elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Flight conditions: IMC
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: In cruise; smooth air; radar was being manipulated to monitor weather as there was scattered activity from after takeoff including deviations and avoidance. Near ZZZZZ we encountered unforecast and unexpected moderate turbulence with a heavy rolling motion while the radar picture showed no convective activity with multiple setting monitored. Two minor passenger injuries; one bumped head in lavatory and one small burn due to spilled coffee occurred while seatbelt sign was off due to previous smooth air. Two minor flight attendant injuries; bumps and bruises resulted in stiffness and soreness but they were able to continue their duties. Preflight weather evaluation including turbulence forecast and radar evaluation showed no adverse weather or Sigmets in or near incident area overwater.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported minor injuries to multiple passengers and flight attendants after encountering unexpected moderate turbulence.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SUN.Airport, ID
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 1.25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SUN
ATC / advisory: Tower SUN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While making the RNAV Runway 31 Approach to SUN; I spotted the runway just prior to initiating a missed approach. The reported visibility was 3/4 mile but the in flight visibility was significantly better. There were no clouds and hence no ceiling. I advised the Controller that I had the airport in sight and would circle to land. He told me that I could not land since the visibility was below minimums. I responded that that wasn't true and that I could land since I had good contact with both the airport and the surrounding terrain. In an effort to be helpful he then issued a Special VFR clearance. I continued my circling maneuver and landed uneventfully. After landing he asked me for my estimate of the visibility and I estimated it at 1 1/4 mile. It actually must have been much better since I could see the entire runway even on my base leg. My concern and the reason for the report is that it was very distracting to have this conversation at a very flight critical moment and to have to quickly determine if the Controller was correct. Since circling minimums were published and the visibility appeared adequate; I believe I made the correct decision. I know the Controller was also trying to be helpful by issuing the Special VFR clearance but my understanding is that I didn't need it and that it must be requested by the pilot. Again; although the Controller was clearly trying to help me; it was very distracting to have to have an unnecessary conversation at that moment. If this possible situation were to arise again; I would advise the tower controller of my intentions well ahead of time so that any difference of opinion could be resolved at a less critical time.




Synopsis: General Aviation pilot on an RNAV Approach Runway 31 to SUN described some apparent confusion on the part of ATC regarding the minimums required for the procedure; adding the Controllers questions were very untimely.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing long; student without instruction; decided to do a takeoff ; without retracting full flaps; carb heat hot; unbeknown to instructor; instead of power he pulls forward mixture that affected partial RPM (was set for high altitude operation) with about a 1;000 ft runway left and not enough speed I (CFII) regain control pulled power; Mixture and deviate to right pass the runway; gravel into short vegetation where I aggressively turned right 180 degrees to preventing hitting airport boundary fence (10 feet away). The plane made a stop without structural damage; there were no physical injuries; the only sustained damaged was to left main wheel brake caliper pressure release nipple and a flat right hand tire.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a runway excursion occurred during a training flight when the student attempted to take off again after landing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Toilet Smoke; Overheat; Fire Detectors & Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After reaching 1;100 feet after takeoff; we got the 'LAV SMOKE' master warning. I notified ATC and leveled off at 2;500 feet. By that time; the warning was gone. A few seconds later; it came back. I called my Flight Attendant to see if she noticed any smoke or smells from the lavatory. There was no indication of a fire. During takeoff; the lavatory door popped open; so it was easy for her to see. During this entire situation; we continued to verify there was no smoke or fire. The warning continued to go on and off and [we] elected to return to [departure airport]. We did not declare an emergency because there was no evidence of a fire. However; I still requested the fire trucks to meet our aircraft just to be sure there was no indication of a fire near the lavatory; including the baggage compartment. I still ran the 'lav smoke' QRH and pulled the associated breakers as well as the 'overweight landing' NAP checklist. After I completed all the QRH checklists; I set up the aircraft for the approach including the overweight landing speeds that was given by ACARS. I advised my Flight Attendant that the trucks will meet us just to check the aircraft. After the landing; we exited the runway and taxied where the trucks inspected the aircraft. Before the trucks appeared; I notified the passengers of the situation and advised that the trucks were there as an extra set of eyes to make sure the aircraft is ok. After inspection; there was no sign of a fire or smoke and we received a new gate to taxi to. Overall; I believed my crew and myself handled the situation very well.




Synopsis: EMB-XRJ Captain reported returning to departure airport after receiving a LAV SMOKE master warning that later was found to be a false warning.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMGL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower MMGL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On landing rollout [Runway 28] I assumed control of the aircraft and we both heard Tower direct us to exit at Runway 20 (I could make it safely). I started to make the turn and immediately saw a light aircraft landing on Runway 20. I immediately corrected the aircraft track back on Runway 28 and immediately requested taxi clarification. It was a directive NOT to enter Runway 20 (in broken English). Both of us where shaking about the possible outcome if we had made that turn. I made the next turn off and held short of Runway 20 as directed by MMGL Tower. While looking back at the contributing factors; I am convinced this incident was due to stress directly related to [company issues].




Synopsis: After landing Runway 28 at MMGL; an Air Carrier flight crew believes they heard an ATC clearance to exit on Runway 20. In fact; it is a clearance not to enter Runway 20 as a light aircraft is landing.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on 3rd break during an international trip. I awoke to go to the bathroom. A flight attendant stopped me and asked if I knew what the issue with the plane was. After hearing this; I called to the front and asked what was going on. They said to come up and they would fill me in. I did. I sat down in the right seat and noticed we were on arrival at 20;000 FT somewhere over PA. I was told that we lost the left engine hydraulic pump; followed by the left hydraulic quantity over Canada. Checklist had been run; conferences calls made on SATCOM and landing data performed. The decision was made to land at destination and taxi to the gate. After reviewing checklist with the list of lost items; I saw nothing to prevent us from safely doing this. I accomplished the pilot not flying duties until an uneventful full stop.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer is informed by the flying crew upon returning from the third break; that the left hydraulic system has failed and the flight is continuing to destination.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [The] First Officer (FO) [was] flying. On approach; [the] FO called for the landing gear. Nothing happened with movement of the gear handle. NOTHING. [The] FO leveled off about 1;700 feet and we told Tower that we would be taking it around because the landing gear did not come down. On go-around; ECAM went off with landing gear NOT down [and a] Gravity Gear Extension Warning. After turning downwind; we changed control of the aircraft. FO ran QRH while I requested priority handling and coordinated with ATC. After completion of QRH for gravity extension; [the] nose wheel did not indicate down and locked on overhead panel. We discussed it and decided to conduct a low approach for visual inspection.On go-around; ATC advised us that nose gear appeared down and shortly after; down and lock indicators on overhead went green. We advised that we were ready for approach and landing. However; nose wheel steering was inoperative and we attempted to differential brake clear of the runway at a high speed taxiway but would stop on the runway if; at any time; it appeared that we were unable. Landing was uneventful and we cleared at high speed. ATC asked for a turn once clear. I think we said something to the effect of unable and if we were clear of the runway we were going to shut down where we were. Taxi to gate [was] uneventful. Aircraft Malfunction. Landing Gear System Failure.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier Captain and Dispatcher reported aircraft had a landing gear problem but had a safe landing.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B STL
ATC / advisory: Tower STL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A B737 landing Runway 30R in the flare; ASDE-X alarmed with known vehicle on a closed taxiway putting up barricades. I should have sent the B737 around according to procedures. However; I saw the vehicle and it was not going on the runway and the B737 was so close to ground that issuing a go around would have been unsafe in this phase of flight.




Synopsis: STL Controller elected not to issue a go around to an Air Carrier about to flare when the ASDE-X alarmed apparently due to an airport vehicle operating on a closed taxiway.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was being vectored for an RNAV approach to Runway 17 from the east; after looking up the approach plate and seeing that the crossing altitude at the IAF HOXID was 2000 I cleared him to cross HOXID at 2000 cleared approach.  The aircraft started his descent for the approach out of 3000. The Low altitude/conflict alert alarm went off when the aircraft was at about 2800 in a 3000 foot MVA that is only a few miles east of HOXID. I issued the low altitude warning and climbed him back to 3000.I had my MVA map off at the time of the event. When I looked up the approach plate and saw the altitude was 2000 at the IAF; I did not realize the MVA would be a factor that was east of that point. I immediately saved my preference sets to ensure that my MVA map would remain on at all times.




Synopsis: I90 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft experienced a CFTT near HOXID intersection.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to final to PHX Runway 25L; aircraft was targeted by a high intensity ground based laser while descending through 4500 feet. Laser emanated from a residential area approximately 10 miles south of the 25L approach corridor. Laser was pointed directly at cockpit using the aircraft landing lights to take aim. At initial detection; Captain (PF) rapidly ducked head into cockpit while First Officer tried to pinpoint exact location.  Unfortunately; FO suffered corneal burns to his right eye in doing so.


Second narrative: Approaching DERVL intersection saw a flash at 12 o'clock. Looked up and realized that there was a green laser tracking and hitting us from the front-center. I covered my eyes and looked down and commanded 'laser - look down' to the FO. He had already been hit in the eyes.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported being targeted by a laser on approach to PHX Runway 25L that resulted in corneal burns to the First Officer's right eye.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLE.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SLE
ATC / advisory: Tower SLE
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The approach to runway 34 at SLE has terrain and obstacles in the final approach path. Some terrain/obstacles extend nearly into a 3-degree glidepath within 1 mile of the runway. During a flight with a pilot who was not experienced with this approach; this pilot did not clearly perceive the terrain/obstacles that encroached on a typical 3 degree glidepath. When this pilot attempted to visually fly a typical 3 degree glidepath to runway 34; this resulted in flying in close proximity to the terrain/obstacles; including alerts from the aircraft's terrain alerting system.During the debrief of this event with the pilot; we reviewed the chart supplement publication for the airport. The supplement includes the following information: 'Runway 34: REIL. PAPI(P4L)--GA 4.0?? TCH 42??. Tree.' This is in the section for Runway 16-34.'LGT Runway 34 PAPI OTS indef.' This is in the SERVICE section.'Rising terrain and trees west and south of airport; including extended centerline of Runway 34.' This statement is in the remarks section.It seems unusual that Runway 34 would be advertised to have a PAPI with a 4 degree glidepath; only to have this indicated as indefinitely out of service in a separate section.Given the nature of the terrain/obstacles in the approach path; having an operational PAPI (with the higher 4 degree glidepath) would have been helpful during this this approach. It's not clear why the PAPI is out of service indefinitely and why it is confusingly documented in the chart supplement. Although this approach occurred during daylight conditions; the PAPI would be even more valuable during night approaches to this runway. The terrain/obstacles in the approach path may be less visible at night.




Synopsis: A flight instructor reported that the approach to a runway has terrain and obstacles in the final approach path.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We have] inadequate training/confusing manuals for ground and flight crews pertaining to hazmat documentation. [Our] new procedures for cross checking how many NOTOC's; and what the paperwork says has caused problems. Latest manual changes made it worse. Between myself; rampers and the Duty Manager; we could not resolve the paperwork issues. Therefore; hazmat was supposed to be removed. However; the ramp agents just 'pretended' to remove hazmat. When we landed at destination; hazmat was found in cargo during post flight.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain believes latest manual changes have made Hazmat NOTOC's even more difficult to comprehend. When legalities cannot be determined; the hazmat is asked to be removed; but the ramp agents do not comply.