elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In trail behind a 767 heavy [we] entered his wake on the Dobbi STAR. Severe enough I turned off autopilot to reestablish level wings. Requested to be vectored off the STAR due to B767 wake. Vectored off and given a turn to intercept final. I could feel the aircraft on the verge of entering wake again. Cleared for the approach but I managed it with LOC and vertical descent to stay above glide slope to avoid B767 wake. I thought I heard clearance to hold 170 to KERNS. The approach was active and confirmed but for some reason the auto throttle allowed aircraft to slow below Ref speed. The autopilot was off at this point. I advanced the throttles and turned off the auto throttle to spool engine and regain speed.Became very tasked loaded trying to avoid the B767 wake. [Suggest] more separation from heavy aircraft.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to IAH in trail of a B767.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was the upgrade lead on a flight that departs early [morning]. During the loading of the flight; there was lightning in the area and I [was] called in 3 or 4 times asking our ops agent if it was safe to be outside. He told me that the lightning detection was showing 'green' meaning it was safe to be outside. We finished loading the flight; I put the headset on to get ready to push the plane from the gate. I told the captain that I would prefer to use hand signals because I wasn't comfortable with the headset on with lightning in the air so close. He said that would be fine. He told me brakes were off and we were cleared to push. As soon as he said that; lightning struck very close by and I felt a jolt of electricity hit me in the jaw. It felt like someone punched me in the jaw. At that point; I threw the headset off and headed indoors. The ops agent told me that the lightning detector did not turn red (unsafe to be on the ramp) until the lightning struck right by us. Our company lightning detection needs to be replaced with something that actually works.




Synopsis: Ramp personnel headed indoors after lightning strike on the ramp just prior to pushback. One ramp agent was affected by the very close lightning strike.  Reporter mentions the companies lightning detection indicator was still showing it safe to be outdoors.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the RNAV approach below the Minimum Vector Altitude (MVA) when he ended up sharing the same radar pixel/same altitude with a VFR aircraft that departed and was still talking to Tower. I have filled multiple reports regarding the problem with VFR traffic sight seeing around and having near mid airs with IFR arrivals and departures. Tower must be given Radar so they can help separate these VFR aircraft from our arrival and departure traffic. So far absolutely nothing has been done despite my warnings that you will have a midair collision with IFR traffic below the MVA and a VFR aircraft. You're talking bodies raining down over the town. This is a real issue being ignored. In this case the VFR aircraft departed and was still talking to Tower! The Tower must have a radar and VFR traffic must be required to be in radio contact with Tower.




Synopsis: ZLC ARTCC Controller reported airspace issue that has frequently resulted in traffic conflicts between VFR and IFR aircraft below MVA.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was off the floor and took the desk. I went up to the controller on sector 11R and noticed he had 4 aircraft showing two separate conflicts. This is the first conflicting pair that I investigated. There were two aircraft. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. One was at FL320 and one was at FL330; I don't remember which one was at FL320. The aircraft were 27 NM apart. Both aircraft were in the SYA radar volume and the data blocks auto acquired but neither aircraft was radar identified. The controller climbed the aircraft at FL320 to FL330 to using radar to establish 20 ATD between them. 20 ATD was misapplied. The controller didn't ask either aircraft the distance from the next waypoint to establish 20 miles between them.The aircraft were Mach and remained 27NM apart after they left SYA radar volume and into nonradar airspace for the next hour until they got into the SPY radar volume and radar identified.As recommended in my previous report I would like a briefing item or clarification from airspace the proper way to set up 20 ATD in ATOP. Can you use radar to establish 20 NM between aircraft or do you need to ask the DME or distance to the next fix/waypoint.




Synopsis: ZAN Supervisor reported of a situation where 20 ATD (Along Track Distance) separation was improperly applied to two aircraft at the same altitude. Controller requested clarification on the proper way to set up ATD separation.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During approach to LAX we received a late change of runway; from 24R to 25L. We were a bit high when we were cleared for the approach to 24R and then changed to 25L.  Approximately 10 miles out we slowed to 200 and configured the jet. There was an uncommanded power surge and we decided to go around. The reason for the go around was the uncommanded power surge and we were not stable. We cleaned up the jet as soon as possible and did a go around back to a normal landing at LAX.  After the fact FOQA informed me that there was a gear over speed. Neither myself nor the FO were aware of this. This is the second time that I have had an uncommanded power surge after a runway change at LAX. Both resulted in [a] go around to a normal landing.


Second narrative: We received a late change of runway; from 24R to 25L; while on base to final at LAX. I made the necessary changes in the MCDU as the Captain slowed the aircraft. We discussed that it would be difficult to configure the aircraft; descend and slow in adequate time to fly a stable approach. Once on final; we lowered the landing gear and selecting flaps one. The Captain; in an effort to further slow the aircraft; selected the Approach speed mode. At this moment; the aircraft began to accelerate; as if going to climb speed mode rather than approach speed mode. To the best of our knowledge and recollection; we had selected Approach Mode prior to the runway change.Already in a difficult position to achieve a stable approach; the Captain announced the Go Around. He momentarily selected TOGA and back to Climb on the thrust levers. We immediately cleaned up the aircraft but the gear did not complete retraction within airspeed limitations; thus the Gear Overspeed. We brought the aircraft around for an uneventful landing.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported executing a go-around after experiencing uncommanded thrust on approach to LAX.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Engine Driven Pump
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Helped replace number one Engine Driven Hydraulic Pump (EDP) per Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 29-11-05. Idle ran engine approximately ten minutes; no leaks noted.


Second narrative: While accomplishing ETOPS Pre-Departure Check; I noticed the number one engine cowling was wet with hydraulic fluid. I opened the [fan] cowl and found hydraulic fluid puddled inside cowl.  I requested help to run the engine.  I noted number one engine EDP(engine driven pump) leaking at mating surface of pump housing. I proceeded to replace number one engine EDP using AMM 29-11-05.  I am the one that removed and replaced the pump and tightened all [hydraulic] lines. After I was done; my partner went through the checklist [asking]: Did you tighten all four nuts; three lines and Cannon plug?   During flight; the Left-Hand (LH) Hydraulic System Quantity (QTY) and pressure dropped to zero. Left engine drive pump and electric switch turned to 'off' position after pressure loss.   Upon arrival; the Mechanic found LH EDP supply line loose and back-shell loose.


Synopsis: An ETOPS B757-200 lost left system hydraulic fluid in flight after having the engine driven pump replaced.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X was on landing roll for Runway XXR. I called LC2 (training) to give permission to cross after Aircraft X lands. LC2 had crossed Aircraft Y at taxiway [letter] prior to me calling. Inquiring after LC2 had meant to cross another aircraft for his runway. He called to the wrong aircraft. LC2 Controllers have been training all day and have not had good breaks. I was working all day heavy traffic as well with minimal breaks. We were pushing 100-150 movement hours. Staffing included 2 CPC's; 1 OS and 1 trainee for the morning; a second OS came at XA:00.   We all pushed hours and took minimal or no breaks due to staffing and traffic would not stop.  I told Aircraft X to turn left at Runway Y when I meant [taxiway name and number]; but my mind felt like mush.  I believe the trainee made an error due to fatigue as I was also very fatigued from numerous complex requests today. Training has been pushed on the trainee to 'help the facility.' I believe this has put undue stress on the trainee to save the facility since we only have X working CPC's on schedule currently. The pressure to work long hours maximize time on position and 6 days a week for months on end has taken its toll on us.I recommend adequate staffing for the facility.  I understand we need to push training but pressure should not be on a trainee to 'save the facility;' when this is an agency issue. I recommend management push for good breaks for proper cool downs so we can take on traffic with more of a sound and ready mind. Some controllers take on everything without regard for their selves due to trying to perform for the agency. This is a big safety issue.




Synopsis: Ground Controller reported a runway incursion due to communication issues with Local Control. Reporter stated staffing issues contributed to the event.
Date: 201305
Light: Night
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Enroute at night under goggles with landing light on a bird struck the nose and entered the cabin through the hole. It broke the nose in between the windshield and chin bubble. We were about seven miles south of the base so we returned to the base without further incident.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Eurocopter elected to return to base following a bird strike that resulted in a fractured nose between the windshield and chin bubble.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 119
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were training combined with dual ILS approaches with monitors. Runway 36L was being inspected so we were using Runway 35C and Runway 35L. Aircraft X checked on and had reported avionics issues and wanted a long final and notified us that if the aircraft didn't capture they would need to go around. Because of this I instructed the trainee to descend Aircraft X to 3;000 feet. At the time I did not realize the 3;500 feet MVA was on the final on the projected flight path but I wanted Aircraft X to be at a lower altitude in case they did not capture the localizer and went through as there was going to be an aircraft on the parallel final. By having those at a lower altitude there would be more time to turn Aircraft X away from the higher descending aircraft on Runway 35R. Aircraft X did go through the localizer and we turned them to rejoin. We did realize Aircraft X was going to enter the MVA prior to entering the MVA however with the possible complexities of the avionics issue I chose to not climb the aircraft to 3;500 feet to avoid it as it's flight path was going to be north of the antennas and would be 500 feet above any obstacle. I decided this would be a safer operation than adding a climb to an aircraft with avionics issues. I would've stayed at 3;500 feet instead of 3;000 feet.




Synopsis: D10 TRACON instructor advised trainee to descend an aircraft below the MVA.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: crosswind; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Stearman
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was landing a Stearman in a light crosswind (230 at 8-10kts) on runway 28R. As I approached flare height; I felt a slight tailwind gust that often happens at this airport with a south or southwesterly wind. I noticed that the midfield windsock then turned to a direct crosswind. In retrospect; I should have added power; gone around and notified ATC that I needed the runway more aligned with the wind. As I touched down in a 3-point attitude; I had left aileron deflection against the left crosswind and right rudder to keep the nose straight. The aircraft was pointed left and continued left; weather vaning into the wind despite full opposite rudder. The airplane left the runway surface and continued to turn left - I was loathe to use right brake because the dual puck Cleveland brakes on our Stearman are very effective and I was concerned about nosing over. The airplane continued left in a ground loop and; approaching 180 degrees to the runway direction; the left main gear left the surface of the grass and the right wing tip creased the ground. The airplane came to a rest pointing northward after a 270 degree turn about 20 feet south of the runway. ATC asked if we were alright (there was a passenger in the front cockpit) and I replied in the affirmative. I advised ATC that I was shutting the aircraft down to leave the cockpit and inspect the damage. I discovered that the extent of the damage was a small tear in the fabric on the wingtip and the edge of the right aileron. Determining that the airplane was safe to taxi; my passenger and I returned to the aircraft; and I started the engine; turned on the radio and requested taxi clearance back onto the runway and onto Charlie taxiway - which was granted. I held short of Runway 28L as instructed and; once cleared; crossed 28L and called ground control which authorized me to taxi back to the hangar. As I wrote; when I felt that tailwind gust I should have powered up; gone around and requested a different runway. The airport was busy; ATC was busy; and I allowed those circumstances to influence my decision to continue the landing on 28R.




Synopsis: Stearman pilot lost control of his aircraft when he encountered a tailwind gust during landing; resulting in a ground loop and slight wing tip damage.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: 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: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were going to load Aircraft X to ZZZ while loading the mail there was a box that had a Dangerous Goods (DG) sticker on it but there was no paperwork for it. At this time it was decided to be held off and sent back to air freight. The [package] was then rebooked for Aircraft Y to ZZZ and we were told it was ok to load cause we have an agreement with the [US] Post Office. We then notified the Supervisor on Duty in which notified the Manger about the concern they made a phone call and emailed the Regional Freight Manger and was told it was ok to board. We had then notified the pilot which the contacted the DG hotline and was told to hold off aircraft because without paperwork he would not have any ability to react in case of an incident so refused boarding of mail [package]. Also we are unaware of any other DG's being shipped cause of mail items being shipped in sacks.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Personnel reported Dangerous Goods package scheduled to be shipped was refused due to no required Hazmat documents provided.