elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
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 Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student rented the Cessna 172 and was in the left seat practicing 'touch and goes'. (My student has over 100 hours of training and has soloed.) He was on his third landing 'touch and go' of this lesson and the stall horn came on. At that time I told him to lower the nose of the plane. When he did; the plane went sharply to the right. I said 'my controls'; but the plane bounced and hit the ground to the right of the runway in the grass/dirt before my student relinquished control of the plane. Upon the bounce/landing; I took control of the plane from the student and begin the proper protocol in a bounced landing -- which is a 'go around' procedure. As I gave it power and strenuously attempted to get the plane back under control and to the left; I realized we were at a 30-45 degree angle to the runway. I could not get the plane to go back to the right. To avoid a possible catastrophic 'in air' collision with buildings; I immediately reduced the power. There is an embankment to the left side of the runway. The plane went down the embankment; all the while I am trying to gain control and steer it away from any objects on the ground. I was able to successfully steer it away from other objects while still trying to get it under control; but at the end the last five feet of the right wing hit a hangar and spun the front of the airplane into the hangar door. The plane came to rest. The student and I exited the plane. We both stated that we had no injuries at the scene. Paramedics arrived and checked out both myself and the student and there were no abnormalities in vitals or injuries observed. Additionally; no one was in close proximity to this occurrence and no one was injured on the ground.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor describes a loss of control incident after a bounced landing by his student during which the instructor took control. A runway excursion occurs resulting in damage to the aircraft after contact with a hangar.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the CASTA6 RNAV departure from LAX. At about FL180; ATC asked what our normal airspeed was. As Pilot Monitoring; I responded .80 or 320 knots. At the time; our speed was about 280 knots. ATC then asked if we had been cleared for normal speed and I responded in the affirmative. At that point; both of us checked the chart and found the speed restriction of 250 knots until cleared for higher. We had not seen that restriction during our departure brief. This chart has not been updated to the new format; so the restriction is printed in black rather than magenta. Speed restriction on the RNAV departure chart is not printed in a location that is most useful on the chart. Very few of the departures from LAX have a speed restriction; so it is easily overlooked.Speed restrictions on departure charts should be printed on the routing where appropriate; rather than at some more general location that will be overlooked when the chart is zoomed in on an EFB. Many charts are not readable when displayed in their entirety on an EFB. We need all pertinent restrictions to be printed at the appropriate portion of the routing.


Second narrative: I have flown 6 of the 20+ departures out of LAX in the past; this was my first CASTA. CASTA is 1 of 6 with a speed restriction. I incorrectly assumed that CASTA was like previous flown SIDs without a speed restriction. During my departure brief I was using the tablet and was unable to see the entire chart without scrolling. I did not fully scan the upper right hand corner of the chart to see the speed restriction.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported exceeding the 250 kts speed restriction on the LAX CASTA 6 Departure.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing a run-up; my student and I taxied to the Runway XX hold short line and advised ZZZ Tower; '(Aircraft X); [Taxiway] XX; [Runway] XX; ready for departure'. We received a takeoff clearance from ZZZ Tower and entered Runway XX; after confirming the Runway XX final approach was clear. Upon lining up with the runway center line; my student applied full power; as part of the takeoff procedure. After checking the engine instruments and airspeed indicator conditions; I looked up and observed an airplane flying not more than 300 ft. above our right wing. This airplane (Aircraft Y) then proceeded to overfly us and land not more than 1;000 feet of my airplane on Runway XX; which was occupied by us at that time. I immediately aborted the takeoff and exited the runway at XX1; then advised the tower that we were aborting.ZZZ Tower cancelled our takeoff clearance and questioned Aircraft Y; asking why they executed an unauthorized short approach; which led to loss of separation between our two aircraft and furthermore led to a runway incursion that could have been detrimental.ZZZ Tower did what they could to assist with the situation and made it clear to Aircraft Y that their actions were unacceptable and reckless.




Synopsis: Pilot reported while on takeoff roll another aircraft over flew the departing aircraft and landed ahead.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: With autopilot 2 engaged; the aircraft initiated a turn to the left to correct back to what it perceived as its FMGC generated course. The turn was fairly aggressive; 30 - 40 degree intercept; and was questioned by the pilots. A message then appeared on MCDU screen FMGC 1/2 disagree. We noted that; although both boxes indicated that they were both in high accuracy with estimated position deviations of only 0.08 mile; they did; in fact; disagree by almost four miles. We did not know which; if either was correct and were about to query ATC when they contacted us; asking why we were deviating to the north. Aircraft was already correcting to course when we received the call. Turns out; FMGC 2's course was possibly corrupt and that was what the aircraft was following. Within approximately one minute; the two FMGC's updated each other; generating a single accurate course. We informed ATC of the transient downgrade. In addition; GPS was being jammed across the Utah area; with GPS lost message on CRT; but had recovered to GPS primary at time of event.


Second narrative: While in cruise with autopilot 2 on; aircraft made an unexpected 20-30 degree turn left. Analysis showed FMGC 2 showing 3 nm Right of course; but FMCG 1 showing 1.3 nm left. We had been in an area of GPS jamming and the GPS primary had come and gone several times. Data page showed FMCG 1 most closely in occurrence with GPS position; but GPS wasn't reliable. Discussion ensued about which FMGC was most correct and why radio updating would show 2 different positions between the FMGCs to determine correct navigation course. Then FMGC 2 position seemed to update and move toward FMGC 1. Both positions moved to agree and airplane nav moved to correct back on that course. Salt Lake Center queried about turn and we informed of our navigation uncertainty but that problem seemed to be fixed and we showed on course.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew experiences GPS jamming in ZLC airspace resulting in a momentary track deviation. The jamming was NOTAMed but the aircraft's reaction to the jamming was unexpected.
Date: 201606
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Physiological - Other; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We parked at Gate coming in from a foreign [airport]. Because it was a foreign arrival; we needed to clear customs. As a result; the disembarking passengers are rerouted up an escalator to the roof of the terminal where the buses transport to the customs area. The MAJOR problem with this is that the waiting pad at the top of the escalator is only roughly 30x30 in size! FAR too small to hold an entire load of passengers!The waiting pad at the top filled up and the escalator became clogged with people. So much so that the the folks on the escalator had no where to go as they reached the top. Despite much screaming by the folks on the escalator to the passengers on the pad to move forward; there was tripping and falling as folks reached the top of the escalator. Luckily no one fell onto to the moving steel steps or; worse yet; backwards down the escalator!Of course; this was a failure by our agents who did nothing to control the flow of the folks onto the escalator at the bottom; however; this set up is really dangerous enough that there needs to be an automated safety mechanism of some kind. Possibly an occupancy sensor of some kind could be installed at the top to stop the escalator before the pad at the top is totally full?




Synopsis: After arrival at HNL; international arriving passenger exit to Customs on buses after ascending an escalator to a 30' X 30' waiting pad. Too many people were on the pad but the escalator continued delivering people who had no where to go and no available escalator shutoff.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ZZZ-ZZZ1; on time departure; push-back-initial climbout were uneventful. I was pilot flying; climbing through FL280 on our way to FL350 on the ZZZZZ 2; a loud audible bang occurred; simultaneously the aircraft shook and Engine Number 1 seized. Captain and myself immediately smelled fumes I would describe as acrid. We immediately performed memory items and Captain pulled out QRC (Quick Reference Checklist). There were very strong aircraft vibrations. We decided to run severe damage procedure because of the combination of vibration and fumes. We [requested priority handling] and decided to return to ZZZ. I turned the aircraft around and Captain talked to FA (Flight Attendant)'s and made a PA. On descent back into ZZZ; we transferred control and Captain flew while I coordinated with ATC; Dispatch; FAs and informed passengers. Captain flew an uneventful single engine visual to XXR. We stopped in between the 2 runways and had fire trucks look over the aircraft and brakes; after which they told us they didn't see anything. We coordinated with Ground and returned to our original gate. I entered an ELB (Electronic Logbook) entry at the gate and we verbally debriefed Maintenance. We informed [Chief Pilot] we would not fly another leg this day.


Second narrative: During climbout from ZZZ at around 28;000 the left engine failed with odor and a slight vibration. [Requested priority handling] and ran the Severe Engine Damaged checklist and returned to ZZZ for a safe landing.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported number one engine failure; odor and vibrations; which led to a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EUG.TRACON, OR
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E EUG
ATC / advisory: TRACON EUG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on north of EUG airspace after accepting the handoff; I did not notice that he was handed off to me below the MEA level at 5;000 on V287. ZSE failed to climb the aircraft prior to CRAFF intersection where the MEA is at 6;000 at the boundary of our airspace. Since I wasn't aware that the aircraft was too low I allowed Aircraft X to continue on his route of flight until I noticed he had flown through a 5;300 MVA at which point I issued a climb to 7;000 and Aircraft X responded by saying he was VFR On Top (OTP) at 5;000 and was requesting a VFR OTP clearance which I then issued.Even though Aircraft X was at the correct altitude for the airway north of EUG airspace there is a 5;700 MVA less than 2 miles west of V287; if Aircraft X had drifted west even staying within the 4 mile lateral confines of the airway he could potentially drift into the higher MVA.I recommend that the EUG/ZSE LOA be changed to enforce a climb to at least the MEA prior to handing the traffic off to EUG Approach. EUG does not have control for climbs outside of our airspace; therefore if the handoff is accepted late or the receiving controller is busy and misses the altitude they would have very little time to react and request control for a climb outside of our airspace.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was handed off from ZSE Sector 6 on V287; the MEA on this airway is 6;000 starting at CRAFF intersection. CRAFF is right on the boundary between EUG and ZSE Sector 6. Approximately 10 southwest of the CVO airport is a MVA of 5;300; this is where I noticed the aircraft was at 5;000. Aircraft was given a climb to 7;000; however piloted opted to go VFR On TOP (OTP).As stated above the MEA on this airway is 6;000 and that starts at the CRAFF intersection; which sits right on the boundary between EUG and ZSE Sector 6. In addition tested the limits of the airway with a 5;700 MVA that sits to the right of CRAFF. The pilot was directly on the airway; however had he flown in a westerly direction in the lateral confines of the airway they would have been in the 5;700 MVA. Suggest the LOA be changed to read any aircraft on V287 southbound be at 7;000 or higher.


Synopsis: EUG Controllers reported unknowingly accepting a handoff on an aircraft which was 1;000 feet below the Minimum Enroute Altitude until it was pointed out by the Supervisor.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While descending through 12;500 FT on the JCOBS 2 arrival; landing IWA; the aircraft generated a TA Alert for traffic in our 10-11 o'clock position; altitude not known. After checking and reducing the range on the ND; traffic was visually identified in our roughly 10 o'clock position. Visibility was somewhat reduced due to smoke from wildfires in the area or we may have been able to spot him sooner. But as it was; the other aircraft appeared to be in level flight below us; and approaching our descent path as we were on profile to make the crossing restriction at SWIRL Intersection at 11;000 FT. I queried ATC about the approaching target and they indicated that they only had a primary return from him. ATC had not advised us of the other aircraft at all; which turned out to be a C-130 flying westbound at approximately 11;500 FT; most likely over flying the PXR Class B without a Mode C transponder. At this time the First Officer correctly disengaged the autopilot; and stopped the descent until clear of the other aircraft and then continued with the descent to make the crossing restriction. We passed over the C-130; who seemed oblivious; at about 400 FT. ATC was notified; and they had assumed that the other aircraft was flying below the floor of Class B at or below 3;500 FT; at which time I advised them otherwise. While traffic avoidance is primarily the responsibility of the flight crew and ATC; it is possible; and likely; that a notation on the flight release from dispatch (if they are made aware) could increase pilot awareness and vigilance in traffic avoidance during times of wildfire fighting in the area with the associated increase of aerial fire patrol aircraft traveling to and from the area. The current ATIS broadcast at the time contained no mention of fire patrol activity either; which also would have been helpful.




Synopsis: IWA Air Carrier IFR arrival experienced a conflict event with traffic apparently engaged in fire fighting activities; the reporter suggesting this type of activity be briefed to crews flying in the area.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff on Runway 28 the engine failed while in a stabilized climb gear and flaps up. I [advised] ATC. ATC cleared me to land on Runway 01 due to a departing Cessna Citation. Due to my altitude and glide ratio I said I was unable and executed a 180 turn and landed on Runway 10. As I turned the Citation was airborne and turned right to avoid my flight path. Another airplane was on a mile final and was told to go around by Tower. CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) responded and the airport was closed until the emergency was over.




Synopsis: Light sport aircraft pilot reported an engine failure during initial climb.