elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was a warm afternoon; windy out of the northwest (after landing I approximated the crosswind at 13 knots with winds around 350 at 20 knots). I was in a stable traffic pattern; turned onto final and had to crab the plane to line up with the runway due to the winds. I had a smooth landing on centerline at a higher than normal speed due to the gusting wind conditions; then the plane quickly veered off to the right; exiting the runway; and I was able to quickly stop it on the grass next to the runway. Tower inquired whether I needed a tow. The engine was running normally; there were no engine warning lights or unusual sounds so I requested and received permission to taxi back onto the runway and then exit off at the normal taxiway.I performed a thorough inspection of the aircraft afterwards and there was no damage to the aircraft or obvious wear changes to the tires. A mechanic examined the plane the next day and no obvious damage was noted. No damage to the airport environment was noted.The runway excursion was the result of a high crosswind and my delay in correcting for it.I was reminded of the importance and difficulty in maintaining crosswind correction during all phases of aircraft movement and was too slow to respond given the very windy conditions at the airport. I am unfamiliar with this airport and need more experience with this airport environment and its windy conditions. I plan on working with a local CFI to improve on these skills.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot reported loss of directional control in gusty crosswind conditions that resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 201502
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Today I had a very frightening experience. When I met [the] flight I used SOP. About midway into [passenger] deplaning I notice that the plane was actually moving upwards; so much and so quickly that I immediately called [ramp control] and advised them that the auto leveler had malfunctioned. He came over shortly after my call. While waiting for the mechanic to arrive; I advised the first flight attendant what was happening and that we needed to hurriedly; but safely have all the passengers exit as quickly as possible; as the plane was rising so fast. I hurried everyone off including the flight attendants [as] the door would have been in jeopardy of being unhinged from its foundation. Shortly; maintenance arrived and I asked him if there was anything I could have done differently to prevent this from happening and he said 'no; because the auto levelers were old and in bad need of repair.' The ramp said that this problem has been occurring lately with the 737s and that the company was aware of this; I then asked him why hasn't anything been done to fix the problem; and that if the problem is not resolved someone could be at risk of losing their job; more specifically CSRs; because we are responsible for the safe deplaning of the aircraft. Until the issue is resolved; I will take a photo of every 737 I met in this gate with the date and time stamp on it; so if this situation ever arises I can prove my innocence. I am hoping that will never happen. Finally; if the company is aware of the problem; why hasn't it been fixed?




Synopsis: An air carrier gate agent reported the leveling system of the jetway he was utilizing to deplane a B737 malfunctioned; resulting in it sinking below the passenger entry/exit threshold and potentially impacting the fully open cabin door. After calling for maintenance the reporter implored the cabin attendants to expedite the passenger deplaning.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Block turn back for possible leak in steering tube.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a block turn back due to failed nose wheel steering actuator.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E STL
ATC / advisory: TRACON T75
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A B737 was expecting Visual Approach 12L; weather in the area caused wind shift after they checked on. They were told to expect 30R; but to continue to the 12L downwind fix; SHAAD; previously assigned. This was due to opposite direction departure traffic that needed to pass before the B737 could turn toward the 30R final. I turned my attention to other aircraft; coordinating the runway change and a position relief briefing; and then noticed the B737 had turned toward TOY; flying the STAR transition to 30R instead of continuing to SHAAD. This put them in unnecessary proximity to the opposite direction departure at a similar altitude; although the B737 was passing behind the traffic. It created an unsafe situation and separation was not ensured. This is another case of a controller being burned by autopilot; and not the first time I have experienced it. From talking to the crew; they explained that entering the new runway caused the aircraft to fly the 30R transition instead of continuing on the 12L transition as instructed. Would suggest crews do what it takes to follow ATC instructions; even if it means they delay entering the new runway in their system.


Second narrative: On approach; we were given a last minute runway change due to changing weather. At the time; we were at 15 miles northeast of the airport descending for an approach to Runway 12L passing through 11;000 FT MSL. We were subsequently told to now expect Runway 30R. I was the pilot flying; so I immediately started to slow the aircraft in order to configure for a descent and vectors. As I looked away for a moment in order to reference my approach chart; I realized the aircraft was now in a left turn. Trying to be helpful; the pilot not flying had loaded the new runway into the FMC and executed without a crew crosscheck. Unfortunately; the aircraft then began to fly the transition; which we were not cleared for yet. We quickly began the turn back to our original course; but ATC was already inquiring about our heading. After informing them; we were quickly vectored into a left turn anyway. The approach was then completed without any more mishaps.


Synopsis: T75 Controller described an unsafe event when a STL air carrier initiated a wrong turn conflicting with opposite direction traffic; the controller indicating that a premature autopilot change caused the occurrence.
Date: 201309
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Antiskid System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When pulling up in line; Number 3 for TO; I applied brakes to avoid hitting aircraft ahead. The brakes provided no braking action; I assumed antiskid had released the brakes. As we were gaining on another aircraft with an eventual aircraft strike a distinct possibility; I continued to apply brakes while reaching for the throttles (to use reverse thrust). The antiskid reengaged the brakes causing an abrupt and large braking action and resulting in a significant jolt. I got out of line; checked for passenger and FA injuries. No passenger injuries. FA Number 1 OK. FA Number 2 OK. FA Number 3 felt a little ache in the neck. FA Number 4 had the coffee spill on the floor; a small amount on her leg. FAs cleaned up the coffee and all 4 reported able to fly and continue the trip. I repeatedly checked the brakes with normal response and determined it was a momentary anomaly. We continued normally.


Second narrative: While taxiing out to the runway; we were proceeding in sequence approaching Taxiway Zulu. While I was clearing the area ahead and to the side of our aircraft; our aircraft suddenly came to an abrupt stop. After the Captain called back to see if everyone was ok; I called Ground Control to get out of the sequence to the runway so we could further assess the situation prior to takeoff. Once we found out that everyone was ok in the cabin; and ready for departure; I called Ground Control so we could be resequenced for takeoff.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew experiences a momentary brake failure while taxiing for takeoff; eventually resulting in an abrupt stop. After checking the cabin and assessing the brakes; the crew elects to depart.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was trying to build 7 miles between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y on final when Aircraft X dropped off my scope on his landing roll. I had 6.3 miles when Aircraft X landed. After Aircraft X dropped off the scope; I cleared Aircraft Y for his ILS. With RECAT (Wake Turbulence re-categorization); a category F aircraft requires 5 miles 'directly behind' a category B; but 'on approach' needs 7 miles. Aircraft Y was never cleared; however; I did only have about 6.3 miles. Technically; I had the separation I needed when I cleared Aircraft Y; but I wanted to write this up to bring to light the issues we've had with RECAT that don't seem to be heard outside the region.RECAT has decreased our efficiency and increased our go-arounds. I did not deem this event unsafe in any manner; as this separation is legal at any other airport in the state. If I was running this sequence into EDF; this would not have been a loss of separation (I would debate that it even was in this case; by my interpretation). It's ridiculous that we have 3 separation standards. At EDF; we run standard separation and at ANC we run RECAT which has two of its own separation standards. I don't think anyone would argue that our increased number of go-arounds at this airport mostly have something to do with RECAT. Our airport cannot handle the reduced spacing RECAT has based on the layout and our efficiency takes a huge hit when we need additional spacing that we don't need anywhere else. Our extreme mix of aircraft isn't the same mix that other RECAT airports have; so I doubt airports like Memphis have issues like we do. We need to re-evaluate keeping RECAT because the users; controllers; and airport are not benefiting.




Synopsis: A11 TRACON Controller reported the new wake turbulence separation standards are decreasing the efficiency of the operations at their airport.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Captain and I were operating Aircraft X. On taxi out; we received several reports from the flight attendants; ramp personnel via ATC and a company crew behind us that the aircraft had produced a flame and two loud bangs. We received no indication of a fire or malfunction in the cockpit. It took a moment to put the information together and into context as we initially thought it was the #2 engine; but it ended up being the #1 engine. At first there was some confusion from outside sources as I was talking to the Captain; ATC and the company crew. We ran the Engine Fire Checklist and got the engine shutdown. Ground Control dispatched a vehicle and they confirmed there was no fire. We taxied back to the gate and deplaned.


Second narrative: On taxi out; the FA (Flight Attendant) chimed us. She said the number 2 engine was on fire. We did the checklist for engine fire. We then heard on the radio that flames were seen coming out of the number 1 engine. Crash fire confirmed that no fire or smoke was coming from either engine. We then taxied to the gate; and took another aircraft [for the flight]. Subsequently we found out from Maintenance that the event was caused by oil leaking onto the tailpipe; and then the oil caused a brief fire condition.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported being notified during taxi of a flaming engine due to oil leaking into the tailpipe.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Rectifier
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: MEL; Logbook Entry; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Please read MEL 24-XX-XX and apply (O) action #2. This morning on a first flight of the day at XA15 we received paper work for Flight XXXX ZZZ to ZZZ1. I reviewed the paper work and noted 2 MELs. One for the coffee pot and the other for a TRU (Transformer Rectifier Unit). I reviewed the log book and noted that everything had MCNs and appeared correct. I then proceeded with the acceptance inspection. Once the acceptance was complete I looked up the MELs to familiarize my self with them. The coffee pot MEL was complied with correctly. The TRU MEL was complied with correctly as well. After reviewing the MEL with my First Officer we then proceeded with the rest of the gate work; checklist; and departed. While en route I decided to re-read the MEL and learn a bit more about the write in the log book. I came to the conclusion that the MEL did not apply to the write up. The write up said 'DC Service Bus still shows powered when no power is applied to the aircraft. Nav Lights are still on; Placarded and Placed on MEL.' The MEL (24-XX-XX) was applied and the service TRU was MEL'd. When the (O) action #2 was applied per the MEL however the Essential Tie is closed manually and DC Service Bus was re-energized via the Essential TRU2. This did not solve the problem stated in the write up. Once we landed in ZZZ1; I contacted Dispatch and Maintenance and we all agreed that the MEL was inappropriate for the discrepancy in the log book and the aircraft was taken out of service. The complexity of the electrical system and the rarity of MELs used on it played a factor in missing this at the gate as well as the early morning and pressure to get out on time.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a misapplied MEL was used and the aircraft flew in revenue service.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AFW.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D AFW
ATC / advisory: Tower AFW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was cleared for takeoff on [Runway] 16L at Intersection G. I told the Tower that I would be making a left turn out. After takeoff the Tower told me he would 'Call my right turn out.' I advised him that I was already in a left turn. I had a traffic alert and observed another aircraft just above my altitude on a collision course. I leveled at about 800 ft. AGL to avoid a collision. Lately; AFW Tower seems to get overwhelmed with normal volumes of traffic and lose situational awareness causing delays; frustration; pilot stress and sometimes traffic conflicts. Perhaps they are doing controller training. I realize we all have to start somewhere but AFW traffic handling has become some of the worst I have seen in my career. Perhaps someone needs to listen in.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an airborne conflict just after takeoff and communication issue with the Tower Controller.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ATL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying photo mission at 15;500 ft; First Officer (FO) saw drone pass by and below right wing by about 200-300 ft. was red in color and about 2 feet in diameter. Notified ATC; no other aircraft saw it. Other crew members saw it as well.




Synopsis: A First Officer reported seeing a drone pass by their aircraft while flying at 15;500 feet and advised ATC.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I recently transitioned from the X type aircraft to the Y type aircraft back to the X type aircraft Captain seat.  During each transition; I updated my tablet to the appropriate Jeppesen charts for the fleet that I was on. I am now back on the X type aircraft . I realized before my flight that I did not have the appropriate approach plates. The day before the flight I spent approximately two hours with the IT division trying to rectify the problem. We went as far as resetting my entire tablet ('wiped clean) to try to download the correct Jeppesen charts for the X type aircraft. We did not have any success. The IT department could not figure out why the automatic load did not have the appropriate charts.  I then contacted the appropriate company resource to discuss the issue but that division was closed for the day.  Prior to my flight I obtained a loaner tablet from operations that had all required publications.  Because I obtained a loaner; there were no problems associated with the flight.With the many fleet transitions at my airline; it seems likely that there is another pilot flying without the appropriate charts on their tablet.   This might be caught in pre-flight when the flight is entered but what about possible divert airports that would not be available.  As an example I looked up another airport on my old tablet to see if the charts were available.  [They] were not available.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported noticing during preflight that electronic charts for his destination were not loaded in his tablet computer.