elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff aircraft began vibrating from nose wheel similar to a normal nose wheel shimmy passing about 60 kts. Passing 80 kts. it became more pronounced and passing 90 kts. it became severe. Rejected takeoff around 95 kts. Whole airframe was shaking.


Second narrative: On takeoff aircraft began vibrating at 60 kts. and progressively got worse. Rejected takeoff at about 95 kts. Nosewheel vibration was excessive and more vibration than anything that would be considered normal.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported a rejected take off for severe nose wheel shimmy.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PWM.TRACON, ME
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PWM
ATC / advisory: TRACON PWM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Small aircraft was direct to the FACNO intersection for an approach into SFM airport. I cleared him to cross FACNO at or above 2;300 feet; the altitude depicted on the approach plate in our [Information Display]; which is also in compliance with our MVA. Our chart shows a 1 minute holding pattern at FACNO  at 2;300 feet; so when I saw the aircraft approximately 4 miles beyond I asked if he was established in the holding pattern. He informed me that he was still 1 mile from HAVAN and then would join the holding pattern. Thinking it to be pilot error; we got into a back-and-forth that resulted in us realizing that our SAIDS was out-of-date. Once it became clear that it was our fault; the aircraft was already within the higher MVA near HAVAN. The aircraft flew the pattern under the MVA and continued on the approach safely.I blame myself for not immediately turning the aircraft away from the MVA when I noticed him too far pass FACNO ; but by the time it became clear that it was not his confusion but our incorrect information it was too late to do anything. That said; the pilot's clearance was FACNO and then to report localizer inbound. HAVAN was never in his clearance; so the pilot should have questioned the clearance; rather than improvising as he did. The fact is he flew to a fix to which he was not cleared. But that being said; since our charts resulted in his proximity to the terrain there was no pilot deviation considered or brasher warning issued. Our support staff needs to keep all of our information up-to-date. This chart was changed four months before this incident. It's outrageous to think that this whole situation all comes down to an outdated chart.




Synopsis: PWM TRACON Controller reported their information display system had out of date approach chart information which caused them to allow an aircraft to fly below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HLG.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HLG
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After having landed on Runway 21 into HLG on a night visual approach we were instructed to back-taxi down Runway 21 and turn left at the end. As we approached the end of the runway we turned left onto Taxiway B. As we continued down the taxiway we queried the Tower as to the taxi instructions. As we approached the runway; we queried the Tower and asked if we were cleared onto Runway 16/34. The Tower instructed us to turn right followed by another right turn right onto D Taxiway and proceed into the ramp. Prior to turning onto Runway 16/34 we asked for specific clearance to turn right onto Runway 16/34. Clearance was given and we complied with the instructions. We were not made aware of the event until we received a call from our company personnel. We made this error because of very dark conditions; poorly lighted airport markings; and a lack of local knowledge. I would suggest improved lighting at the airport location; familiarity of the airport; more thorough communications between Tower and crew.

Callback: The Reporter stated the event was essentially a taxiway incursion caused by lack of airport familiarity and fatigue.

Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: After landing; a crew was cleared to back taxi on HLG Runway 21 and exit at the end; but because of poor lighting; fatigue; and unfamiliarity they exited at Taxiway B then entered Runway 16/34 before turning right onto Taxiway D.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Cleared to taxi to [Runway] 24L via E. Captain taxiing; I'm finishing the Before Takeoff checklist as we come to the end of [Runway] 24L. After sitting at the hold short line for a minute or so Tower questioned where we are. I responded holding short of [Runway] 24L; he sounds irritated and says there is a sign that we are supposed to hold short of when cleared to [Runway] 24L. Neither the Captain nor I were familiar with this procedure or had seen the sign. There is no note or mention of it anywhere on the charts or anywhere that we could find later and Ground Control made no mention of it.Noting such a hold line on the airport diagram would be helpful. There is a similar hold line for [Runway] 25R that is noted on the chart. Why not the one on [Runway] 24L? Why doesn't Ground Control give specific hold short instructions in taxi clearance?




Synopsis: An A319 taxied to the end of LAX Taxiway E and was admonished for failing to hold short at the specified hold short sign but the crew did not see a sign nor is a hold short note printed on the airport diagram as it is for Runway 25R.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we retracted the gear we both felt an unusual vibration and the Tower advised our nose gear was still down. We had a green nose gear light and a red unlock light. We climbed to 3;000 MSL and got permission from Tower to circle around the airport. We accomplished the checklist which concluded with all three gear down and locked and the instruction to land as soon as practical. After consulting with each other; the company and passengers; it was decided to proceed to an alternate.There was some question in our minds as to what qualified for 'as soon as practical.' There seems to be different thoughts on this from different people we have talked to at the company. This needs to be clarified during training.


Second narrative: The decision was made to divert due to the wind conditions at our destination and the short runway; 4;300 FT that favored landing into the wind. We complied with the abnormal and emergency checklist for landing gear that would not retract. It instructed us to land as soon as practical. After consulting with the Assistant Chief Pilot; we decided that the other airport would be an acceptable alternate as it was only 20 minutes flight from our planned destination.


Synopsis: After the flight crew of a Citation Sovereign successfully resolved the failure of the nose gear to retract after takeoff; utilizing the associated check lists; they noted the last checklist item directed them to land as soon as practical. The crew questioned the decision by the company to continue to their destination rather than to return to their departure airport.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: B787-1000
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We took off right behind a B787-10 and encountered some wake turbulence right before retracting the flaps from 1 to 0. As a result we exceeded flap 1 speed by 3-5 IAS for approximately 5 secs as the flaps where being retracted to 0. Soon after we entered the occurrence in the logbook; all operations were normal for the remainder of the flight.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported a flap overspeed occurred when they encountered wake turbulence departing LAX in trail of another B787.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On downwind for Runway 28. Looked like they were setting us for a visual; and approach slowed us to 180 knots abeam the field heading east. As we slowed and configured; saw EICAS message TE FLAP DISAGREE. Flap handle at 20; flaps looked like they froze at 15 to 16 degrees. Asked Approach for delay; they kept us at 6;000 feet in a box pattern. Ran the checklist; recomputed approach speeds; and declared an emergency. Captain did a great job communicating with the passengers; the flight attendants and approach control while I ran the checklist. Asked for Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters' response as a precaution; uneventful landing and rollout. Taxied to the gate; leaving flaps in position so Maintenance could check out what caused the problem.Kudos to Approach. When we asked for a delay before continuing the approach; their response was impressive: no drama; straight forward box pattern; approach as soon as we were ready. A pat on the back for our training; as well. Having practiced this type of problem in the simulator made our handling of it seem like we were just practicing for another checkride at the training academy.




Synopsis: A B767-300 EICAS alerted TE FLAP DISAGREE with the flap handle at 20; but the flaps locked near 15 degrees. The crew declared an emergency; complied with the QRH; and completed an uneventful landing.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed with 2 hours of fuel onboard aircraft for a 175 NM flight. Near ZZZ [100 NM into the flight] the left fuel pressure light came on and I made a decision to try and land there. One minute later the right fuel pressure light came on. I feathered both props and cut the fuel. I touched down on all 3 landing gear in a field 300 yards short of Runway and ran through a barbed wire fence before coming to a stop. There is 400 lbs. of fuel on board the aircraft. There were two souls on board with no injuries. The problem was caused by fuel starvation. Adding more fuel and turning on fuel transfer pumps would prevent a recurrence.




Synopsis: BE90 pilot experiences fuel starvation in cruise after departing on a one hour flight with two hours of fuel on board. Both propellers are feathered and the deadstick landing comes up slightly short of the intended landing runway.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During taxi for takeoff; notified by ACARS to contact Operations. Operations advise of HAZMAT on board without Captain being provided a Dangerous Goods Form and asked if I would take the information over the radio. I advised them that radio of the Dangerous Goods Form would not be possible and returned to gate. Upon gate arrival; advised hazmat in question was 3 cases of blood without 'proper documentation.' Cargo was eventually removed from aircraft. I'm not aware of the 'missing documentation' but suspect it was a Dangerous Goods Form for dry ice since blood is not Biological Substance. However; if any of these items are packaged in dry ice to keep them cool; dry ice is classified as a Dangerous Good and the Dangerous Goods Form is required. I was not informed if the packages included dry ice. Failure of policy and procedures.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a ground gate return to obtain missing hazmat documentation. Hazmat DG was removed from the aircraft.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cowling
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon departure the flight crew had #1 Engine Generator [IDG] fall 'off-line' and had moderate vibration through the B737-800 aircraft; causing an air interruption. Upon landing and going into reverse thrust; the outboard fan cowl was blown off.Heavy workload; worked three overnight aircraft. Aircraft X had two grounding items. Number one engine outboard fan cowl was opened to troubleshoot one grounding item. Gave information to Lead Mechanic to relay information to Technical [Support] for disposition. Shifted focus to third Overnight Check that just arrived on the gate. Grounding item on the aircraft was subsequently deferred and no further action was required. Suspect fan cowl was not properly secured.

Callback: Reporter stated that prior to the air turnback incident; the # 1 Engine Fan Cowl was opened to troubleshoot a Tach Generator write-up involving the Power Management Control (PMC) on the CFM-56 engine. He suspects that when he gave the Lead Mechanic their trouble shooting turnover and information about the fan cowl still being opened; that info was not clearly passed on to Technical Support who eventually deferred the write-up prior to departure.Reporter stated the # 1 Engine Generator actually went 'Off-Line' when the generator was damaged by the fan cowl as the cowl departed the engine during reverse thrust.

Second narrative: Aircraft experienced a Generator message and buffeting after takeoff. Aircraft air interrupted and returned. Upon touchdown and thrust reverser deployment; left engine outboard fan cowl blew off. Suspect left engine fan cowl not completely secured due to large workload; distraction and mis-communication.


Synopsis: Two Line Mechanics report that a B737-800 aircraft experienced moderate buffeting through the aircraft after departure; requiring an air turn-back. On landing; while going into reverse thrust; the #1 Engine Generator had fallen 'Off-Line' as the Outboard (O/B) fan cowl was blown off the same engine.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ELP.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: Tower ELP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the WAZKO1 Arrival into El Paso; deviating around thunderstorm cells; proceeding direct to KOACH intersection on the arrival. [We] descended to 7;500; [were] handed off to Tower; [and] called the field in sight. [We were] cleared for the visual approach; maintain 6;000 FT until turning base to final. No instrument approach is available for 8R so I 'navved' the aircraft on the centerline fix approach course; started a descent; and started to configure. Tower asked us if we were going over the hill; a ridge line between us and the runway; we said yes and the Tower rescinded the 6;000 foot altitude restriction. We continued the approach keeping the runway and ridge line in sight; approaching the ridge line we got the EGPWS warning; we reacted to it until we were clear of the ridge line and continued the approach to a normal landing. Charted visual approach procedure to Runway 8R at ELP; company information on visual approaches to runway 8R at ELP.


Second narrative: We both had been to ELP before; but it was a first for both of us approaching this side to land on 08R. I do think that some information concerning the ridge on that approach to land on 08R will be useful on the company pages.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported taking evasive action in response to a GPWS terrain warning on the 8R approach to ELP.