elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon taxiing from Spot 3; enroute to the Gate; I was surprised to see someone with marshalling wands in the middle of the poorly lit ramp. He was between 300 feet and 400 feet out from the gate. It looked like he was in position to clear my wingtip from a baggage tug that appeared to have stalled in the middle of the ramp. Later; I asked a Ramp Supervisor if it was an inoperative tug way out on the ramp. He told me it was a new airport policy to require a Wing Walker out there. Even on this clear night; it was hard to notice him or understand why he was there. I could easily have missed him if he hadn't parked his vehicle (the tug) behind him. On a cloudy; rainy night I can imagine a scenario where the Pilots would be searching for the lead in line; or concentrating on another aircraft in their area and completely miss the Marshaler.During pushback; he was in the same position and I noticed he was guarding a service road that crosses the ramp. I felt it was unsafe for anyone to be standing so far out on the ramp in an area where we would never expect to see a Wing Walker/Marshaler. There is nothing about this policy in the SFO 10-7 pages. Personnel/Wing Walkers are expected near the ends of the safety zone; but not way out on the ramp. Company should present safety concern regarding this to airport and consider alternatives for the gates in this area. If unable to change policy; add 10-7 page warning.




Synopsis: A Captain taxiing to his SFO gate expressed concern about the safety of gate Marshalers who were positioned an extended distance from the gate where they may not be seen.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out from Runway 35 and turning down wind for another landing on Runway 35; the engine began to sputter and quit; aircraft was unable to climb nor maintain altitude. Pilot tried to diagnose problem unsuccessfully and being unable to make it back to the runway; chose to land straight ahead as the safest alternative. This resulted in an off field landing in a muddy; irrigated pasture. No injuries were reported.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper Super Cub experienced an engine problem on climb out. When unable to determine a solution; the pilot elected to perform an off field landing in an irrigated pasture.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: ATR 42
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon leveling off at 12;000 FT MSL; Departure Control informed the crew that they have an unconfirmed report of a tire falling off the aircraft during takeoff. The report was from someone at the passenger terminal. There was no indication from inside the aircraft and the crew elected to continue on. The crew discussed the situation and planned to do a low approach in the landing configuration; so the Control Tower could verify a missing tire. The low approach was not conducted below 200 FT AGL and the Tower verified a missing left nose wheel. A previously briefed go-around was conducted and the crew requested to hold away from the airport to burn off fuel. The crew declared an emergency and held for approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes. During this time; the Captain coordinated with Company Dispatch; Maintenance; and ATC for our arrival. The crew planned to commence the visual approach when reaching 1;500 LBS fuel on board. The flight landed without incident and stopped on the runway. The crew accomplished the On Ground/Emergency Evacuation Checklist and pulled the CVR/PWR Circuit Breaker to preserve data. The crew evacuated the aircraft and was met by crash/fire rescue personnel. The landing gear was pinned and the aircraft was towed to parking.




Synopsis: ATR42 Captain is informed by ATC during climb that a ground observer saw a tire fall from his aircraft after takeoff. A low approach is made at the destination airport and the Tower confirms that the left nose wheel is missing. After burning down to 1;500 LBS of fuel an uneventful approach and landing ensues with an evacuation on the runway.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Our Contingency Manager advised us [a station] had reported a mercury hazmat spill and that [the station] has determined a mercury hazmat package was loaded on one of my flights but was unable to confirm if the spill was from that package. The HAZMAT help desk advised that our HAZMAT did not have any incompatibility issues with the other packages in the same container. I reviewed the situation with the Director of Operations. What is known at this time is three drops of mercury were found on a package belt and that there is a mercury HAZMAT package on my flight. Our procedure requires the package to be 'six side' inspected before loading in a sealed ULD container; and that there were no incompatibility issues with other packages in the container. The Director of Operations; who also has experience as the Director of Safety; reviewed the information and decided there was no confirmation that the package [on our flight] was leaking; there was no safety risk to the crew or aircraft at this time and; therefore; confirmed a decision to continue the flight.




Synopsis: When three drops of mercury were discovered in the cargo preparation area the Dispatcher for a cargo carrier did his best to determine if it might have come from a HAZMAT package aboard one of his flight. After reviewing all available information the flight was allowed to continue.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: LA-4 A/B Buccaneer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landing ZZZ Runway XX; on roll out aircraft pulled left; counter controls had little affect. Aircraft struck runway lights. Amphibious aircraft departed ZZZ1 after being stuck in mud. Aircraft taxied in water with gear down to wash mud from wheels. After one hour flight at above freezing conditions; landed ZZZ.Suspect debris in wheels made left wheel resist rolling and right brake less effective. After aircraft stopped; was able to taxi to parking with differential braking.




Synopsis: Amphibious Pilot reported a loss of directional control during landing resulting in striking runway lights. Aircraft taxied to parking with differential braking.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We needed to write up a Gen 2 Off Bus EICAS message. I contacted Maintenance Control to perform the associated MEL. The aircraft had a previous MEL for Generator 1 Bearing. Maintenance and I talked about the two MELs together; about how there was no EICAS message stating that Gen 1 was off line or not operating correctly. The APU was not MEL'd; however; both active MELs state that there are four sources installed and three are needed for dispatch. The APU cannot count as one of the three; as it needs to be an Engine driven generator. So; even though Gen 1 was working correctly; there needed to be 3 working engine driven generators for each of the two MELs; which would require that one of the MEL'd generator would have to be considered as one of the three required sources.As the advance dispatch action it was just missed that the generator bearing function is really MEL-ing the entire generator. Maintenance; Dispatch and I all talked about the two MEL's; and we just missed it until the aircraft was in flight. The release should not have been amended; and the aircraft should not have been flown. While in flight I received ACARS messages from dispatch advising the aircraft should not have been released. Obviously looking back; I can't believe I missed the MEL section stating 'Engine' generators while reviewing both MEL's--the key word being 'Engine'--and the APU can not be considered as one of the three required for dispatch. I personally feel I needed to slow down the process.




Synopsis: An E-145 Captain; Dispatcher; and Maintenance Controller -- confused by conflicting deferrals on two engine driven generators; one of which was not 'deferred inoperative' -- determined erroneously that the aircraft could be released. Subsequent investigation determined that release was inappropriate as the generator with a 'deferred component in need of repair' could not qualify as an 'available generator' alternate electrical source for the 'deferred inoperative' one.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While being vectored for a night visual approach to Runway 28L at SFO; we encountered wake turbulence from a preceding B777. I would classify it as a moderate to moderate + wake turbulence encounter; lasting only 2-3 seconds. I was PM (Pilot Monitoring); FO (First Officer) was PF (Pilot Flying). We were vectored to 310 heading to intercept 28L final; I noted [the] B777 was 5.5 nm ahead; and NORCAL Approach had assigned that aircraft 180 KIAS to the marker/bridge DUYET. We were assigned 180 KIAS also. As we were capturing the final approach course for 28L; we encountered the moderate wake turbulence from the B777; which placed our aircraft in a momentary 15 degree left bank; followed by a 35-40 degree left bank; which disengaged the autopilot. The FO immediately took the controls and returned the aircraft to straight and level flight; stabilized. The left bank was only momentary; and the wake turbulence subsided. I noted that the B777 was only 4.5 nm ahead now; and surmised that they had slowed below 180 KIAS prior to DUYET; ignoring ATC instructions. We configured the gear & flaps and landed normally. I then called NORCAL Approach; discussed the incident with the sector supervisor; and debriefed the event with the FO. No further action taken. The event occurred in night VMC conditions on visual approaches to RWY 28L because the B777 had slowed below the 180 KIAS speed ATC assigned them to the marker (DUYET). Instead of 5.5 nm separation; we only had 4.5nm. I assume that ATC automatically assigns no less than 5 nm for smaller aircraft following a wide-body (heavy) aircraft. I believe it may be necessary to add at least 1 nm for added safety margin; if and when feasible; like on night visual approaches.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on a night visual approach to SFO in trail of a B777.
Date: 202109
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Local cargo leadership was notified by freight handler in regards to AWB [Airways Bill] X shipment. Original booking shows 5 pieces of radioactive for single leg. When shipment was tendered at facility a total of 11 pieces were tendered under AWB with a total TI [Transportation Index] of 12.7. This is over the maximum amount acceptable to travel on the 737 fleet type which is set at 6 TI total. The AWB will now have to be adjusted for transport across 3 separate trips to comply with the maximum TI allowable per fleet type.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground personnel reported Hazmat Class 7 cargo exceeded the aircraft TI [Transportation Index] limitation. Cargo size reduced to comply with aircraft limitation.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X taxied out for one touch and go and then a full stop. He departed on Runway 4R; did his touch and go on Runway 4R and then was cleared to land on Runway 4R. The pilot read the runway back correctly; but when he landed; he did so on the parallel taxiway; Taxiway D. He touched down at the edge of the run-up area where two aircraft were at the time. On final; it is impossible to tell if an aircraft is correctly lined up; especially at night. So I did not notice he was on Taxiway D until he touched down.There was no one on Taxiway D beyond him so I did not send the aircraft around as it would have been more dangerous than just letting him land. I then deviated the pilot before allowing him to taxi to park. One of the aircraft in the run-up area reported [an aircraft] landing on the taxiway just as he passed in front of him. The workload was moderate at the time; so I was working 4 additional aircraft in the pattern at the time and one on the GPS-B approach; so I was unable to give all of my attention to the one plane.I feel like this incident is just a one off; and ultimately boils down to pilot error. There is nothing we can do based on tower position to the runway to be able to verify better that they are lined up properly and if there is more than one aircraft in the pattern at any given time; no one can give 100% on just one aircraft to watch him the whole way. A scan must be maintained; so I am unsure of any other ways to prevent this.




Synopsis: Falcon Field Tower Controller reported that an aircraft landed on a taxiway instead of the runway.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X called ready to taxi and I taxied him to Runway 30 Right at C. I told Aircraft X 'taxi to Runway 30 Right at v via victor and Charlie cross Runway 30 Left.'  The pilot called on [taxiway] short of Runway 30 Left and I again told him to 'cross Runway 30 Left hold short of Runway 30 Right and contact tower. He read back; 'cross Runway 30 Right and hold short of Runway 30 Left.'  My supervisor was [listening] to ground frequency and told me he read back cross Runway 30 Right. I told local he read back cross Runway 30 Right and local told him to hold short of Runway 30 Right.I did not hear the incorrect read back and only knew of it when the supervisor told me.




Synopsis: Controller cleared aircraft to cross the left runway and hold short of the right runway. Pilot readback was cross the right runway. Bad readback caught by Tower Supervisor monitoring the frequency.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 2;000 FT MSL the Mach trim and Stab trim [warnings illuminated]. We lost both and the trim was stuck at 7.2 units ANU. We tried a few times to re-engage to try and regain trim since it was taking a lot of forward force on the yoke to keep the aircraft from over pitching. We climbed to 13;000 FT and leveled off. I turned on the autopilot to reduce the workload but when we leveled off it was unable to maintain level flight. When I disconnected it to maintain altitude there was a sudden jolt of the aircraft. We then both agreed that an immediate return to [our departure airport] was needed. We ran the QRH and were able to get the Mach and Stab trims to re-engage but the controls still felt very heavy and stiff. Since we felt there was a concern for safety of flight we immediately coordinated with ATC for a return to [our departure airport]. Once we were at the gate in [our departure airport] Maintenance came out to the aircraft. A Mechanic tried pushing and pulling on the yoke and noticed that it took an excessive amount of forward push on the yoke to get it to move and even then it wouldn't go all the way forward. When he pulled on the yoke he could only get it to come about halfway back. He then said that there was something definitely not right with the elevator.




Synopsis: A CRJ flight crew returned to their departure airport shortly after takeoff when all modes of pitch axis control were compromised.