elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While hooking up a tow bar during high winds; I noticed the plane moving 2 inches forward and 2 inches backward; moving the chocks each time a little more. I than noticed the brakes were not set. After chocking the plane again and hooking up the tow bar I notified a supervisor. The supervisor informed me that the plane arrived with hot brakes and that the pilot had informed the Operations [OPS] agent and tech [OPS]. The [OPS] agent did not inform the ramp lead working the flight. Had we not noticed the plane working itself loose from the chocks; aircraft damage and serious injuries were imminent.




Synopsis: A ramp employee reported observing a B737 movement in high winds which caused the wheels chocks to be displaced. The ground personnel were reportedly not advised that the aircraft arrived with hot brakes and the parking brake had not been set.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At near touchdown a gusty crosswind lifted the aircraft 10 feet and pushed it off the runway. We were already below the power curve and unable to go-around for fear the aircraft could stall or lose directional control. We rolled down a steep embankment at the edge of the runway into a dry water retention area. There were no injuries or damage to property. The aircraft suffered minor nose wheel damage and the prop stuck the soil.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports being blown off the runway during flare by a gusty crosswind and electing to not attempt a go-around. Slight damage to the nosewheel is reported and the propeller contacts the ground.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airport; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working Local 1; Aircraft X was issued instructions to hold short of the runway. The pilot read back hold short instructions correctly but still attempted to cross. I observed the error and reiterated the hold short instructions. At this time Aircraft Y was rolling for departure. Aircraft X did stop however the aircraft crossed the hold short line the proximity was 297 feet to Aircraft Y departing at top speed.  I believe the hold short lines are confusing at this location. This particular occasion could be a clear case of expectation bias.




Synopsis: An aircraft acknowledged instructions to hold short of a runway but attempted to cross the runway anyway. The aircraft crossed the hold short line.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While in cruise flight at FL290 in smooth air; we encountered wake turbulence. The First Officer was the Pilot Flying with the autopilot on. I noticed the aircraft roll abruptly left followed by a roll to the right. The First Officer took immediate action by simultaneously disconnecting the autopilot and providing positive control inputs. An Autopilot Fail EICAS message appeared as well. While he did that; I put the fasten seatbelt sign on; then noticed the aircraft climbing above assigned altitude and brought this to the Pilot Flying's attention. He was clearly attempting to arrest the climb. We continued a slow climb and I mentioned it again to him. He verbally responded that he was pushing forward. At this point I also pushed forward on the yoke until a descent began. The climbed stopped at FL295. I advised ATC that we had encountered wake turbulence and were descending back to FL290 which ATC acknowledged. Next; I called the Flight Attendant to find out the status of the cabin and passengers. She stated everyone was fine but that some were looking at her (presumably for information). I told her I would make a PA which I did. The First Officer and I discussed re-engaging the autopilot. The Autopilot Fail EICAS message had extinguished almost immediately after it appeared. We agreed to engage the autopilot again and did so with no issues. The rest of the flight continued without any other issues. I sent the appropriate ACARS message to Maintenance as per our SOP; made the AML entry; and called [Maintenance Director] after landing. [Maintenance Director] stated that the EICAS message was expected during a wake turbulence event.Wake turbulence during cruise causing autopilot disconnect. In my opinion; the Pilot Flying acted appropriately and we worked together as a team to make sure the aircraft; passengers; and crew were all OK. I cannot think of anything to be done differently. We were not given any traffic advisories from ATC that may have alerted us to the potential for wake turbulence. I've experienced several wake encounters prior to this one and it was the least severe of all of my experiences.




Synopsis: EMB-140 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL290 that led to an altitude excursion.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were taking off at ATL behind a B-757 on RWY 26L. Tower cleared me to takeoff about 50 seconds after the 757. I informed him that I needed 2 minutes or 4-5 miles separation behind a 757. He stated that they do not have to use those separations anymore and that if I wasn't willing to take off that I would need to clear the runway. I was able to delay tower until I at least had 1.5 minutes of separation at which time I took off. Upon checking part 1 under takeoff; I am supposed to have separation behind a 757. The weather was partly cloudy skies and calm winds. I did get 2 quick turbulence pops from the 757 after takeoff.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported refusing takeoff clearance in ATL because the preceding aircraft was a B757 and he felt more separation was appropriate.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Socata (Aerospatiale); Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was being vectored from ZZZ to ZZZ1 to the south and under the ZZZ2 Class B 4;000 ring at 3;000 feet. There was converging VFR traffic apparently not talking to Approach at 2;500 feet. The Controller turned me from a 250 to 270 heading which; according to my TCAS; indicated a convergence with the VFR traffic. As we converged; the VFR traffic began to climb as indicated by TCAS. I did not see the traffic. With the traffic at my location and 200 feet below; I began an immediate ascent to 3;400 feet. I received an urgent traffic alert on my TCAS. The location of the incident was just to the south of the 3;000 feet Class B ring. Pilot provided the following reasons why the routing was not the best route. On short flights from the east to ZZZ1; as a turbine aircraft; I am usually vectored over ZZZ2 in Class B. This avoids a large amount of VFR traffic ordinarily present between ZZZ3 and ZZZ1. I question the Controllers decision to vector me at a low altitude through a swarm of VFR traffic on a clear day. The Controller was not talking to the VFR traffic 500 feet below me and should not have vectored me toward the traffic knowing that the traffic could ascend to my altitude of 3;000 feet without even a radio call. Even if vectoring me south; the Controller could have given me a veil of protection from VFR traffic if he had routed me through the 3;000 feet Class B veil instead of putting me under the 4;000 feet veil in Class E.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an NMAC event while on ATC vector under Class B 4;000 ring at assigned altitude of 3;000 feet. Pilot took evasive action to avoid a collision. Pilot indicated ATC assigned route and altitude was conducive to VFR traffic conflict.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying on a scheduled freight route. A snow storm had entered the area and was across the entire route. Upon leaving; I entered IMC almost immediately and was IMC during the entire flight. The temperatures were -1 C entering IMC and -10 C at 8;000 FT. I immediately started to pick up ice after leaving. About 30 miles into the flight I entered an area of moderate ice and went up to 8;000 to try and slow the progression. It helped but I still continued to get light ice with small pockets of moderate. All the deice equipment on the airplane was operational but the ice continued to form on the parts of the airplane not equipped with deice equipment. As a rule of thumb; if the airplane airspeed falls below 150; the pilot needs to take evasive action to get out of it. I was actually down to 140 KTS in level flight but I was close enough to destination that I needed to start a descent to get set up for the approach. I was 40 miles out when I got the weather and it was 1 1/4 miles and 600 FT overcast; shortly after that Center advised me that the weather was going down. At this point; I had already started my descent and was maintaining 140 KTS. I had started to run out of options at this point because the airplane had picked up enough ice I did not think I would be able to climb back up. I was maintaining airspeed only because I was descending. The visibility had dropped to 1/4. I elected to do the ILS approach rather than hold due to the ice the airplane had already encountered. I landed without incident with the actual visibility almost one mile. The trucks were plowing the runway and the wind was blowing in the right direction so that the snow off the runway was moving over the sensor. The snowstorm was the actual cause of the problem and the inaccurate TAF. While the weather was supposed to come down it was not supposed to drop below 1 1/2 according to the TAF. I was fully aware of the snowstorm and possible icing condition but also had many options for most of the flight.




Synopsis: A PA31 pilot departed on a one hour flight into icing conditions with forecast snow and low visibilities at destination. Ice formed on areas of the aircraft that are not deiced and airspeed dropped. Descent was required to maintain airspeed and an ILS approach and landing was made with visibility reported as one quarter mile.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 31
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: While taxiing out of the maintenance ramp we noticed that we were having difficulties connecting [to] ground control. Aircraft had the com 1 MEL'd for being intermittent prior to our departure from ZZZ. Com 1 had a 'Failed 2' on the com 1 screen. Com 2 was giving us difficulties transmitting and receiving while starting our taxi in the Non movement area from maintenance. While trying to contact ground control during our taxi we were concerned enough not to continue movement. After a few minutes stopped by the entrance to [an FBO] we deviate into [the FBO] ramp to assess the communication problems due to no response from ground control. While troubleshooting the problem we followed the checklists to determine if all switches were in the proper orientation (they were). We then unplugged the oxygen masks mics on both the pilot and pilot monitoring sides of the cockpit. Problems with communication ceased. During our troubleshooting the mic on one of the oxygen masks was transmitting through com 1 while the com selection switch was on com 2 and the mic switch was in the normal position on both sides of the cockpit. Tower frequency was on com 1 during our taxi and troubleshooting unknown to us it was transmitting through the oxygen mask mic. Remainder of the flight had no other communication problems. [Cause was a] hot oxygen mask mic.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a hot microphone on an oxygen mask; causing communications to be rendered inoperative.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [Requested priority handling] when we got a EICAS message of flap fail. Ran the checklist and deemed that to return back to ZZZ was a safer choice due to how close we were instead of flying to ZZZ1. Got vectors for a no flap landing on the longest Runway XX at ZZZ.




Synopsis: E170 First Officer reported that a FLAP FAIL EICAS warning resulted in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action

Narrative: The Centurion was not on the practice frequency and was not changing course or altitude and came from our 8 O'clock position passing directly below us at a faster speed than us; we initiated a climb and a bank left to put as much space as possible between our two aircraft.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported an NMAC event during training flight with a Cessna P210 Centurion who was not on correct radio frequency.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBN.TRACON, IN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SBN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBN
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach into SBN around 10 NM from the airport we were given a heading to join the 9R LOC for the ILS while level at 2;600 feet in IMC. As the LOC was coming alive we received a GPWS warning. The Captain executed the GPWS escape maneuver and the warning went away. We notified ATC and leveled off around 3;000 feet. ATC vectored us back around and we shot the 9R ILS without any further warnings (this time ATC kept us at 3;000 feet until intercepting the GS).We complied with the GPWS warning and notified ATC of our change in altitude. Suspected false GPWS warning as there aren't in high obstacles in the area.


Second narrative: On approach into South Bend we received a GPWS Terrain warning we were being vectored for the localizer at 2;600 feet we complied with the warning and climbed to about 3;000 feet the warning disappeared and we were re-factored back for the approach with no other incident. ATC verified that he did not see us go below 2;600 feet.We were IMC at the time and could not verify the warning was false.

Second callback: The reporter stated that had they not been IMC at the time; he would have continued the approach. The crew believed that there were no obstacles west of the airport which posed a threat to an aircraft at 2;600 feet. The reporter believed his aircraft was equipped with an EGPWS.

Synopsis: An air carrier crew being vectored for the SBN Runway 9R ILS received an EGPWS terrain warning at 2;600 feet and because they were IMC executed the escape maneuver even though they believed there was no threat west of the airport.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This is the first of three events that occurred tonight in a 1 1/2 hour period. ZDV handed us two aircraft at FL370 on collision courses. We had to reach out and call Denver to take one of them down to FL350. I have spoken to two different areas in our facility that deal with this same sector/area in Denver. Area 5; Area 6 and Area 4 all have sectors that border the area in Denver that houses this particular Denver sector. They all have confessed that they too have daily occurrences of separation errors. Unfortunately; I believe that most of these don't get reported. Quite honestly; I can understand why. The managers in our facility don't seem to care! I've had numerous experiences with my area manager in which he has told me that he wouldn't pursue the example that I've brought to him. Like I mentioned above; this is one of three situations Denver handed us in less than an hour and a half; and I'm not filling out the second one because it's exhausting doing these when I know nothing will come of it.




Synopsis: Minneapolis Center Controller reported that Denver Center handed off two aircraft on a collision course.