elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While searching for our runway in visual conditions. Our assigned altitude was 3000 autopilot engaged; 3000 set in preselect; verified and then initiated descent to 3000. The autopilot was engaged and preselect altitude had changed to 1900. We both were certain we confirmed 3000 prior to commencing descent.  While we were looking for airport; we received an 'obstacle' call from EGPWS. I immediately added thrust and began climbing. Just as I added thrust; approach replied assigned altitude 3000. We returned to it; saw the field; conducted a stable visual approach; and landed normally.Cause: Fixation of both pilots outside the aircraft trying to visually find the airport. Instead of one of us playing close attention to aircraft instruments. Always prioritize aircraft state and constantly cross check instruments when in any phase of flight; but especially during the critical phases.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported descending below assigned altitude on approach to PIT and receiving an obstacle warning from the EGPWS.
Date: 201712
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was cruising at 1500 feet enroute to my destination. There was a high overcast ceiling with very good visibility below. My heading was approximately 180. I noted something odd ahead of my flight path. On looking closely I realized it was a smoke plume from a rocket launch. The white smoke trail went straight up and disappeared into the overcast. I turned slight west to pass by rather than over the launch site. The wind was calm; so the smoke trail stayed visible for a long time. I noted a large number of vehicles at the launch site and a small group of people near the base of the smoke trail. I saw no subsequent launch. I continued to my destination.My guess is this was a launch of an amateur rocket with a club; etc. viewing. Neither Flight Service nor I can find a NOTAM for this activity. I was very glad I wasn't over the site during the launch.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the need to take evasive maneuvers to avoid an amateur rocket launch.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
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 Vehicle; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Clearance Delivery and CIC. I had turned around to make changes to the ART to reflect the correct position assignments. The Local Controller was a newly certified Controller. Traffic was very light. Runway 4L operations had been suspended for snow removal along the outer edges. One airport operations vehicle and two snow plows were on Runway 4L. The Local Controller had been told during the relief briefing of the Runway 4L operations and had the 'runway buster' in the correct position. The BE30 had been taxied to Runway 36 for departure. The Local Controller instructed the BE30 to cross Runway 36 and cleared him for take off. A couple of seconds later I heard the Local Controller scream 'Cancel Takeoff Clearance.' At that time I turned around to see what was happening. A BE30 came to a stop about 2;000 FT down the runway; and one of the snow plows was exiting the runway near mid field. Once all vehicles had cleared the runway; the BE30 was cleared for takeoff. Scanning the runway would have prevented this from occurring. More importantly; the BE30 could have been cleared for takeoff on Runway 36; as there was nothing preventing it.




Synopsis: Tower CIC observed a takeoff clearance being cancelled and an airport vehicle on the departure runway.  The reporter noted the Controller apparently failed to scan the runway prior to issuing the takeoff clearance.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other TAKE OFF ROLL
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll; under 50 KIAS; the left engine failed to produce power. The left engine manifold pressure only reached between 20-25 inches and the RPM reached 2000-2200. This caused the airplane to yaw to the left. The takeoff was aborted and we returned to the gate. End of incident. Left engine failed to produce power for takeoff.




Synopsis: C402 Captain reported rejected takeoff due to inadequate engine power.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Non-compliant passenger.During our flight I was informed of non-compliant passenger; Passenger X seat XX6; who apparently was continually reminded of face covering policy. Flight Attendant woke passenger to remind them to mask up. I was informed of this during a bathroom break an hour before landing.  The passenger followed the Flight Attendant to first class cabin to complain about being woken up.Captain made PA 'reminding all passengers of policy.'I told the passenger we need to get a commitment for mask and he agreed and then made a complaint about being hurt by Flight Attendant.Flight continued without further incident and Customer Service Supervisor met aircraft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger was not complaint with face mask policy during flight.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Plane came in with PROX SYS 1 fault. Went through MDC (Maintenance Data Computer) to isolate which PROX sensor was faulting. After confirming [the] fault; [the] aircraft was sent to [the] hangar. [I] jacked [up the] aircraft and upon closer and more proper inspection of target; [I] found that it was installed backward. This caused the target to be a lot closer to the sensor. After comparing it to the adjacent targets and confirming with tech data; we concluded that the target was definitely installed incorrectly.Because the aircraft only recently exited from heavy check; we assume it happened during that process as it could easily be overlooked. [I] removed [the] target; flipped it; re-installed; and performed all adjustments and operation checks in accordance with all [of] the appropriate tech data. It is not uncommon to see planes exit heavy check with small mishaps causing big problems and thereby delays. There could perhaps be a more thorough process in order to return these aircraft to service.




Synopsis: Technician reported a proximity switch target that was improperly installed during the heavy check process; caused a #1 System Prox Fault.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taxiing to the active Runway 21 in ABQ; we accomplished the throttle burst and Before Takeoff Checklist before taking the runway. We set takeoff power and began the takeoff roll; the 80 knot call was made and all indications were normal as we proceeded with the takeoff. Reaching 108 knots the Takeoff Warning horn sounded and the Takeoff Configuration Warning light illuminated on the forward panel. A reject was initiated at 110 knots. As we were coming to a stop abeam F1; I cleared the runway at F1 intersection and stopped. Tower was notified during the reject and a passenger announcement was made after the aircraft came to a stop. Brake cooling information was loaded into the OPC and it was determined that we had a 75 minute wait period; 30 minutes of which had to be away from the gate area. An inspection of the fuse plugs was also required by a mechanic. We contacted Ground with this information; and they had us hold on Taxiway J between E and C taxiways for our 30 minute wait period. Passengers were informed of our time and we proceeded to Taxiway J.Company was notified of our situation; and we requested a gate be available once our 30 minute period was complete. Dispatch and Maintenance Control were contacted at this point to coordinate Contract Maintenance. Once at the gate; a Contract Mechanic arrived to inspect the brakes. Since we had an additional 45 minutes of brake cooling to comply with; I asked Maintenance Control if they could have the Mechanic try to determine the cause of the warning. There was no prior history on this aircraft. Required logbook entries were made with the pertinent information; and since the brake energy was over 18.5 million FT/LBS; a logbook entry was made for that too. The trim setting was 4.7; flaps 1; speedbrake handle was down. After the systems check and tire inspections were complete; and logbook signed; we continued with no further issues.I felt there was resistance from Maintenance Control to have Contract Maintenance perform a check to determine cause. Granted; an 'Info Only' entry could have been sufficient; but to have the warning come on at that speed; I felt it needed to be addressed further.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a rejected takeoff in ABQ at 110 KTS in response to a takeoff configuration warning light for an unknown reason.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When paper work errors are discovered or revealed through and to the ASAP (Aviation Safety Action Program) program; there is no mechanism in place; or appears to be none; that insures the error is corrected as part of the ASAP program. As a QA (Quality Assurance) Auditor I regularly do ASAP follow up investigations to ensure compliance with policies and procedures. As a result of my investigations; I find outstanding paperwork and AML (Log Book) errors and or omissions that require correction. These uncorrected errors or omissions are the very same errors disclosed during the ASAP report and investigation. Errors brought to Maintenance Management's attention go uncorrected. [For example]; Aircraft X door slide error not corrected after several attempts to have it corrected. Refer to [maintenance] event XXXX AML XXXXXXX; no balancing entry made after numerous attempts to have maintenance comply. These are just TWO 'still open' errors for example.I do not know why these errors are not monitored and or corrected before an ASAP is closed. I do not know why Maintenance personnel and supervisors did not take action to correct errors brought to their attention. Do not allow disclosed AML errors and other general paperwork errors to go unchecked and corrected through the ASAP program. Put stronger enforcement program in place to insure compliance.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Quality Assurance Auditor finds corrections not made to procedures after Aviation Safety Action Program Report (ASAP) closed out.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B A90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival into BOS (QUABN 3 RNAV); we were given a clearance of UROWT at 11;000 feet then descend via the QUABN 3; 4R transition into BOS. Between UROWT and QUABN; ATC gave us a heads up that a VFR aircraft was at our 1 O'clock position; opposite direction; at 6;000 feet climbing to 12;500 feet.  We began to look for the traffic that we had on TCAS; [but] before we could locate it; we got a climbing TCAS RA with a vertical speed of about 2;000 fpm; which I responded to immediately; and the captain notified ATC. The RA then adjusted vertical speed to nearly level then gave us another climbing RA this time of about 1;500 fpm.  I again followed the TCAS RA; this time after following the guidance of the RA it cleared us of the conflict. The captain let ATC know both times about the TCAS RA and they were indifferent about what we had done.  We proceeded to follow the rest of the QUABN RNAV arrival with altitude and speeds on target.ATC should [have] never cleared VFR opposite direction traffic through an altitude that another aircraft was on.  ATC should [have] been more diligent in diverting the two airplanes away from each other.


Second narrative: The controller seemed unconcerned about the conflict. I thought it weird that they would have traffic climbing to an altitude above our bottom altitude but didn't have time to query the controller about the instruction given to the VFR aircraft.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported they responded to an RA on descent into BOS when ATC apparently cleared a VFR aircraft through their altitude.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR; Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger walked on the plane with her smart bag. I asked her if the battery was removed. She said no; it cannot be taken out because it's dead. I tried as well; the battery could not be removed. We told the gate agents. Captain said the bag is not going. [NAME] got his charger to see if they could charge it then remove the battery. Finally the battery was removed. The guest was not happy with the drama. This did cause a delay to close the door. I did relay that the battery needed to be addressed before closing the door; to the gate agents as soon as she walked on the plane. Guest should be required to prove the battery can be removed upon check in.




Synopsis: B-737-900 Flight Attendant reported passenger with Lithium Ion battery powered smart bag unable to remove dead battery prior to flight.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Originally planned and cleared for ZPLYN3 RNAV ARRIVAL (south flow); ATC began our decent to FL270; then we cleared direct NIIXX or QUAIL on the BOSSS2 RNAV ARRIVAL (north flow). We were then cleared to descend via the new arrival. The direct fix and the lowered altitude restrictions shortened the route and changed the vertical profile. Originally I was profiled to make the altitude restriction at QUAIL 250 knots FL220-170. Now ATC's late arrival change had me trying to make the BOSSS2 QUAIL restriction of 250 knots FL190-170. As well as trying to keep up with ATC's late demands; we are trying to go over the expected runway data; only to have it change and do it all over again. All these late arrival and approach changes creates too many added demands and distractions to our already busy requirements.As we approached QUAIL trying to make the new lower altitude window we attempted to request for speed relief. We could not ask for relief as ATC beat us to the mic inquiring about our speed as we were approaching QUAIL. It is hard to tell what our speed was over QUAIL as the fix drops out while approaching the fix and in the turn. My guess is we hit it between 250-270 knots and began the turn at 290 knots. We were then handed off to the next controller who took us off the RNAV arrival with vectors and altitude assignments for a visual approach to 35R. There was no traffic problem and no incidents involved with the late arrival assignment and speed deviation.ATC needs to expect these problems when they begin changing arrivals and changed restrictions last minute. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the [aircraft's] technology does not handle tight RNAV SIDs and STARs well. More importantly are the limitations on the pilot's work load on the [aircraft]. RNAV arrivals should not be assigned unless ATC can begin the initial descent as a DESCEND VIA from beginning to end without changing arrivals. If ATC can't do this; [older aircraft] pilots should announce 'UNABLE RNAV' to avoid the added responsibilities with the added distractions and work overload.




Synopsis: Due to a distance-shortening vector and late change of STAR clearance; crew was above required airspeed when crossing a fix. Crew had been unable to contact ATC for speed relief due to saturated frequency. ATC provided vectors to achieve required spacing.