be off duty by 2200. Scheduling called at 1045 to 'reset my rest' and now begin my duty day 2030. I was unable to immediately go to sleep at 11:00 in the morning or at any other time throughout the day. This meant doing this trip would have me awake for over 21 consecutive hours. This is unsafe. I called in fatigued. This 'rest resetting' has got to stop.




Synopsis: A reserve A320 Captain's early show rest period was reset mid morning for a late evening departure; but was unable to get rest during the day so he called in fatigued.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: My goal of this flight was to improve my crosswind landings. I had recently obtained my pilot license and did not get much experience in crosswind landings during training. Winds were variable at 3 kts when I obtained ATIS but I knew winds were forecast to build throughout the day. I do not recall the winds as read to me by tower after my run up but they had increased during my taxi. After takeoff on my first downwind leg of pattern work winds had built to 06015g18. I was in the pattern for RWY XX (near-direct crosswind.) At this time I decided that I wanted to land and end the flight; winds were beyond my comfort zone. I didn't like my first approach so I went around. I landed on my second approach. After landing the plane was being blown toward the left side of the runway. I had full right aileron in upon landing. I began to apply right rudder to correct the drift to the left but was unable to correct it in time. The left landing gear fairing struck a runway edge light.This incident was primarily a result of me being inexperienced and unable to apply correct rudder input fast enough. After exiting the runway; I notified ground control of what had happened. Within an hour of the incident I contacted tower to give my contact information and notified the airport manager's office of what had happened. I was rattled by this experience to say the least. I am trying to view it as an expensive learning opportunity. I will be getting more instruction from my CFI in crosswind landing technique as soon as conditions allow.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported striking a runway edge light during a crosswind landing.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During FAA biannual flight review; we performed slow flight and stalls in the client's (pilot flying) airplane. Stalls and slow flight were performed with gear down and full flaps in the landing configuration approximately 3000-3500 feet in proximity to the airport. As an important side note; the aircraft used employs the manual 'Johnson bar' landing gear handle/system for extension and retraction. When the slow flight/stalls were complete; the pilot flying cleaned up the aircraft to cruise configuration. I was at that point looking for self-announced traffic in the area and I failed to notice the pilot only raised the flaps but left the gear extended. We then set up for practice hood work; but then I called for simulated low to zero oil pressure; followed by simulated engine out for the pilot to practice engine out scenario to an airfield. We began spiraling down to set up for a landing to [the airport]. As we passed 1000 feet AGL I could tell the pilot was going to be short of the field. Passing 700-800 feet AGL I advised for him to add power if needed and gear when needed. At approximately 500 feet AGL the pilot reached down and operated the landing gear Johnson bar and announced 'gear down and locked'. The pilot then added a small amount of power since we would be short of the runway and performed a normal flare to [the] runway. We began a lower than normal settle to the runway and with the sight picture not looking right I called for 'power' and 'go around'. The pilot then performed a successful go-around. On climb out the pilot realized the gear was actually retracted and that on short final he had actually raised the landing gear [from] the down and locked position. A successful normal landing was [subsequently] performed.




Synopsis: M20 Instructor Pilot reported he and his student almost landed gear up after a training flight.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On our flight we got pushed off of the gate. After the push; the ramp crew was taking longer time than usual to disconnect the tow bar upon which I asked them if everything was okay. Their response was everything is okay and they continued disconnecting the tow bar. Once the tow bar was disconnected we got the usual tug tow bar wave off and the rampers went on their way. Me and the First Officer started our engines and completed our After Start checklist and went on our way to taxiing. Until this time we had no idea what had happened. When we were No.1 for takeoff tower told us to contact ops upon which we came to know that the ramp crew had snapped the tow bar and ops wanted us to taxi back and park on the hard stand for the maintenance crew to take a look at the airplane. I told them that the hard stand is not going to work for us as maintenance has to sign the logbook after they are completed inspecting the aircraft and that we need a gate to park on which we got a gate.Once we were at the gate maintenance took a look at the airplane; signed the logbook; and gave us the green signal saying everything is okay and we can continue on our way. All this delay and the safety hazard could have been resolved way before if the ramp crew did their job properly by telling us earlier that the tow bar had snapped and we could have called maintenance on time.




Synopsis: E170 Captain reported that a towbar broke during pushback; resulting in a return to the gate.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Need clarification on what the (MM) Maintenance Manual reads in Subject 11-XX-XX. Management's view the Safety Guide Person can also be on the Head Set walking along the aircraft as it is being towed in or out of the maintenance hangars. Item was a briefing item when I was out on surgery. The Mechanics and the Leads are bothered with the understanding of a Head Set person walking along the aircraft being towed. Mechanics and Leads view: That would be a 6th person added onto the minimum of 5 per MM 11-XX-XX. Managements view: The Safety Guide can be on the head set and walking along the aircraft being towed in or out of the hangar. When I asked Management for a clarification of the intent. The answer below was given:I have copied in the MM reference for your view regarding hangar movement. It will show you in 2(N) that personal electronic devises use during movement is prohibited. It will also show you in 3(B) that the tow team consist of at least 5 individuals required for hangar movement. If you are using a tail watch then that makes it at least 6 individuals. So; there is NO limit on maximum number of individuals involved in hangar movement. The briefing I gave last year was about person in charge will be the Safety Guide with the head set for positive communication since the use of cell phones is prohibited. Duties and responsibilities of the safety guide (b) states: Maintain safe position in view of the tractor operator and wing/tail walkers. So; basically the briefing was right out of the MM. We also require the Hangar Lead and Supervisor to be present during any hangar movement of the airplane. The Hangar Lead would be the best person to be the 'Safety Guide.'All the Mechanics and the Leads are also concerned with the duties of the head set person. The placement of the head set person and the agreement of the extra person 6th person from the Regional Managing Director per the MM 11-XX-XX. (It was also brought to my attention we had a death of a ramp person on a head set walking along the tractor pushing an aircraft out of gate in ZZZ. When they were both distracted the tractor driver ran over the Ramp Personnel's legs and she bleed to death on the ramp.) I understand the extra safety of a head set person should there be a tractor to aircraft break away. However; there are no verbiages to the extra person's function; and this might not be for all of [company] facilities; therefore requesting a local agreement of the extra person and their duties in writing.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician expressed concern over company policy regarding duties of wing walkers during aircraft tow.
Date: 202107
Location: RDM.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower RDM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Per the NOTAMs for RDM; daylight savings hours for Tower Operations begin at 0600L. 10-7 information just has 0500L as the opening for RDM Tower.




Synopsis: Pilot reported discrepancies between a NOTAM and the 10-7 page showing the opening time of the airport.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LFT.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C LFT
ATC / advisory: Tower LFT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I requested a takeoff clearance from Tower of a southeast takeoff from a Taxiway; right turn to heading 275 at 1;000 feet. I received a clearance of 'Cleared for takeoff from Taxiway ...'. Following this clearance with the incorrect taxiway location; I queried the controller with respect to the taxiway and asked him to confirm which taxiway he meant. He responded to me with frustration and repeated the clearance back to me as 'Aircraft X; you are cleared for takeoff from Taxiway ...; remain West of Runway ... for landing traffic'. I repeated the clearance back and proceeded to fly a southeast takeoff into the wind choosing to parallel the runways in order to avoid overflight of multiple hangars; buildings as well as the control Tower. During the takeoff as I was climbing through 300 to 400 feet the controller keyed the radio and said 'Aircraft X what are you doing; there's a [another aircraft] on short final I'm getting an alert' in a frustrated tone. I responded with I'm West of the runway sir. The radio was silent until he queried me as to my altitude leaving which was then 700 feet. There was no further communication.I believe a takeoff in the direction of landing traffic was not the most advisable. In hindsight a left turn out would have been more appropriate. A takeoff in the direction I used would have required a steep turn beyond 30 degrees in order to avoid the takeoff end of the runway and over flight on hangars which is why I chose to fly in the general direction I did. In the future I will not accept a clearance that approves a takeoff in the direction of landing traffic. I do not see the benefit of this clearance. Waiting an additional minute or two for the traffic to land is the most beneficial.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot reported a disagreement between them an ATC about the departure instructions.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A strong odor on the plane once we took off (all the way from the back to the front of the aircraft). My eyes were burning at the beginning. After the first service in the main cabin; once I got to the back galley; I started to feel lightheaded and difficulty breathing. I sat down on the jumpseat because I was dizzy. Few seconds later; my hands started tingling badly and the color of both of my hands turned grey/blue. Immediately; the flight attendants gave me oxygen and I was sitting with it for almost an hour. The color came back to my hands and I felt a little better. I was very tired and couldn't keep my eyes open. I felt fatigue. We called a Commercial Medical Service since we had no Dr. onboard. My throat is burning till now. Hoping the company will; finally; fix this 'fumes' problem. I have a hospital report.




Synopsis: An A330 Flight Attendant reported fumes after takeoff and during cruise which made her ill and required oxygen. The flight diverted after consulting with a Commercial Medical Service.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Number two on a visual approach behind an [airliner]. Cleared to land runway 25L. Coming in on a visual; even in daylight conditions; I always load an approach as a backup. I saw the traffic ahead over the numbers and began to angle the base to stay closer to the shore. I watched the traffic land and turn off [the runway]; and somewhere in that time I became over focused on the glide slope to maintain a dot high and remain above the wake. As I continued to look inside configuring for landing the controller advised I was lined up for 25R; now on about one and a half to two mile final. I acknowledged his correct perception and switched over to the left side. I've flown airplanes for [over] 20 years and never landed on the wrong runway. This made me realize it can happen to anyone.Having the course dialed in certainly helps but only if you actually look at the instruments. The G600 display has the glide slope off to the right; and as I discovered you can see the glide slope without ever actually looking at the localizer. Thinking about wake turbulence; with the complacency of a day time visual approach to an airport I've worked out of for [many] years; checking the inbound course fell on the priority list; unintentionally.Fatigue. While not overly tired; I was flying during the circadian rhythm time of two thirty to three thirty in the afternoon. Normally I'm drinking coffee during that time; but two days out of the month I'm flying instead. [This was] the end of the work week. Without meaning to I'm taking a little of a back seat to finishing up the job.There was no other traffic in the area. I'd like to think I would have caught my error; given the familiarity with the field and the backups in place. Regardless; I'm thankful the controller felt confident in speaking up. It's possible they fall into a mindset of seeing us all of the time and thinking 'they know what they're doing'; most of time.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C208 reported lining up for a parallel runway during a visual approach due to fatigue and distraction.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving from the southeast we reported the field in sight. Denver Approach cleared us for the visual Runway 35L; Runway 35L elevation is 5;434 so we descended to 7;000 MSL thinking it would give us 1;500 AGL ground clearance. Leveling at 7;000 MSL and about 5 miles from DYMON we noticed 1;000 AGL on the radar altimeter while; at the same time; Approach advised us his minimum vectoring altitude in that area was 7;200 MSL. We climbed to 7;200 and intercepted the glideslope at DYMON.Rising terrain southeast of the field; high field elevation; lack of terrain awareness.If on a visual approach check terrain to ensure there is not a conflict with your altitude and terrain when not on a portion of a published approach.


Second narrative: Given vectors off of a STAR for the ILS 35L; then direct DYMON [the FAF]; maintain 210; 8;000.  ATC asked us to call the field in sight more than once. We noticed a false glideslope; commented that we were not going to follow it; and then called the field in sight. ATC said; 'Cleared for the visual 35L; maintain 210 for now.'  Between ATC keeping us fast; and showing above the false glideslope; I figured losing a little energy would be good; so I went [to idle thrust and descended] to 7;000 MSL. The ILS 35L [altitude at the] FAF/DYMON is 7;000 FT (>1500 AFE). We noticed the terrain was a little higher out [where we were]; but [we believed we] would still have 1;000 AGL. ATC said LOW ALT ALERT; MVA 7;200. We climbed to 7;200 to stop ATC alerts. We never got below 1;000 RA; but looking at charts; might have been within 1;000/5 miles of a tower.More awareness of terrain features; better awareness of energy management as we could have remained at 8;000 MSL longer and still made a safe approach. Trying to fly a CDA [Continuous Descent Angle] would have been a better solution.


Synopsis: An MD-11 flight crew cleared for a night time visual approach to Runway 35L at DEN descended prematurely and generated a low altitude alert/below MVA from ATC.