elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We landed five minutes early and had a 40 minute turn. As a result; the PDC clearance was not available. After we had both taken breaks; we both did our cockpit preparations; briefings and checklists. We called for pushback and were able to get Runway 26; which we had expected and briefed. When switched to [Tracon]; he told us to squawk XXXX code. We noticed zeros were set in the transponder. We were changed to Center at about 12;000 feet and he told us we could resume normal speed. We were climbing at 280 knots; and I looked at the SID to see if we were restricted to 250 knots; and there was no [restriction]. We discussed it and decided that maybe it was in the clearance. We looked for the PDC clearance in the FMC and that's when we realized that there wasn't one. We then asked ATC to confirm our routing and clearance. The remainder of the flight was uneventful and normal.Normally; I compare the PDC cleared route with the FMC box route to make sure they match. As this was day five; and the last leg; I must have been in the 'Let's get this over with' mode. Need to be extra careful to follow my own flows especially when it's the last leg of five days. And I will look for a squawk code now on my preflight flow. While normally it's rushing that makes you miss something; in this case; it was actually having too much time that was part of the problem. The First Officer said he usually gets his cockpit prep done right after shutdown and before he leaves for a break. This doesn't work when you have a longer time on the ground during turns.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported departing without obtaining a PDC. Fatigue was cited as contributing.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a training flight with a student; stopped for a break at a nearby airport. After taxiing back for departure; completed takeoff checks per checklist. Student was in control of aircraft; but I followed on the controls. Began normal takeoff roll on Runway 32. All instruments looked normal; airspeed was around 35-40 knots. The plane had a momentary pulse of the brakes and I thought student tapped the brakes. I told the student to put his heels on the floor. He said OK and I saw him move his feet further on the floor. Plane continued straight for a few seconds. Then the plane suddenly veered left. I took control and tried applying right rudder; then throttled back to idle and applied brakes. The airplane did not turn back to the centerline and did not slow down. I think the student stopped trying to control the airplane and removed his feet/hands from the controls. We hit a runway light and continued into the grass. We finally came to a stop about 150 feet into the grass. Neither of use was at all injured. We secured the aircraft and exited it. The nose pant was cracked; the back of the propeller was scratched; and there was a small dent in the left wing.

Callback: The reporter stated that to date (two months later) no mechanical cause for the runway excursion could be found. Both the brakes and steering were found fully functional during post flight maintenance examination. The reporter still believes that her student unconsciously applied left brake pressure. She could not see his feet from the right seat and makes her judgment based on the Mechanic's report and her experience at the time of this event.



Synopsis: A DA-40 student unconsciously applied left brake so the instructor rejected the takeoff but could not regain control and during the runway excursion the propeller and nose wheel pant were damaged along with a wing dent.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Aircraft component: Laptop Computer (performance; planning; etc.)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at cruise my iPad was connected to the aircraft internet and the iPad decided to auto update the content locker app which deleted all the manuals during flight. I had no notice of this from the iPad it just stated doing it. The Captain had his manuals on his EFB so no impact operationally however I would think there would be a safeguard for this. I wanted to report his so it does not affect other crews.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported iPad/EFB auto updated and caused all manuals and charts to be deleted without warning.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CHA.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CHA
ATC / advisory: Tower CHA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach into CHA we had received the ATIS and knew of low level wind shear and gusts and planned accordingly. On approach the Tower cleared another aircraft to take off and they were on the roll. We were receiving gusts that were giving us plus/minus 15 knots. The First Officer (FO) was flying at above ref. At about 600 feet I looked outside to make sure the other aircraft cleared the runway when I heard the stick shaker go off. I looked down [and] we were above ref speed and nose down; the checkerboard was touching the speed bug. I never saw us slower then ref and the checker board receded. We elected to land. After the flight I asked the FO and he said he was ref plus 5 when [it] happened. It only came on for a second and the FO responded correctly to the indications. I am not sure if a combination of the gust and the angle caused the plane to sense a problem sending a warning or not.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported receiving a stick shaker on approach to CHA in gusty conditions.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Seattle was forecast to be 1/2 SM at [arrival time]. I requested that [flight] be protected to CAT3 due to the low weather. I went about my flight planning as usual. Nothing in the NOTAMs stood out as being unusual (16L/34R closed due to construction). With the new SFP (Short Field Performance) in place; I selected IFR conditions and ran the calculation. Selecting the IFR conditions did not add any extra fuel above the MIN RPF of 20 minutes. Finding this unsatisfactory (common occurrence when selecting IFR conditions); I added an additional 10 minutes worth of fuel; finalized the flight plan and sent it. Flight took off without further incident. Approximately abeam PDX; I updated the crew with the latest METAR and RVR. While on downwind; the crew advised that they'd be unable to land due to Tower requiring 600 feet. RVR. Thinking I missed a NOTAM; I double checked them and again nothing mentioning that requirement. I called SEA Tower inquiring that requirement. They advised that due to the construction; the SMGCS system was INOP and needed 600 feet. RVR to operate on the ground. So [the flight] could make a CAT3 approach and land but would be unable to maneuver around the airport. I advised the crew and they continued to hold until they diverted to planned alternate of PDX. This was occurring during shift turnover. I advised Day Shift that was taking over that they were diverting to PDX. I sent an message to the folks working SEA of the requirement that was not in the NOTAMs.Lack of NOTAM or Chart Change Notice indicating SMGCS being INOP or operating with higher than normal minimums. With the IFR conditions; I should have added more than 10 minutes fuel knowing that ATC will be operating in a less than optimal arrival rate and RPF adding no more fuel than if I selected a VFR day. I hesitated adding more fuel knowing that it'd show up on a report and possibly getting questioned about adding fuel above the SFP requirements.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported the inbound flight was unable to land due to field restrictions from the Surface Movement Guidance and Control System being inoperative without a NOTAM.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MKE.TRACON, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E MKE
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off at 8;000 feet. I vectored the aircraft on a 280 heading to the final approach course. After several vector adjustments I asked the pilot their current heading and wanted to verify their heading indicator was correct because there was a 30-40 degree track difference. After vectoring the aircraft and clearing them for the ILS approach I noticed the aircraft left of the localizer and advised them. The pilot advised they were correcting back to the localizer. After seeing the aircraft back on the localizer I transferred the aircraft to Tower. Aircraft X then came back to approach and said they were having difficulties. I issued a 360 heading and climb to 3000 feet and cancelled the approach clearance. The aircraft did not read back the altitude twice. I observed the aircraft deviating from the 360 heading and asked if they needed assistance. Aircraft X said their gyro instruments had failed. I issued a low altitude alert and tried to climb the aircraft again. Aircraft X then said they had ground contact and they wanted to descent. The Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) in the area was 2600 feet. The pilot reported ground contact and requested guidance the airport. The Controller in Charge (CIC) coordinated a landing clearance with Tower and the aircraft landed.Given the circumstance I tried to accommodate the pilot with their intentions even though they were below the MVA. The aircraft was below the MVA but had 'ground contact' and I had just observed them maneuvering very erratically in IMC conditions.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported they had to vector an aircraft to its destination below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude because of instrument failure.
Date: 201502
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After Block in we left the parking brake set and the electric hydraulic B pump on. Parking check was complete.  The Cabin door was open and passengers were deplaning. The Captain (CA) and I were packing our bags for an hour turn with a plane change. A gust of wind pushed the plane several feet from the jetway. The CA got up to assist the Fight Attendants. I attempted to call ops; nobody answered. I then called Maintenance and advised them we would need their assistance and ask them to contact OPS. I then called ramp to advise them the wind had moved us off the gate and to remind inbound aircraft to keep brakes set (ours remained set after parking and was still set).  Maintenance was able to bring the jetway back to the aircraft so the passengers could finish deplaning.  The Captain made a logbook entry due to cabin door damage.


Second narrative: Ramp was covered with a thin layer of ice/ snow. Winds were strong and gusty from the NW. The lead in line was visible. After Block-in engines shut down chocks in signal received from marshaller; I left the parking brake set and hydraulics pressurized. Jet-bridge was pulled to door 1L; and canopy extended. As passengers were disembarking; a gust of wind hit the aircraft displacing the nose approximately 2-3 feet right away from the jet-bridge. I left the flight deck to see that no one had been injured. There was a 2-3 ft. gap between the aircraft and jet-bridge and the canopy was engaged with door 1L. The inside hinge was bent to the point that the door would not be able to be moved. Maintenance was notified; and after some time they were able to move the canopy and reposition the jet-bridge against the aircraft once again. All passengers and crew disembarked safely.


Synopsis: After passenger deplaning begins at the gate; a B737 flight crew experiences a strong wind gust that moves the aircraft two to three feet from the jetway; damaging the door. The ramp had a thin layer of ice and snow.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Rotor Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Sport / Recreational
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing on Runway XX. On takeoff roll Rotor blade speed decreased (increasing speed expected). Attempted to increase rotor speed via back stick control. Aircraft veered left off of the runway. Aircraft came to a stop on the side of the runway embankment. Rotor/prop blades damaged. No injuries resultedPilot response to a rotor speed decrease indication was inappropriate. (It appears that the rotor speed indication failure is a cause contributor). Pilot added too much back pressure on the controls too early in the takeoff roll. Proper pilot response would be to reduce power and abort the takeoff.




Synopsis: Gyroplane pilot reported loss of control during takeoff roll resulting in runway excursion.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot was cleared to descend and maintain 15;000 MSL while still on an active IFR flight plan. Pilot initialized descent from 18;000 FT as part of UAV chase and recovery procedures with chase aircraft providing visual separation services. Pilot was involved with checklists and rushed during descent phase. Pilot continued descent through 15;000 FT and forgot to contact ATC to cancel IFR as intended. Controller asked pilot to advise of intentions when descending through 12;000 FT. Pilot notified Controller to cancel IFR; Controller advised IFR cancellation received; maintain VFR. No further incident. Pilot was in VMC and maintaining visual separation from any other aircraft in the area through the use of a chase aircraft and radar feed as allowed by FAA Certificate of Authorization. Contributing factors were the complicated procedures required by the Certificate of Authorization chase requirement and the pilot's attempt to rush through the process including checklists and procedures required for descent and landing. CRM was utilized to resolve the error when the pilot not flying alerted the pilot flying to the fact that ATC was calling for him. Corrective actions include slowing down on checklist items and not allowing pilot to be rushed. Also cancel IFR as soon as allowable in descent process.




Synopsis: A UAV pilot overloaded with checklist and descent procedures failed to cancel his IFR clearance with ATC.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Aircraft: Hawker 4000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In a left turn to intercept final approach course for RWY (Runway) XX at ZZZ. Altitude 1;800 ft. Received RA to descend and complied. Traffic had been previously unannounced by Approach. (If they did announce; we neither heard nor replied).We did not see traffic prior to RA. Cloud; haze; and rain were factors. Our assumption is that the Cessna dropped below clouds to maintain VFR.Complied with RA. Observed traffic passing above right wing. Approximately 400-500 ft.




Synopsis: HA4T Captain reported an RA resulted in taking evasive action.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During morning preflight; I regularly check the Standby Rudder; even though it's no longer in the preflight duties; it is the way I was taught to do my flow. Old habits are hard to break. On this particular day the Standby Rudder Test failed.  My question is: Why is this no longer a required test? This problem would have gone undetected without this test and could possibly have had much greater consequences if it was not discovered until it was needed. Up to and including catastrophic hull loss with Passengers onboard. I understand not wanting to 'wear it out' testing it; but; the Standby Rudder is very important and since the Low Pressure switch is de-activated until it is used; it would go undetected if not tested. There is an old saying: 'Use it or lose it'. Are we risking an important backup emergency system not working due to lack of use now?  [Recommend] This system needs to be tested regularly; if not by the Pilots then at least routinely by Maintenance.




Synopsis: Captain reports that a B737 aircraft in service at a gate; had failed a Standby Rudder Hydraulic Check and questions why the test is no longer required for Flight crews. Although the test has been removed from their preflight duties; he regularly checks the Standby Rudder and notes the problem would have gone undetected with possible greater consequences if it was not discovered until it was needed.