elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202106
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were in IMC near thunderstorms and the conditions were causing a loud static noise on our radios. Even with the radio volume turned up; it was difficult to hear. We were given another amended route clearance. The Controller spelled the first fix phonetically LEEDN and then the GOPAC 2 Arrival. Because of the poor radios; I wasn't sure of the last letter of the fix. A quick glance at the GOPAC 2 chart showed the fix LEEDR; which was just a few fixes east of our original clearance. I assumed that was the point we were cleared to. I thought I read back LEEDR to the Controller. We programmed the FMC to go to LEEDR and were given a frequency change to Chicago Center. Upon check-in; I told Chicago we were direct LEEDR. A few minutes later; Center advised us that it looked like we were left of course and asked us if we were going direct to LEEDN. That's when we noticed LEEDN was a fix on the southern branch of the arrival. We reprogrammed the FMC and then flew to LEEDN to join the arrival.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported they misunderstood their clearance and navigated to the wrong fix. The RNAV STAR has similar sounding and spelled fixes named LEEDR and  LEEDN.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Other Pattern entry
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
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: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Ground Control. Traffic volume for the Local Control 1 was busy and traffic volume for Local Control 2 was moderate. The CIC made a comment to the 2 local controllers that alerted me to look at the situation. The CIC was asking the local controllers what was being done about a Cessna and a helicopter that were crossing the field midfield side by side at the same approximate altitude. When the CIC questioned; the two controllers issued traffic to their aircraft. The CIC asked what the altitudes of the 2 aircraft were and I observed via the STARS that the Cessna indicated 2;000 FT MSL and the helicopter indicated 1;800 FT MSL. I estimate that the 2 had approximately 100 FT lateral separation. The two aircraft got into this situation because the Local Control 1 Controller allowed his arriving Cessna to descend unrestricted from the north to cross over the field for right traffic to his Runway XXR. The Local Control 2 Controller had the helicopter on a transition from north to south; which put him at 1;900 FT by LOA. Recommendation; the SOP stipulates all aircraft will cross overhead at 3;000 FT; unless coordinated. I recommend that the option; through coordination; to descend aircraft crossing the field be removed from the SOP. There is no reason to take the risk of an aircraft descending through the other Local Control's airspace becoming a factor with that controller's pattern aircraft at 2;400 FT or helicopter traffic at 1;900 FT.




Synopsis: A Ground Controller noted a conflict between a helicopter and Cessna crossing the airport apparently unnoticed by the two Local controllers. The reporter recommended changes to the SOP procedures to prevent future events.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short final; Hydraulic System 1 failed (Level 2 alert and 0.1 gallon quantity).  Since we were only 30 seconds/1 mile from touchdown; I elected to take the aircraft from the First Officer (who was Pilot Flying at the time) and land.  We let Tower know that we may not be able to clear the runway; but after we stopped I was able to turn the plane to the right.  Tower told us that we appeared to be leaking some sort of fluid from around the nosewheel area and we chose to stop on Taxiway S.  The crew assessed the situation and confirmed the lack of Hydraulic quantity in the number 1 system. Tower initiated the crash/fire/rescure crews to come and inspect our airplane. We elected to have Maintenance pin the landing gear and tow the airplane back to parking.  This mechanical failure of a steering mechanism was probably not preventable.


Second narrative: [This report contains no additional information]


Synopsis: An MD-11 nose wheel steering began leaking on short final draining Hydraulic System 1 fluid and causing a HYD-1 alert so the Captain landed and had the aircraft towed to the ramp.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft was first cleared to FL270; subsequently the clearance descend via the GIBBZ2 was given and read back by the Captain. Both Pilot Flying and Pilot Monitoring did not understand that meant they could descend below FL270 via the arrival. Additionally it was briefed the GIBBZ Arrival is quite steep and drag may be needed; I queried the first observer if he agreed we were cellar via the arrival; he replied I was not paying attention. He then queried the Pilot Monitoring who said he thought it was FL270. I explained to him the decent via clearance at which point ATC was queried. They advised we were to comply with the altitude requirements on the arrival. They then issued a new altitude clearance and a heading. By the time I was able to clearly communicate to the crew we had already missed the FL250 crossing restriction at JIMVE. A contributing factor to this was the lack of intercom and boom mic for the second observer on the aircraft as I had to stand up to talk to the Pilot Monitoring clearly; additionally there is no port page annotation about the descend via clearance or the known steep arrival IAD combined with typically high tailwinds on this arrival.

Callback: Reporter was the only one of four pilots in the cockpit who initially understood the meaning of the 'descend via' clearance terminology as it is employed in the United States. Reporter stated the other three pilots were foreign and most likely trained abroad. Reporter did not comment on company training.



Synopsis: Air carrier Relief Pilot reported a missed altitude restriction while on the GIBBZ2 arrival to IAD. The crew misunderstood the 'descend via' phraseology.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I observed Aircraft X operating in Special Use Airspace (SUA) showing a block altitude 6000 Block 45000 feet. I informed the Controller In Charge (CIC) the Special Use Airspace was not scheduled. He retorted 'We're aware that there is no schedule for it but he's only cleared 18000 and above.' I then informed him of what the 7610.4 Ch. 9 states regarding the prohibition of MOA/Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace (ATCAA) activity without being scheduled by the authorized scheduler.Airspace Ruling Requested1. Aircraft must not be cleared to operate in an SUA/ATCAA when the SUA/ATCAA has not been scheduled by the responsible military office/scheduling agency regardless of the fact that it is either within the 'published' time of the SUA/ATCAA or operating in only the ATCAA. 2. Aircraft requesting to extend their scheduled time in the SUA/ATCAA constitutes a 'new' request. A. Notify the Front Line Manager (FLM)/CIC.B. The FLM/CIC will notify the Military Airspace Coordinator (MAC).C. The MAC will attempt to call the authorized scheduler to arrange the extension so that an entry can be posted in Special Use Airspace Management System (SAMS).D. If coordination is successful; then the extension is approved. If coordination is unsuccessful; then the extension is denied.




Synopsis: A ZHU ARTCC area Controller In Charge allowed an aircraft to operate in MOA/Air Traffic Control Assigned Airspace even though it had not scheduled the use.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other After landing
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed VFR with no flight plan; however contacted [ATC] (equivalent of tower at the airport) and let them know our intended destination and that we had received the ATIS and that we were VFR. Transmission was acknowledged and taxi instructions were provided.The flight occurred in VFR conditions; extremely clear day with mountain winds; nothing unexpected.Called on [airport] frequency 10 miles out; 3 miles out and on long final. Arrived overhead at 5000 feet (airport is at 600 feet) circling landing due to experience in the mountains with afternoon valley winds blowing. Also the area is reasonably remote so wild life is a real issue. Circled down looking for wildlife and obstacles or anything unexpected. Nothing was seen on the runway; all was clear. Landed into wind and used 1st 3rd of runway only. No issues; obstacles or any events of note.Taxied to apron and parked. Upon parking was approached by an individual who was painting lines on the runway (was not on runway on approach was clear of runway at the non-active end).He informed us that the runway was temporarily closed for 2 days via NOTAM. It's such a quiet airport that it didn't occur to me that it would be closed without visual markings indicating such on the airport. There was no such visual indication. My reconnaissance was such that I was sure there was nothing on the runway when I landed however I was in the wrong for not checking NOTAMs for the airport. The manager of the primary operator of the airport came and spoke to me; I apologized and he agreed that there was no actual conflict with the individual painting the lines; but the airport wouldn't be open again for 36 hours. I amended our planned departure to ensure no conflict. I was embarrassed by my failure to check NOTAMs; something I would have done without thinking in the US; but failed to in this instance just due to the quiet nature of the airport.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported discovering the airport was closed after landing as a result of not checking NOTAMs.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a flap asymmetry with a split greater than a needle width.  We followed the procedures in the QRH and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported a flap asymmetry on approach creating an emergency situation. This was followed by a safe landing.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was conducting a part 91 flight under IFR Flight Plan from in VMC conditions. Upon landing in ZZZ and turning off; the aircraft suffered a nose gear failure in the area of the nose gear leg pivot axle which resulted in the propeller striking the ground and the engine stopping. The landing on runway XXR was uneventful and on the main gears the winds were WSW 18.4 mph gusts 26.5 mph. The aircraft decelerated normally and the tower asked via radio if I could turn off on the taxiway. Turning left; the nose gear failed and the nose lowered to the remaining stub of the nose gear leg. This lowered the nose by approximately 10 inches which caused approximately 8 inches of the propeller to contact the concrete runway environment. The engine was running in idle at the time of propeller contact. The engine stopped running after about 20-30 strikes. I did not recognize the propeller strike for about 3 to 5 seconds. It was only after I saw the nose gear laying on the right side of the aircraft and the stopped damaged propeller blades did I understand the issue.The plane stopped on the runway environment. I exited the aircraft and moved the aircraft past the hold short line by pressing down on the tail so that the damages propeller and nose gear leg were lifted and pushed the aircraft clear of the runway environment. I later found out between the incident and the writing of this report that AD 2009-02-04 was issued to address the failure of the nose gear on DA-40s. Also Diamond Aircraft issued Service Information No. SI-40-180 to address the Nose Gear Failure on DA-40s. It appears that this failure is not something that a pilot can detect as the nose gear leg pivot axle is hidden from view in normal operation and the area can only be exposed with the nose gear disassembled.




Synopsis: DA-40 pilot reported a nose gear failure and subsequent prop strike after landing. An airworthiness directive had been issued to address the failure of the nose gear.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passing 10;000 ft the CA (Captain) and I noticed a fuel imbalance of approximately 15;000 lbs with the left side indicating low.  We monitored it until level off at FL360.  The fuel indication would indicate a higher fuel burn; and then increase in quantity; that is to say it was somewhat erratic.  It continued to be erratic and then settled down to indicate the 15;000 lbs imbalance. The CA (Captain) communicated with [Technical Support Maintenance Control] and Dispatch; and decided it was in the best interest of safety to request priority handling and recover the aircraft to ZZZ.  We coordinated with ATC and request priority handling.  We ran the Fuel Leak Checklist and determined a leak was not confirmed.  We flew a normal approach to Runway XXL and landed uneventfully.  We were me by airport rescue and firefighting on X7 short of X where they had us shutdown both engines due to some leak from the engine area.  After testing the liquid it was determined that it was not gas or hydraulic fluid.  They said it was safe to taxi in with 1 engine; but after starting number 2 the airport rescue and firefighting said there was a leak and we shut down the engine.  After that we coordinated with operations for a tug to tow us in.  The tug towed us uneventfully to gate.  We sent an Emergency Locator Beacon about the fuel imbalance and discussed the problem with Maintenance at the gate.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reported fuel imbalance and later identified a fuel leak.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was scheduled to meet inbound flight (a 757). I had raised the Jetway to the approximate height for a 757 and was standing in the cab watching the aircraft approach. I adjusted the Jetway up some more (about 6 to 10 inches) to align the Jetway with the gold stripe (that is level with the aircraft door). I notice that the 2nd door (2L) was moving past the Jetway which was odd. I looked out the cab window and saw the aircraft was parked on the 777-300 line. I call zone telling them that there had been a major mispark and the aircraft would need to pushed back. I did not extend the Jetway until the aircraft had been re-positioned and I received the direction to move signal. I positioned the Jetway and opened the aircraft door as normal.I felt nothing unusual as the aircraft was approaching and parked. It was my belief that the aircraft did not come into contact with the Jetway. I told to the 2 flight attendants at the door we got lucky; that the engine hadn't hit the Jetway. The captain didn't think the aircraft had hit the Jetway as well and said this same type of mispark had happened to him 2 weeks ago at the same gate. It wasn't until Customer Service supervisor arrived at the gate that I heard that there had been contact with the Jetway.




Synopsis: B757 Gate Agent reported the aircraft made contact with the jetway when the aircraft was marshalled to the incorrect parking line by the ground crew.