elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDM.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D RDM
ATC / advisory: Tower RDM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On short final to Runway 5 in ZZZ we had to execute a go-around due to conflicting traffic landing on intersecting Runway 11. ATC was very busy and trying to land a small; GA aircraft before us and was counting on the smaller aircraft to make an early taxiway exit. This was not the case and the smaller aircraft needed to cross intersecting runway 5/23 which we were about to land on. Go-around procedures were executed with no significant errors and performed to standard. Preparations for the second attempt to land were conducted and we landed approximately 20 minutes later with no incidents. Ground crew at ZZZ performed admirably and we were still able to push on time for our next flight despite arriving at the gate late. Extra diligence should be used when flying to ZZZ; especially during peak times considering the increase of GA aircraft flying at ZZZ due to a new flight school at the airport. ZZZ airport is also an airport without radar capabilities; a tool which would help them sequence large volumes of aircraft.




Synopsis: Commercial Fixed Wing pilot reported having to go around due to small aircraft not crossing an intersecting runway in a timely manner.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All preflight control checks were normal. First flight checks including Rudder Bias system checked normal. After takeoff still hand flying aircraft and was given a climbing left turn. As I initiated it at about 800 FT and applied left rudder to keep coordinated flight; I felt enormous pressure. SIC had engaged YD. I rolled out of turn on assigned heading and disengaged YD. Pressure/resistance was still felt on rudder pedals. Speed was approximately 200 KTS. It took a huge amount of force to displace rudder pedals. Felt like the Rudder Bias system had 'engaged' itself simultaneously on BOTH sides. No abnormal indications on MWS either. We requested return to the departure airport and landed. Adjusting speed for landing had no effect on pedal pressure. After landing and thrust at idle pedals checked normal free and clear. Advancing thrust to higher power setting again got the resistance again.

Callback: The reporter explained the BAe 125 Series 800 engines high pressure bleed pressurizes Rudder Bias pistons one on each side of the rudder; so that if an engine fails the high pressure bleed from the operating engine introduces some rudder to counteract the loss of thrust yaw. The pilot then adds additional rudder as needed. In this case; the rudder restriction may indicate high pressure bleed is activating both Rudder Bias pistons simultaneously restricting rudder movement equally in either direction; in other words locked. During preflight the rudder 'kick' was felt and in this instance; after landing idle thrust unlocked the rudder. When thrust increased during post landing engine run up; the rudder pedals lock again. This anomaly is a repeat issue for this aircraft.



Synopsis: A pilot reported his BAe 125 Series 800 rudder pedals became very difficult to displace during climbout as if the Rudder Bias system had self-engaged; so the crew returned to the departure airport where the rudder pedals released with the thrust levers at idle.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GSO.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was landing on Runway 5R at GSO airport. I did a normal landing with my student and was taxiing on the runway to the next available taxiway of K1 when an aircraft that was close behind us was told to execute a climb by the tower then told to go around. The aircraft then leveled off around 100 feet above the ground and flew directly over us; then asked for a landing clearance that he then received from the tower. He landed while I was still on the active runway. I attempted to taxi clear of the runway as quickly as possible while still doing so in a safe manner. I believe the cause of the incident was a failure of the other pilot to execute the go around when told; and the tower for authorizing a landing; despite the initial instruction from the tower being a go around; when another aircraft was still on the current active runway.




Synopsis: GA instructor pilot reported an incident of a near miss while rolling out on the runway after landing by a close following aircraft.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared the LOC back course to MFR we flew the approach fine however; we flew it as a straight in; and looking over it now see that it is not intended to be; we were not textbook stabilized after the FAF due to the high descent angle of the approach. I had flown with Captains that flew this approach in this manner. (Please don't take that as an excuse; I'm just saying others are making the same mistake I did.) In the future I will not fly this approach as a straight in. I should have gone missed and returned on the ILS.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reported flying the LOC DME (BACK CRS)-B as a straight in approach; descending 6;000 feet from the FAF in 9 NM. The approach is designed to be a circle to land only approach.
Date: 201711
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The design of JeppFD-Pro has a built in problem on Displaying SIDs whereby a tool for rotating the display and highlighting on the display blocks the altitudes required by the SID from view without deliberate effort to search for it. The TERPZ 6 in BWI is a good example.  It is not a good and best practice to hide critical information on any navigation document with a tool that can be placed anywhere in existing space in the navigation and tool margins. I have come close in other cities to missing critical information hidden by that poorly placed tool. I cannot be the only one. JeppFD-Pro needs to resign the user interface to remove this tool from blocking information on charts and plates.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reported the JeppFD-Pro display blocks from view the altitudes required by some SIDs when the display is rotated.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was completing the last leg of a 2 day cross country flight with a new airplane. The approach and flare were both exactly on speed and well stabilized. I touched down very smoothly on the main wheels and as the nose came down during the rollout; the aircraft started to veer right. I applied full left rudder and maximum braking force on the left brake and was unable to keep the aircraft on the runway. It acted like the nose wheel was locked and unable to turn left or right. When I realized that [I] was not going to be able to keep the aircraft on the runway; and a runway sign was directly in front of me; I applied full right brake to try and avoid the sign. Unfortunately; the left wing hit the sign and caused damage to the leading edge of the left wing and left side of the cowling.During the 5 leg trip I had no trouble with steering the aircraft during takeoff or landing. Prior to the last leg of the trip; I dropped off a passenger and his baggage; so was significantly lighter than any other point in the trip. I suspect that the nose strut had been excessively serviced with nitrogen causing it to stay fully extended at this lighter weight. With it fully extended; the internal centering cam in the strut locks the wheel straight.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot  lost control during landing roll and hit a runway sign. Reporter suspected over serviced nose strut locked the nose wheel.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Crew departed Anchorage for flight; conditions on ground were rainy and roughly 6 degrees C. Flight continued as normal until top of descent; when flight crew noticed elevator control and trim were becoming stiff to operate. Crew continued descent; suspecting that flight controls might be slightly frozen due to cold temps at altitude and rain on the ground in Anchorage. Temps [at destination] were reported at 4 degrees C; and crew determined that continuing descent would allow ice in controls to thaw. Upon reaching roughly 5 mile final; on a visual approach; crew decided to execute a go-around due to excessive elevator and trim stiffness. Crew contacted ATC and diverted flight back to PANC; flying at ATC's lowest allowable altitude to remain in warmer temps and continue to melt ice buildup in controls. Crew also contacted dispatch in order to discuss issue with maintenance. Upon descent into PANC; crew observed better control responsiveness after reaching warmer temperatures and determined that a safe landing could be made. Landing was made in PANC without issue. Maintenance told crew that plane had sat out in rain on ANC ramp all night; and that issue stemmed from water build up inside aircraft where flight control cable and pulley assemblies sit. Once crew climbed up to altitude; where temps were in excess of -25C; the excess water froze some of those controls. I recommend that when raining; aircraft which are meant to be flown the next morning be hangared out of the rain to keep these controls dry and avoid this situation in the future.

Callback: Reporter stated aircraft type is Beech 1900C.



Synopsis: B1900C Captain reported experiencing stiff flight controls; probably due to icing; after the aircraft sat overnight on the rainy ramp in ANC.
Date: 201906
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given descend via the Hawkz7 arrival by ATC into the Seattle Airport. We also requested to delete the speed restrictions on the arrival and ATC approved our request. We programmed and briefed landing on Runway 16L. During descent; Approach Control cleared us to fly the RNAV RNP 16C. We reprogrammed the FMC for the new approach but didn't see that the speed restrictions were also reloaded. This resulted us being high on the VNAV PATH. We attempted to make the crossing restriction using the Vertical Speed function of the autopilot and speed brakes. Despite this; we crossed the altitude restriction about 500 ft. high.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported crossing a charted restriction 500 ft high on arrival into SEA.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Ground Control when I heard Clearance Delivery call to Aircraft X; whose flight plan was in front of me. I handed it to Clearance Delivery and listened to their conversation with Aircraft X. There was clearly confusion about the CPDLC clearance upload. I listened to Clearance Delivery explain all details about the TRUKN2 SID with the SYRAH transition. I asked the Clearance Delivery person to have Aircraft X file an ASAP explaining their confusion. The Clearance Delivery Controller told me afterwards the flight was showing direct SYRAH off of the airport. I have seen this before and we have had multiple pilot deviations due to this exact confusion. Review/standardize CPDLC uploads so they work for the pilots.




Synopsis: SFO Ground Controller reported a pilot was confused by the departure clearance received via CPDLC.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The weather as reported by the ASOS: SPECI AUTO 33005KT 8SM SCT019 SCT075 M26/M29 A3046 RMK AO2. The field conditions at that time were snow depths of .5 to 1.0 inches; and braking actions fair to poor. Prior to takeoff; I made a radio call on the CTAF that I was taxiing to Runway 30. I saw a snowplow on Taxiway A. I did not hear any ground vehicles using the CTAF. I heard the pilot of a Metroliner transmit on CTAF their intentions of landing Runway 30. We had a brief two-way communication; and we agreed that I would hold short of 30 on Taxiway B; at the approach end of Runway 30; for the Metroliner landing The Metro landed on 30. I watched the Metro clear Runway 30. I switched my radio to Center; and received my IFR Clearance. I switched my radio back to CTAF and prior to entering Runway 30; transmitted my intentions for takeoff on Runway 30. Visually checking the final approach path and the runway to be clear of traffic and hearing no traffic on CTAF; I took off. During the takeoff roll; a snowplow entered Runway 30 from the crossing runway. The snowplow turned right; making a 90 degree turn towards me; heading southeast. Then turned left; making a 270 degree back onto [the crossing] runway. When I saw the snowplow pull in front of me; I was at rotation speed; and continued the takeoff. I would estimate that when the snowplow pulled onto Runway 30; there was 2;500 feet between us; and after takeoff I crossed over the snowplow by 100 feet vertically and less than 50 feet horizontally. I don't know if the snowplow operator was aware of the incursion. There were no NOTAM's for snow removal this morning. I did not hear the airport personnel utilizing the CTAF.




Synopsis: PC12 pilot reports encountering a snowplow on the takeoff roll entering from a crossing runway. The reporter is at rotation speed when the snowplow enters and is able to fly over the plow. No reports were heard on the CTAF before or after the incident.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At peak times our customers all come at once in masses.  They do not follow the social distancing protocol that the CDC; the state; and airline [mandate].  The agglomeration of people is a safety issue.  It takes one person to have the virus to [be a] transmitter to others.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported social distancing concerns during peak times at the airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With the exception of a security ordered return to the gate to remove a bag; everything was normal and the First Officer was flying. We were climbing out of [departure airport] and were accelerating through 250 KTS and 10;000 FT when the aircraft began a consistent; rhythmic shudder. It stopped around 12;500 FT for a short time and began again. We had no ECAM alerts or messages; just the airframe vibration. We decided to level at FL200 and slowed to 250 KTS and began trouble shooting by going through the system pages. We noticed that the right aileron indicator was vibrating at the same rate as the aircraft. We contacted the flight attendants for their input and were told that it could be felt throughout the airplane and passengers were showing signs of concern. We initiated contact with Dispatch and Maintenance through ACARS. The aircraft was always in control; but the vibration was quite uncomfortable. Because the shudder was nauseating; we made the decision to divert [to a nearby airport]. We did not declare an emergency as we were receiving priority handling and the aircraft was responding normally. We did a few normal turns in the descent to see if we could gather additional information for Maintenance; however; the vibration continued to the ground. I exercised emergency authority to execute an overweight landing. The landing; roll out; and taxi in were all normal. Upon deplaning; a couple of passengers mentioned that they could see the aileron 'fluttering in the wind'; but didn't want to alarm other passengers by saying anything. We were able to pass this information on to Maintenance.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported abnormal aileron vibration severe enough they decided to divert to nearest suitable airport.