elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Records Review/Audit
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Repair was addressed using an 'In Process EA'. On the above 'aware' date I was requested by management to sign and BACK date final EA ; that was issued [Date]. The aircraft had been flying for approximately 5 weeks with this open EA. Non Routine was also signed off in error using the In Process EA. I was advised at the time that this was a VDR event and was being taken care of by Maintenance Control. More careful monitoring of paperwork; signoffs and proper procedures.




Synopsis: Technician reported he was asked to back date an EA after it was determined that the aircraft had flown for five weeks with an open EA.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ASG.Airport, AR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ASG
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I was] cleared by Ground Control to taxi to Runway 18 via the West Taxiway. I failed to identify the hold lines on the taxiway about 400 FT south of the 18 Runway entrance.




Synopsis: A pilot reported missing the ASG Runway 18 Runway Critical Hold Short line which was located well before Runway's departure end.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compass (HSI/ETC)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was my first solo flight to this airport since receiving my license [recently].I flew in to ZZZ and after a quick stopover at the FBO; I was cleared by Ground control to taxi directly for a midfield takeoff on runway 18L at [an intersection]. After being cleared to cross [two] taxiways [;] I held short and contacted Tower.Tower cleared me for takeoff on 18L at which point I taxied to the runway; turned left (not right) and applied power for takeoff. Almost immediately Tower told me to 'STOP STOP STOP' which at low speed I did in a very short distance. I was instructed to turn 180 degrees and again cleared for takeoff. No aircraft were in sight and takeoff was normal.The problem was caused by my failure to utilize a compass heading to verify my direction. I am not experienced in midfield takeoffs with no visual reference for the end of the runway or even which way was North or South (the sun had set). I got in a hurry and turned in the direction I thought was correct without verification.




Synopsis: A DA-40 Pilot was cleared to taxi to Runway 18L for a midfield takeoff. When cleared for takeoff the Pilot turned left on Runway 36 and as he began his takeoff; Tower said 'Stop' do a 180° and cleared for takeoff. The Pilot had not referenced his compass.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower IWA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After receiving and acknowledging ground clearance 'taxi to Runway 30L via Taxiway T; W; and hold short of Taxiway [V];' I taxied onto Taxiway T which sweeps left transitioning into Taxiway W. While taxiing; I looked for Taxiway W identifying signage but saw none. After completing the sweeping turn; ground instructed me to hold my position as I was now nose to nose (approximately 1;000 FT) with an Air Carrier. Fortunately the Air Carrier had stopped before Taxiway V so that ground could clear me to Runway 30L via Taxiway V. Due to an air show the following day; ground was parking GA aircraft on this remote ramp (southwest end of T) away from the FBO's ramp. This remote ramp serves local commercial traffic familiar with the local routing. I did have a current taxiway diagram and did see Taxiway T sweep into Taxiway W. However; without standard taxiway signage in this remote control area alerting a transient pilot of this taxiway transition an inadvertent incursion becomes much more likely.




Synopsis: PA46 pilot reports being unable to identify Taxiway V while on Taxiway W at IWA due to a lack of signage. A conflict with an opposing MD80 occurs which is resolved by Ground Control.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On landing rollout on Runway XX in ZZZ; the aircraft began to hop and chirp and became directionally unstable; with an increasing deceleration rate. I was instructing a Captain student; who performed a decent landing with no potential for aircraft damage in normal circumstances. I told the student to get off the brakes thinking he was locking them up; to which he replied that he was not applying any brake. I verified this and realized there was a problem. The aircraft remained on centerline and came to a stop. We could not move the aircraft even with application of large amounts of power to clear the runway. I exited the aircraft after informing ATC of the situation and obtaining permission to do so. Once outside I found that the scissor link on the right main had come apart; but with no pieces broken. The gear was inspected in preflight and between legs with no damage found. When the scissor link came apart; one half of it lodged in the main tire; causing it to lock up and turn completely sideways. Thorough inspection of nose gear on preflight.




Synopsis: Beech 1900 Captain reported right main landing gear locked up on landing.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SMF
ATC / advisory: Tower SMF
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The airport configuration was northwind due to noise abatement procedures. NCT called me requesting ODO for an aircraft to the north to land RWY16L. I had no departures at the time; so I approved the request. Looking to the south; I saw two arrivals; one to each runway (34L and 34R). The approach controller asked if I could provide visual separation between the two aircraft landing on the parallels (the 34L arrival and the ODO to 16L). I had them in sight so I volunteered to provide visual.I looked at the distance between the two aircraft landing on the same runway and it was clear that the ODO arrival would be inside the cutoff point (15 miles) unless he was delay vectored (which I figured approach would probably do to make it work). However; they did not delay vector him and Aircraft Y was about 9 miles from the field when Aircraft X was crossing the threshold for 34R. At no point was IFR separation lost; or did I feel the aircraft came into an unsafe proximity to one another; but the required cutoff was not met.I see this a lot when running ODO; and I believe this is a case of rampant misapplication of the rules. These approach controllers seem to think that as long as the ODO aircraft is not 'established on final' within 15 miles they are good. So they bring the arrival in as usual and just left them blow through final for a mile or two and then once the first aircraft lands; they establish the ODO arrival on whatever distance final they may be on at the time. The wording; as I understand the rule is '15 miles from the airport'. That's not the same as a 15 mile final. This can be abused in this way; to basically not need to follow any of the requirements set forth in the National and Local ODO guidelines. I think if we are truly running these ODO rules for safety sake; we all need to be applying the rules the same. And I don't personally know who is applying them correctly; me or them.




Synopsis: SMF Local Controller reported of a violation of ODO (Opposite Direction Operation) policy. Aircraft were inside the 15 mile cutoff point. Reporter blamed the issue on NCT TRACON Controller for not following the policy.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student was doing a touch and go and practice in the pattern. Upon landing they added full throttle and then the plane started veering to the left due to left turning tendencies. They didn't add enough right rudder and I let it go too far without me adding the correction necessary. When I did add right rudder the student did as well and we started heading off the runway to the right. I took over controls and proceeded to rotate before we went off the runway. While rotating the wingtip scraped the runway. The plane continued to fly and we didn't notice the damage until the next student preflighted the aircraft. I let the students mistake go too far without correcting it myself. The plane got signed off by the A&P to keep flying untill the 100 hr inspection which the aircraft had less than 5 hours until. Then the airplane would be repaired by the Mechanic.




Synopsis: P28A Flight Instructor reported a wingtip scrape due to a ground strike during landing pattern practice.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight crew descended below a fix on the RNAV XX approach into ZZZ. We were cleared to ZZZZZ.  Approach was briefed appropriately and checked. Pilot Flying (PF) called for a step down from ZZZZZ instead of ZZZZZ1 and as Pilot Monitoring (PM) I did not initially catch the error either. Should have been at 2;000 ft descended to about roughly 1;600 ft before the error was realized and the autopilot was disconnected and corrective action was applied promptly. At this time ATC called a low altitude alert in which we alerted them we were correcting. Pilot climbed up and we re-intercepted the snowflake. The rest of the approach was stable and as briefed.[Event was caused by] failure of PF and PM to catch early descent. Pilot error on approach. [I] need to focus on comprehension of [approach] plate. As well as managing task saturation.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an altitude excursion during instrument approach. Flight crew realized the error; returned to correct altitude and completed a safe landing.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was to complete IOE but the Check Airman was not available. Crew scheduling told me to deadhead home and my schedule was to complete IOE on three days later in the month.   I had 28 hours of flight time at this point. My Check Airman had not told me I was done with IOE or signed my paperwork off as completing IOE.  My Check Airman told me to keep my IOE fold just in case we get separated.  The next day I got calls asking me to take a photo of my IOE file and to email it to the Training Department. I talked to the Chief Pilot. He said I was done with IOE and being put on reserve. I explained that I was never told my IOE was over; that I understood I was not finished with IOE and my paperwork was not signed off.  I started flying the line as instructed. I would suggest make sure a pilot understands when IOE is complete. Sign and file paperwork as required after IOE.




Synopsis: A First Officer new to the ERJ-170 was uncertain about his IOE completion status because the Check Airman expected them to work together again but the Company believed he was completed and in a reserve status.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our aircraft had an MEL which affected tailwind restriction; landing distance; CAT 3 Dual Prohibited; and operating on contaminated runways. (Aircraft restriction on release was only 'no tailwind takeoff'). Dispatch did not agree that the MEL restriction prevented us from operating on a contaminated runway. The NOTAM's for the airport clearly indicated the departure runway had patchy thin wet snow. The TPS indicated a dry runway. The Tower confirmed for us that the runway was dry. The Dispatcher said he would get the NOTAM changed. The NOTAM on the return flight remained the same. MEL 32-42-4A MEL 32-42-05A PLA CAT 3 DUAL Prohibited. Misunderstanding of the MEL between Dispatcher and myself. Both dispatchers put only one of aircraft restrictions on release; and did not include increased landing distance; no flex takeoff; and no operation on contaminated runway. NOTAM's were not updated the entire day. Disagreement between Dispatcher and me that a runway described as patchy wet snow meant it was contaminated; whereas he believed because it said patchy thin wet snow meant it was less than 1/8 and therefore not contaminated. I looked at FOM and the definition of contaminated means more than 1/8 and then goes on to describe contaminated conditions as among others- wet snow. Provide more training to pilots and dispatchers so we may agree on how to read the restrictions on aircraft imposed by MEL's; as well as how to determine a contaminated runway. Insist on updated NOTAM's. Do not carry these MEL's in the middle of winter where contaminated runways are likely to be an issue. The FO I was flying with had the same MEL weeks ago on the same airplane; which between that time had been taken off and put right back on MEL to avoid the time limits.




Synopsis: A330 Captain reports disagreeing with the Dispatcher over what constitutes a contaminated runway for MEL compliance. It is decided that the Dispatcher's view that patchy thin wet snow meant it was less than 1/8 and therefore not contaminated; is correct.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X departed IFR; via VOR off of ZZZ. Shortly after radar identification; the pilot reported a loss of attitude indicator. The pilot requested to remain in VMC conditions. We had low ceilings due to weather in the area. The pilot reported a hole off of his left wing that he could descend in VMC conditions through to return to ZZZ. I advised the pilot to descend in VMC conditions at his discretion. I advised the CIC on the desk that I was [providing priority handling] for this aircraft and requested he contact ZZZ Tower to advise them of the situation and the intent to allow the aircraft to descend in VMC into their airspace. ZZZ was IMC; reporting ceilings of 009 broken. I advised the pilot to notify me when he had the field in sight at ZZZ. The pilot informed me when he had the field below 020. Once he had visual confirmation of the runway I instructed him to contact ZZZ Tower. The pilot landed without incident. I did not clear the pilot for an approach at ZZZ; although he was IFR. I handled the priority handling to the best of my ability at the time. In the future I would ensure that the satellite tower was aware of the need for SVFR regarding the priority handling. I also realized after switching the aircraft that I had not cleared him for the approach. I was focused on ensuring his safe descent and getting him over to the Tower so he could be cleared to land as soon as possible. Going forward I will be more cognizant of the coordination that has been affected and also that I issue a proper visual approach clearance.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported that an aircraft had a problem on departure and needed to return to departure airport.